Garda shoots dog in Longford

Plumbthedepths

BattleCorp wrote:

The guy in the truck can provide evidence. He can tell what he saw. That's evidence.

Conflicting evidence, he can of course say what he saw. If there is a court case, burden of proof will go beyond he said/she said. Personally I wouldn't believe a Traveller if they told me today was Thursday.

BattleCorp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote:

The guy in the truck can provide evidence. He can tell what he saw. That's evidence.

Conflicting evidence, he can of course say what he saw. If there is a court case, burden of proof will go beyond he said/she said. Personally I wouldn't believe a Traveller if they told me today was Thursday.

There's his witness testimony. The Garcia's testimony and the Travellers testimony.

I don't know for sure but I don't think the driver is a traveller.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's no confusion. There is only one degree of force with a firearm in the police. No warning shots, no limb shots, no shoot to wound. The rules of engagement state when it can be used. And while it has been a while since my days in the army, I don't recall any instruction for shooting people in the limbs, although the firearm could be used a little more liberally.

In the Irish Army the training was quite clear. Depending on the level of threat, warning shots and non lethal shots were suggested.

Danzy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Conflicting evidence, he can of course say what he saw. If there is a court case, burden of proof will go beyond he said/she said. Personally I wouldn't believe a Traveller if they told me today was Thursday.

It will be taken in to account that the Guard also knew the individuals who own the business and no matter what the nature of the call was, a gun was necessary.

Given it was a dispute, there should also have been an armed support unit.

For certain call outs armed support should be a given this is one of them.

Danzy

Techold wrote: »

This situation is now reminiscent of Provo times when guards were murdered and they and their families were intimidated.This is an escalation of their day to day 'normal' criminal activities.CAB,Revenue and Social Welfare will have to give them equality and subject them to the rules that apply to most other citizens.

Will we have FF Ministers threatening the Guards career or FG Mnsters using the Guards to intimidate and close down business opponents. Perks of the job.

The 70s and 80s are long gone.

Danzy

The people involved are well capable of it and would be harder to crack than the Gilligan gang due to family loyalties and culture/values.

Maybe wiser heads would prevail but he'll be a cautious man from now on.

Stone Deaf 4evr

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's his witness testimony. The Garcia's testimony and the Travellers testimony.

I don't know for sure but I don't think the driver is a traveller.

Wait, Andy Garcia was there as well?

BattleCorp

Hard to type Garda when you are trying to avoid junkies and drunks on the Luas. :-)

SnakePlissken

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Man, you are condescending. I have trained in both.

I find it somewhat incredulous that one who claims to have both Military and Police training has not contributed a single post in either the Security-Forces or Military discussion boards as a quick glance of your post history informs me.

Makikomi on the other hand, the poster whom you are arguing with, has over a thousand posts in the Military forums alone; clearly displaying a much more overt interest and knowledge on firearms and rules of engagement.

Perhaps you're not telling tall tales, but if I were to claim to be a pilot, that I have not once posted in any aviation discussions would certainly raise suspicions.

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I find it somewhat incredulous that one who claims to have both Military and Police training has not contributed a single post in either the Security-Forces or Military discussion boards as a quick glance of your post history informs me.

Makikomi on the other hand, the poster whom you are arguing with, has over a thousand posts in the Military forums alone; clearly displaying a much more overt interest and knowledge on firearms and rules of engagement.

Perhaps you're not telling tall tales, but if I were to claim to be a pilot, that I have not once posted in any aviation discussions would certainly raise suspicions.

Do you mean in real life or just on Boards? Must make meeting new people awkward. I've no interest in military matters and I find the Emergency Services forum quite poor and inactive. I hope that calms your fears.

josip

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Travellers are claiming no dag. So evidence is required.

Guard's word will be sufficient.

Gravelly

SnakePlissken wrote: »

I find it somewhat incredulous that one who claims to have both Military and Police training has not contributed a single post in either the Security-Forces or Military discussion boards as a quick glance of your post history informs me.

Makikomi on the other hand, the poster whom you are arguing with, has over a thousand posts in the Military forums alone; clearly displaying a much more overt interest and knowledge on firearms and rules of engagement.

Perhaps you're not telling tall tales, but if I were to claim to be a pilot, that I have not once posted in any aviation discussions would certainly raise suspicions.

I've no idea of either or both of the posters have the expertise they claim, but not having posted in the forum on that subject wouldn't be a deal breaker - I'm an expert in a certain technical discipline, with over 20 years experience, and work at a high level in a top company doing it, but have never posted on boards on that subject, and have no intention of ever doing so.

Plumbthedepths

SnakePlissken wrote:

I find it somewhat incredulous that one who claims to have both Military and Police training has not contributed a single post in either the Security-Forces or Military discussion boards as a quick glance of your post history informs me.

I have 14 years military experience and familiar with Garda procedure, am I precluded from mentioning guns/ Garda here unless I post in another specific forum?

