Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Garda shot. why ?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭666irishguy


    fangee wrote: »
    Why use the term "cowboy" when there are plenty of such firms that exist Internationally.

    My logic doesn't suggest "the guards shouldn't even bother investigating a bank robbery since it would be a private companies own security problem" as I'm suggesting they should not receive special treatment just the same as any other business owner.
    How does that work? It's of no public interest when it is being privately protected, yet as soon as it is stolen it becomes public interest. As a state wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to do all you can not to have it stolen in the first place? They are not getting special treatment either. The only thing special is the special nature of the situation. Banks are the only people moving such large volumes of cash and that is of special interest to the state to ensure it does not become available to the wrong person in a country where private security firms that are armed are not allowed to operate and up to quite recently there were heavily armed paramilitaries who would have more than enough firepower to take out a two or three man privately armed security team. I use the term cowboy because what else do you call what is essentially a hired gun with no initiative other than financial reward to accomplish a task, mercenary perhaps? Do you think that any bank robber isn't going to just shoot the van up right away to kill the now armed security and take their guns and the cash now that they do not have to worry about the attention that would be on them if they shot a guard or the fact that they would be riddled by the army? You seem to forget that the Guards are not only there to ensure the delivery of the cash, but the safety of the delivery men, who like every other citizen in the country deserve to be able to carry out their jobs safely thanks to the state maintaining law and order. In this particular situation maintaining law and order and ensuring their safety involves sending soldiers or Guards to accompany them.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    fangee wrote: »
    Still don't get it. So can there be a case made for every cash handling business ?

    Private business's have to provide their own initial security costs.
    fangee wrote: »
    Why use the term "cowboy" when there are plenty of such firms that exist Internationally.

    My logic doesn't suggest "the guards shouldn't even bother investigating a bank robbery since it would be a private companies own security problem" as I'm suggesting they should not receive special treatment just the same as any other business owner.

    Right, "cash in transit" escorts are done at all levels, from single shops, to special events and major bank transfers. It's done all over the world with police. Some countries police forces even have their own trucks for it.

    And your attitude to this seems to be the same as the Mahon Point thread. Why are the Gardaí doing it? To act as a deterrent to criminals. The same way we patrol housing estates, colleges, streets. Protection of life and property. Private property.

    Should we stop patrolling the streets just because somebody is robbing peoples private property?

    No. Because theft is against the law. The laws of this country that we uphold. The laws that some have paid the ultimate sacrifice to uphold. That is all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    fangee wrote: »
    Thanks for the post. It's nice to hear a reasoned argument.

    The only thing I'll say is on your final point. I would trust the bank best positioned to take care of my money.

    In other words I'd vote with my feet and therefore expect competition would be fierce relating to the security a bank would provide.

    I think the cost cutters would not last long in the business.

    The only issue with that is that protecting cash-in-transit is not what a bank does. It's not its "core competency" ... to use that awful cliche.

    The physical transportation of the money is already outsourced to private security companies, but the crux of the issue is the risk to the money whilst in transit.

    The State takes the opinion - back up by very real, obvious experience - that the risk to money whilst in transit is likely to be attended by a violent, armed threat.

    Private security companies are staffed by ordinary private civilians, and as such, will not be authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence or defence of the cash-in-transit. There are many reasons for this - many historical, and still relevant in our society today.

    So, that leaves the State with a decision. If it's not willing to arm private citizens employed by security companies, then who can be authorised to provide an armed protection detail to cash-in-transit ? That's where the Gardai / Army come in.

    However, the competition forces you mention are simply not quick or reactive enough to ensure the protection of our money whilst in transit. That requires an immediate, reactive, organised and orderly response - and competition forces on private institutions are simply not that.

    Before you'd get a chance to vote with your feet, several cash-in-transit robberies would have been carried out, several criminal gangs would have become wealthier and emboldened, insurance costs to banks would rise ... and guess who'd end up having to bear those costs ... not to mention the awful cost to society of having even-more invigorated criminal activity.

    Trusting a bank to adequately perform tasks outside its core competency is a recipe for cost-cutting. The cheapest bidder will win that business, and with it will bring a whole world of undesireable factors into the equation. For instance, low-paid security employees would represent an increased insider risk to the cash-in-transit.

    Then, after all that, the Gardai are left with an increased crime rate to deal with after the fact, which would probably include a higher murder rate. Competition forces won't help with that.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Daroxtar wrote: »
    The Credit union run was being provided free by the Guards in Dundalk as peace of mind for the staff who were held up last year as far as I'm aware.

    Can back that up with evidence please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,302 ✭✭✭markpb


    fangee wrote: »
    In other words I'd vote with my feet and therefore expect competition would be fierce relating to the security a bank would provide.

    What do you mean - you'd leave a bank because their cash was robbed in transit?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    Wendolene wrote: »
    The only issue with that is that protecting cash-in-transit is not what a bank does. It's not its "core competency" ... to use that awful cliche.

    The physical transportation of the money is already outsourced to private security companies, but the crux of the issue is the risk to the money whilst in transit.

    The State takes the opinion - back up by very real, obvious experience - that the risk to money whilst in transit is likely to be attended by a violent, armed threat.

    Private security companies are staffed by ordinary private civilians, and as such, will not be authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence or defence of the cash-in-transit. There are many reasons for this - many historical, and still relevant in our society today.

    So, that leaves the State with a decision. If it's not willing to arm private citizens employed by security companies, then who can be authorised to provide an armed protection detail to cash-in-transit ? That's where the Gardai / Army come in.

    However, the competition forces you mention are simply not quick or reactive enough to ensure the protection of our money whilst in transit. That requires an immediate, reactive, organised and orderly response - and competition forces on private institutions are simply not that.

