Garda shoots dog in Longford

Raheem Euro

tuxy wrote: »

How will you know which dog the DNA is from if the dead dog is hidden?

Samples taken from yard or house where dog lived. Such as dog hair.

cameramonkey

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

I agree, we don't know.

Why ask a specific question if you have no intent to accept the answer, especially when all the information available to most of us, is open source?

You are using the fact thay we don't know, to support your theory.

Also, it wouldnt be strange for a sole AGS member to be first on scene ahead of back up, not strange at all.

Have you factored in that the travellers were on first name basis with the AGS member?

Would you not accept that a logical response (if a call to the station occurred) would be to send an AGS member who is familiar with the travellers in question to de-escalate the situation before it needed multiple AGS members?

Going from what is available in the media, this seemed to be a personal dispute that escalated once the travellers produced a weapon.

The questions I asked were mainly in response to statements that I had not seen reported in the papers. I wondered for instance how people knew that it was a ricochet, surely you would need a forensic examination to see in what condition the bullet was in when it hit to make such a statement.


I can except the logic of what you saying in your explanation of what may have happened, it may have happened exactly as you outlined. Of course something other than that may also have happened.

Dinkleman

Imagine having those people as neighbours!

pablo128

cameramonkey wrote: »

Should be dog DNA evidence on his tie so. Case wrapped up.

......and allegedly a bite mark on his arm too.

I genuinely think that woman Traveller should have fcuked her phone in a ditch afterwards. That video doesn't paint them in a very good light.

As well as that, if you are pursuing compensation through the courts now and you are caught lying about anything, you get nothing. So I wonder will they keep pretending there was no dog.

Dinkleman

Travellers and the truth don’t work well together!

pablo128 wrote: »

......and allegedly a b




mark on his arm too.

I genuinely think that woman Traveller should have fcuked her phone in a ditch afterwards. That video doesn't paint them in a very good light.

As well as that, if you are pursuing compensation through the courts now and you are caught lying about anything, you get nothing. So I wonder will they keep pretending there was no dog.

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

It is understood by who that a member of the public called the guards?


Listen I dont believe a word of what some travellers say but when an armed guard shots someone then there needs to be some evidence as to what happened.


It may have happened as you say but I think we should not jump to conclusions until we see some proof.

You have fairly quickly jumped to the conclusion that the gardai are suspicious bastards and travellers are more trustworthy despite the video and paper reports. If I smell **** I am not going to act like it's perfume

STB.

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

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.

Well it would be quite simple if there weren't witnesses

Dinkleman

Is it just me or does it seem that travellers are getting way out of hand and the do gooders are facilitating the chaos across the country?

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

The questions I asked were mainly in response to statements that I had not seen reported in the papers. I wondered for instance how people knew that it was a ricochet, surely you would need a forensic examination to see in what condition the bullet was in when it hit to make such a statement.


I can except the logic of what you saying in your explanation of what may have happened, it may have happened exactly as you outlined. Of course something other than that may also have happened.

Hopefully things will be clearer in the next few days.

Unfortunately with the type of people involved it will muddy the waters completely.

tuxy

Dinkleman wrote: »

Is it just me or does it seem that travellers are getting way out of hand and the do gooders are facilitating the chaos across the country?

Well they did get ethnic minority status which gives them extra freedom to practice their cultural difference which is at odds with the average Irish man or woman.

Nermal

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

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.

If you have a gun and someone tries to grapple you, he may be trying to take it from you. Shooting him centre mass in that situation would have been absolutely proportionate. This cultured fellow is quite lucky he didn’t get a few new holes in his torso.

Signore Fancy Pants

STB. wrote: »

Well it would be quite simple if there weren't witnesses

Agreed.

They seem to be hedging their bets on the video evidence trumping witness statements.

lightspeed

pablo128 wrote: »

......and allegedly a bite mark on his arm too.