Plumbthedepths

josip wrote:

Guard's word will be sufficient.

Not in this case.

Lone Stone

could have just fired it into the ground like no need to shoot a dog, would be a better option to shoot that nacker grabing his tie in the foot.

goat2

tuxy wrote: »

I'm long over due a holiday from after hours

That said I don't think it breaks the rules.

The woman did a lot of shouting, that was rough

tuxy

goat2 wrote: »

The woman did a lot of shouting, that was rough

Had to listen to it a few times, didn't hear it at first it's hard to pick up on.

Nekarsulm

Lone Stone wrote: »

could have just fired it into the ground like no need to shoot a dog, would be a better option to shoot that nacker grabing his tie in the foot.

Have you heard of a ricochet?
Firing into a tarmac road, the bullet is going to fly off somewhere, and to be honest, thats probsbly what happened.

Plumbthedepths

Lone Stone wrote:

could have just fired it into the ground like no need to shoot a dog, would be a better option to shoot that nacker grabing his tie in the foot.

It wasn't the ground that was about to attack him. The ground is inanimate, a dog isn't.

Signore Fancy Pants

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's no confusion. There is only one degree of force with a firearm in the police. No warning shots, no limb shots, no shoot to wound. The rules of engagement state when it can be used. And while it has been a while since my days in the army, I don't recall any instruction for shooting people in the limbs, although the firearm could be used a little more liberally.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, armed AGS are only instructed to shoot to kill? There are no degrees of force within AGS?

No verbal warning, no armed mitigation measures before firing for effect?

Im glad more AGS are not armed so.

tuxy

Has anyone found the dog yet? Are they looking for a dog?

runawaybishop

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Have you heard of a ricochet?
Firing into a tarmac road, the bullet is going to fly off somewhere, and to be honest, thats probsbly what happened.

It has been reported that the bullet passed through the dog, ricocheted and hit Mr Stokes.

Boom_Bap

ohnonotgmail

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

So, armed AGS are only instructed to shoot to kill? There are no degrees of force within AGS?

No verbal warning, no armed mitigation measures before firing for effect?

Im glad more AGS are not armed so.

they are not instructed to shoot to kill. where did you get that nonsense from? they are instructed to shoot center mass. shooting at limbs and warning shots are fantasy. in this instance he shot at the dog, the bullet either passed through or hit a bone, ricocheted and hit our cultural friend in the leg.

Captain Obvious

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

So, armed AGS are only instructed to shoot to kill? There are no degrees of force within AGS?

No verbal warning, no armed mitigation measures before firing for effect?

Im glad more AGS are not armed so.

Your adding a lot of your own stuff to what I said.

tuxy

Let's play a game. What is holding the tie, bottom left.
That's as clear an image I can get.
Weird how some posters had claimed it was only the garda holding his own tie.

RobbieMD

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

So, armed AGS are only instructed to shoot to kill? There are no degrees of force within AGS?

No verbal warning, no armed mitigation measures before firing for effect?

Im glad more AGS are not armed so.

AGS aren’t instructed to shoot to kill. The training is shoot to stop the threat. The training does focus on centre mass, simply as it’s the largest area.

The first force option is of course verbal commands. The member in the video used verbals commands, to no avail. The member must decide what force option to next use. That may be use of handcuffs, asp baton, pepper spray, or if in possession of one, a taser. The member must use a force option that meets the minimum of the threat presented to them. For example you wouldn’t be expected to try handcuff someone stabbing at you with a knife. You would escalate your response to meet the threat. This are decsisions made on the fly in volatile circumstances generally, and in this instance he was on his own.

If they fear for their lives or lives of others they may use their firearm. As makikomi posted about containment shots etc, Gardai are not trained in this. They cannot fire “warning” shots. It would be to the members detriment to stray from his training.

Use of the firearm must be strictly in preservation of life. The principles of reasonable, necessary & proportionate use of force apply. In this instance, one shot was fired. That seems entirely justifiable. If he had shot more, maybe not so justifiable. The armed member knows he must account for each spent round.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean by “armed mitigation measures”. I take it to mean warning shots?

I’m sure some posting here have military training, I don’t. But you can’t apply military tactics and training with Garda use of force. Maybe it’s a matter for Garda authorities to change training to include the use of warning shots etc.

BattleCorp

shooting at limbs and warning shots are fantasy. .

I would second this.

I'd consider myself a good shot with the pistol. That said, I wouldn't bet my life that I could hit someone in the arm every single time from 10m.

On a range with no pressure maybe. In the street with my life under threat, not a chance.

Raheem Euro

tuxy wrote: »

Has anyone found the dog yet? Are they looking for a dog?

I'd be very surprised if petrol and a match weren't produced very quickly the poor chap burned to ashes.

tuxy

Raheem Euro wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if petrol and a match weren't produced very quickly the poor chap burned to ashes.

Do you think it's the nose of a dog we can see in that image?
It does look more like that than a persons hand.