    Before you'd get a chance to vote with your feet, several cash-in-transit robberies would have been carried out, several criminal gangs would have become wealthier and emboldened, insurance costs to banks would rise ... and guess who'd end up having to bear those costs ... not to mention the awful cost to society of having even-more invigorated criminal activity.

    Trusting a bank to adequately perform tasks outside its core competency is a recipe for cost-cutting. The cheapest bidder will win that business, and with it will bring a whole world of undesireable factors into the equation. For instance, low-paid security employees would represent an increased insider risk to the cash-in-transit.

    Then, after all that, the Gardai are left with an increased crime rate to deal with after the fact, which would probably include a higher murder rate. Competition forces won't help with that.

    The first time I've had my head turned on the matter.

    I'm not saying I've changed my mind but you put up excellent reasoning.

    It's not so clear cut in my mind now.

    Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public. At least in the very short term.

    I am now swaying. Thanks. But in a good way.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    markpb wrote: »
    What do you mean - you'd leave a bank because their cash was robbed in transit?

    If I felt a bank did not have the security in place to protect my money then I would not bank with them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    fangee wrote: »
    The first time I've had my head turned on the matter.

    I'm not saying I've changed my mind but you put up excellent reasoning.

    It's not so clear cut in my mind now.

    Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public. At least in the very short term.

    I am now swaying. Thanks. But in a good way.

    Well, you're welcome :o

    I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that viewing the Gardai as solely working for the financial institutions doesn't take the whole situation into account. There are other, extremely important societal issues at play here too, and I regard them as compelling of a state to act.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,778 ✭✭✭WilcoOut


    fangee wrote: »



    Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public.

    Gardai dont work for financial institutions - they work for the community, they work for me

    when G4S pick up the days takings at my job, the gardai make sure it gets to the bank who we bank with - in turn my wages goes into my pocket and not the pocket of some coked up gangster or some twisted provo

    im glad they do, i want them to do it and i thank them for doing it


  • Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭Operator


    Iv had some experience in relation to these escorts for several years, both in the Defence Forces and the Gardai. I think the point that people are missing in relation to the cash escorts is that, the purpose of protecting the cash is not for the direct benefit of the banks or taxpayers, it is to prevent large somes of cash being stolen by terrorists and used for the subversion of state power. The requirements were imposed on financial instituitions and they are required to cover some of the cost.

    It probably not obvious now but it is a legacy from the troubles.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    carav10 wrote: »
    I think you're missing the point....

    there are no private companies or people that would be legally allowed shoot at armed criminals in this country to protect the people transferring the money. As far as I'm aware it's illegal to shoot at someone unless you're in the Military or Gardai and then it has to be with extremely good reason....

    See where I'm coming from?! Armed protection can only be supplied by the Gardai or Military, nobody else!

    Although you're right in saying that so far the Irish state has not licenced private security companies to provide services involving the use of firearms or any other weaponry for that matter you may be slightly mistaken in your belief that the only persons in the state who can lawfully fire at someone are Gardai and soldiers.

    Irish legislation and European treaties Ireland has signed up to enacted an absolute protection for the right to life and as a consequence a persons' right to defend their life.

    In essence this means that a person who believes that their life is in danger due to unlawful violence or an immedeate treath of unlawful violence is entitled to defend themselves by any reasonable and proportionate means at the time.

    Although Ireland doesn't legislate for the private possession of firearms for self defence purposes and firearms licence applications on those grounds will be categorically turned down it does not exclude the possibility that a firearm held by a civilian for sporting or pest control puposes can in extreme circumstances end up being used in self defence or defence of another.

    There's no point trying to discuss what's legal and what's not because every individual case will be subject to investigation and ultimately nobody but the courts will decide if someone acted lawfully or not.

    The only difference between an individual and state organisation like the Gardai or the Defence Forces is that their members can sometimes be forced to use lethal force to protect themselves and others as the state goes about it's job of actively challenging extremely violent criminals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭carav10


    Although you're right in saying that so far the Irish state has not licenced private security companies to provide services involving the use of firearms or any other weaponry for that matter you may be slightly mistaken in your belief that the only persons in the state who can lawfully fire at someone are Gardai and soldiers.

    Irish legislation and European treaties Ireland has signed up to enacted an absolute protection for the right to life and as a consequence a persons' right to defend their life.

    No, I'm aware of this alright but I don't think it would be grounds for the situation referred to in the conversation going on here where it's about providing armed 'defensive' rather than 'offensive' protection. And I think although could be completely wrong, that in a case where a civilian fires to defend their life, they have to prove that their life was in danger in the first place. But again, could be wrong and a completely different conversation :-)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    carav10 wrote: »
    No, I'm aware of this alright but I don't think it would be grounds for the situation referred to in the conversation going on here where it's about providing armed 'defensive' rather than 'offensive' protection. And I think although could be completely wrong, that in a case where a civilian fires to defend their life, they have to prove that their life was in danger in the first place. But again, could be wrong and a completely different conversation :-)

    Same rule applies to military and police in any civilised country; firearms are carried as a tactical option but their actual use will need to be fully justified on a case per case basis and when all is said and done it will always boil down to the following : was it a life or death decission to open fire.

    If the answer is yes than all is good ( from a legal point of view ) if not than the soldier/police officer will face some serious charges.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,358 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    fangee wrote: »

    If I felt a bank did not have the security in place to protect my money then I would not bank with them.

    In the case of cash in transit, none of them do, as they are legally prohibited from guarding it with firearms. hence the police and army involvement.
    That leaves it down to under your bed.


Advertisement