Garda shoots dog in Longford

STB.

seamus wrote: »

Standard equipment for the role he has tbh.

For detectives yeah. Detective Inspector in this case.

I gather from news reports that a slash hook was removed from a woman prior to the video that is circulating.

When you have headbangers with security dogs and slash hooks, you can see that that you are dealing with people that have no respect for the police.

And now the inspector has received his very own GIM according to newspaper reports!

You'd be forgiven for wondering who is in charge ?

Ultimanemo

The Garda response was very appropriate, credit to him he didn't panic and shot the attacker in the head

Signore Fancy Pants

Feisar wrote: »

Now, if the femoral artery had been nicked would that have been murder or death due to misadventure.

Without being a legal eagle, if you have applied the lowest degree of force appropriate to the situation, it is highly likely that an accidental death would not go against you.

Your actions would have been reasonable, measured and justified.

cameramonkey

Have fired a few 9mms rounds using BAPs and Glocks.

A 9mm fired from anything under 50 meters is lethal if it hits you in the wrong area. Beyond 50 meters it could also be fatal. It was chosen by the military and police because of its power.

Ultimanemo

Feisar wrote: »

Now, if the femoral artery had been nicked would that have been murder or death due to misadventure.

The femoral artery is not in the leg, it is in the thigh, any bleeding below the knee can be easily stopped with a tourniquet

cameramonkey

Anybody know why the guard was on his own? Why was he there in the first pace, was it the result of a call to the emergency services? Why has he no back up?

It all seems a bit strange.

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

Anybody know why the guard was on his own? Why was he there in the first pace, was it the result of a call to the emergency services? Why has he no back up?

Lack of resources, nothing new there.

cameramonkey

STB. wrote: »

For detectives yeah. Detective Inspector in this case.

I gather from news reports that a slash hook was removed from a woman prior to the video that is circulating.

When you have headbangers with security dogs and slash hooks, you can see that that you are dealing with people that have no respect for the police.

And now the inspector has received his very own GIM according to newspaper reports!

You'd be forgiven for wondering who is in charge ?

Who took the slash hook from her?

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Lack of resources, nothing new there.

Is that from first hand knowledge or are you guessing?

seamus

I'd say the Gardai are delighted about the blabbing to the press.

As we saw with the Margaret Cash fiasco, the more these kinds of idiots are allowed to flap their gums, the more proveable lies they come out with that you can use to discredit them later on.

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

Is that from first hand knowledge or are you guessing?

Not guessing , but I'm certainly not divulging how I know.

runawaybishop

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Well, no its not "Hollywood crap" at all.

In this situation, i.e. close quarters, it was approprate to fire a shot low and at the legs.

The AGS member was under threat, albeit a limited threat. He was engaging an unarmed civilian. If trained to shoot centre mass in this scenario as described, thats murder.

The situation was clearly not grave enough to warrant a direct targeted centre mass shot. However, low and at the legs was appropriate course of action.

It must be taken into consideration that the impact may have been a ricochet, suggesting that the shot may have been a warning shot. TBC obviously.

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Plumbthedepths

runawaybishop wrote:

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Finally....

Signore Fancy Pants

runawaybishop wrote: »

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Allegedly.

I was responding to a poster who says "aiming low and at the legs" is not an appropriate response. I gave an example of why it would be appropriate in this situation.

Engaging the dag or not, a ricochet still shot the traveller.

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not guessing , but I'm certainly not divulging how I know.

So you are saying that the guards were called about the situation and they sent one armed detective to sort it out, was it the guy in the van that called the guards to incident?

cameramonkey

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Allegedly.

I was responding to a poster who says "aiming low and at the legs" is not an appropriate response. I gave an example of why it would be appropriate in this situation.

Engaging the dag or not, a ricochet still shot the traveller.

How do you know he was hit by a ricochet?

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

So you are saying that the guards were called about the situation and they sent one armed detective to sort it out, was it the guy in the van that called the guards to incident?

Is the above what I said? Can't say I remember saying any of the above.

runawaybishop

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Finally....

71 page thread and people are arguing over what happened, weird. It's in all the papers.

Guy replied to ad about fitting engines, van collected and when he went to pick it up had a problem with the quality of work. Slashhook produced, gardai rang, Garda threatened with dog, warning given, dog shot, bullet also hits yer man. All the information is in the papers. Now dogs body has been hidden and Gardas life threatened as well as several clearly false claims made as they circle the wagons.

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Is the above what I said? Can't say I remember saying any of the above.

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Water John

Slight error, it's 'circle the Hiace vans'.

cameramonkey

runawaybishop wrote: »

71 page thread and people are arguing over what happened, weird. It's in all the papers.

Guy replied to ad about fitting engines, van collected and when he went to pick it up had a problem with the quality of work. Slashhook produced, gardai rang, Garda threatened with dog, warning given, dog shot, bullet also hits yer man. All the information is in the papers. Now dogs body has been hidden and Gardas life threatened as well as several clearly false claims made as they circle the wagons.

Did you watch the video?

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

How do you know he was hit by a ricochet?

I don't.

One of these occurred:

1. He fired a warning shot and either directly hit the traveller OR it ricocheted off the ground and inadvertently hit the traveller.

2. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog and into the travellers foot (if it was behind the dog).

3. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog, hit the ground and bounced and into the traveller.

Either way, I believe he aimed at the dog and the traveller was accidentally struck.

Mrsmum

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

seamus

Feisar wrote: »

Now, if the femoral artery had been nicked would that have been murder or death due to misadventure.

Wouldn't be murder. A murder charge requires that you prove the individual intended to kill or cause serious harm to another person. If you shoot an animal and your bullet also hits a person, it's not murder.

Plumbthedepths

Mrsmum wrote:

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

You expect these Travellers to tell the turth? That's nice.

seamus

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

When they watched the video back they realised you can't see the dog, so if they just pretend there was no dog, ching-ching, compo.

You're not exactly dealing with Mastermind champions here.

runawaybishop

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

So they can claim he shot the guy, same reason the video was edited and same reason the family are fabricating a fairy tale - money

Signore Fancy Pants

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

Because it lends more weight to the travellers side of the argument.

If there was no dog involved, then the weapon was drawn for the intent to be used against the traveller.

The AGS defence is he was targeting a dog and the traveller was inadvertently struck.

If theres no evidence of a dog, then it looks worse on the AGS member.

Quite simple.

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Does it matter why he was on his own?

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Think what you want it means nothing to me.