I genuinely think that woman Traveller should have fcuked her phone in a ditch afterwards. That video doesn't paint them in a very good light.

As well as that, if you are pursuing compensation through the courts now and you are caught lying about anything, you get nothing. So I wonder will they keep pretending there was no dog.

Then they have nothing to lose. How about we bring in a mandatory rule that if your case fails you owe the court minimum of €10k and you its coming out of your dole, child benefit, pension and any other scrap of income or asset you have.

gctest50

Dinkleman wrote: »

Is it just me or does it seem that travellers are getting way out of hand and the do gooders are facilitating the chaos across the country?

do gooders ? you mean middle aged wans who don't want to see the supply-chain interrupted for their little codeine addiction ?

They can't be going to the chemist anymore with them compoooters

cameramonkey

runawaybishop wrote: »

You have fairly quickly jumped to the conclusion that the gardai are suspicious bastards and travellers are more trustworthy despite the video and paper reports. If I smell **** I am not going to act like it's perfume

Actually as I have said I don't really trust either sides version of events until I see some evidence.


I watched the video a few times and I cant see any evidence of a dog, now maybe there is one maybe not. There is no yelp as he is hit, there is no squealing( I have seen a dog shot and they make a lot of noise just like when they get hit by a car) except from the woman and nobody as far as I can tell is reacting to a dog being shot.



The one thing I do see is that the guy in the vans seems to be very frightened maybe even in fear of his life and the detective also seems very fearful.

White Clover

cameramonkey wrote: »

Actually as I have said I don't really trust either sides version of events until I see some evidence.


I watched the video a few times and I cant see any evidence of a dog, now maybe there is one maybe not. There is no yelp as he is hit, there is no squealing( I have seen a dog shot and they make a lot of noise just like when they get hit by a car) except from the woman and nobody as far as I can tell is reacting to a dog being shot.



The one thing I do see is that the guy in the vans seems to be very frightened maybe even in fear of his life and the detective also seems very fearful.

Did you not hear her say "you shot the dog" ?

cameramonkey

White Clover wrote: »

Did you not hear her say "you shot the dog" ?

No, what point is that at? I can hear the guy say" you shot my foot Tom" and wife say "you shot my" I cant make it out it sounds like "hussy".

Guard does say something about Toby.

Charmeleon

I thought when she screeches first she says aaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhh you shot my Alsatian aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Auguste Comte

White Clover wrote: »

cameramonkey wrote: »

Actually as I have said I don't really trust either sides version of events until I see some evidence.


I watched the video a few times and I cant see any evidence of a dog, now maybe there is one maybe not. There is no yelp as he is hit, there is no squealing( I have seen a dog shot and they make a lot of noise just like when they get hit by a car) except from the woman and nobody as far as I can tell is reacting to a dog being shot.



The one thing I do see is that the guy in the vans seems to be very frightened maybe even in fear of his life and the detective also seems very fearful.

Did you not hear her say "you shot the dog" ?

A nick name possibly?

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

Actually as I have said I don't really trust either sides version of events until I see some evidence.


I watched the video a few times and I cant see any evidence of a dog, now maybe there is one maybe not. There is no yelp as he is hit, there is no squealing( I have seen a dog shot and they make a lot of noise just like when they get hit by a car) except from the woman and nobody as far as I can tell is reacting to a dog being shot.



The one thing I do see is that the guy in the vans seems to be very frightened maybe even in fear of his life and the detective also seems very fearful.

Dead dogs don't yelp, nor do they make much noise when they have a mouthful of someone's clothes.

You can hear the dog being referred to by both parties, including attack commands.

Raheem Euro

lightspeed wrote: »

Then they have nothing to lose. How about we bring in a mandatory rule that if your case fails you owe the court minimum of €10k and you its coming out of your dole, child benefit, pension and any other scrap of income or asset you have.

Solicitors run no foal no fee cases where there is at least a reasonable chance of winning. Then taking a chunk of the winnings is their prize and they can afford to lose the odd one. But they won't devote hundreds or thousands of man hours to a case that is almost certain to lose.

It cannot be confirmed just yet but I think it is very likely there will be a bunch of charges here against them, robbery truck/hijacking, assault, indictable obstruction of peace officer, destruction of evidence/obstructing justice. In other words the injury arose from their own criminal acts. In those circumstances they would have no case and legal professionals won't waste their time on a zero chance play.

Signore Fancy Pants

Nermal wrote: »

If you have a gun and someone tries to grapple you, he may be trying to take it from you. Shooting him centre mass in that situation iwould have been absolutely proportionate. This cultured fellow is quite lucky he didn’t get a few new holes in his torso.

In general I agree but TBH its not as clear cut as that.

If there is an attempt to disarm you, you are still expected to apply the minimum use of force (may be different for AGS).

In this specific situation as recorded, *if* it was the traveller pulling the AGS member in and his intent was to disarm him, it could be argued that a warning shot would have been sufficient to deter the advance.

I know it sounds ridiculous and you may not accept it but I know if it was me and I shot a guy in the centre mass, it would be queried if I could have used a lesser degree of force regardless of the threat posed to me.

STB.

runawaybishop wrote: »

You can hear the dog being referred to by both parties, including attack commands.

Yep.

You clearly can hear the traveller @ 29 seconds (after he smacks the guy in the van in the head) and closes the door saying "watch him, watch him, watch him". And you can then see the guards tie being pulled taut by something low and out of shot, the guard saying "get him off me, I'll put a bullet in his head".


And then someone screaming like a banshee.

I mean what does it take to get someones attention these days. The guard has his gun drawn and these idiots are giving guff. In the states, you were dead before the camera even came out.

runawaybishop

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

In gener I agree but TBH its not as clear cut as that.

If there is an attempt to disarm you, you are still expected to apply the minimum use of force (may be different for AGS).

In this specific situation as recorded, *if* it was the traveller pulling the AGS member in and his intent was to disarm him, it could be argued that a warning shot would have been sufficient to deter the advance.

I know it sounds ridiculous and you may not accept it but I know if it was me and I shot a guy in the centre mass, it would be queried if I could have used a lesser degree of force regardless of the threat posed to me.

You can clearly hear the dog being given a command to attack the garda, the dog got a hold of his tie and was then shot.

Signore Fancy Pants

runawaybishop wrote: »

You can clearly hear the dog being given a command to attack the garda, the dog got a hold of his tie and was then shot.

I honestly didnt hear that and Im not suggesting it didnt happen as you said. I need to give it another watch and drown out yer wan's screams!

White Clover

cameramonkey wrote: »

No, what point is that at? I can hear the guy say" you shot my foot Tom" and wife say "you shot my" I cant make it out it sounds like "hussy".

Guard does say something about Toby.

43 seconds "you're after shooting the dog dead"

runawaybishop

STB. wrote: »

Yep.

You clearly can hear the traveller (after he smacks the guy in the van in the head) and closes the door saying watch him, watch him, watch him.

Right, and in case it isn't clear "watch him" is a command commonly used for guard dogs to point them towards someone in prelude to an attack.

runawaybishop

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

I honestly didnt hear that and Im not suggesting it didnt happen as you said. I need to give it another watch and drown out yer wan's screams!

11 seconds is the first one, said calmly to alert the dog. 30 seconds in he says it a couple of times aggressively to get the dog to attack.

Signore Fancy Pants

runawaybishop wrote: »

11 seconds is the first one, said calmly to alert the dog. 30 seconds in he says it a couple of times aggressively to get the dog to attack.

The AGS member has nothing to worry about so.

Video evidence is a double edged sword
.

STB.

White Clover wrote: »

43 seconds "you're after shooting the dog dead"

Nope. "you're after shooting my husband" raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa