Gardai shooting to kill?

Trotter

JewellyBird wrote:

In the first instance, by giving people the option to retreat and disarm with some semblance of dignity.

Oh sweet lord.

Picture this.. he points the gun at the Garda, who, dressed in a warm fluffy hugging suit rushes forward and throws his arms around the criminal softly whispering.. there there, its ok.

BANG...

Criminal didnt listen. Blood all over the huggy suit.

Dignity... Unhug the tree will ya? Id say you'd be defending their dignity if it was you that the thug pointed a gun at. (It was loaded by the way..with real, non fluffy bullets).

smirkey

CJhaughey wrote:

Yeah I don't have any sympathy for armed robbers, you get what you deserve.
But the question remains how well trained are the people on the end of the triggers?
Remember Abbeylara? that guy wasn't a danger to anyone but himself yet he was shot in the back and riddled as he fell.
That is not responsible firearm use to me.
I am not defending the robbers far from it.

Yes I do remember Abbeylara. As I recall this man was suffering from depression just like 300,000 other people in Ireland. All he needed was a little help.True he wasnt a danger to anyone yet was gunned down. He didnt receive cigarrettes, or a solicitor as he requested. As i recall some of his closest family members werent allowed to talk to him at the time.The people on the end of the triggers are not properly trained , they are trigger happy. They even shot one of their own in Abbeyleix. I cant understand why they can use non lethal weapons.

Rew

The what lead up to the shooting in Abbeylara was called in to question not the actuall shooting. Once things came to a head and the guy was shot they actually we criticised by out side experts (FBI agents) for not shooting earlier.

When they did shoot him they shot him a few times in the legs and AFAIK the fatl bullet travled from his legs up in to his chest.

Non leathal weapons are only used against people who don't have guns. This is for the simple reason that when used on an armed person they still have the opertunity to discharge their weapon. Non leathal gear is slowly making its way in to use with most police forces but intrestingly enough there was quite a few complaints from the Left recently when Gardai got non leathal gear. They said it would eroded civil libierties. Damed if you do and damed if you dont...

There have been 8 people shot dead (serveral of which were terrorists) in the last 15 years by Gardai thats hardly trigger happy.

smirkey

Wicknight wrote:

Like someone has already said shooting to wound someone is Hollywood nonsense, the police are trained (and should be trained) to shoot to take the person down (completely disable them) while minimising the chance they will miss or leave the person with the ability to fire back. That normally means a shot to the upper chest as it is the easiest area to hit while also causing the person a massive shock to the system rendering them disabled. Ufortunately for the person getting shot, it is going to be very very life threatening

The idea that the Guards should shoot at the sholders or arms (or legs) is movie nonsense because it greatly increases the chances that the fire arms officer will miss the target or that the perp will not be disabled and will start blasting back at the officer.

The simple fact of the matter is that guns are letal weapons, when used correctly they kill people. The debate of whether the Gardi should use non-letal weapons is for another thread, but it is not pratical or a good idea to try and train police to use guns in a non-letal manner.

With reguard to Abbeylara the last theory I heard was the man turned towards the crowd gathered with the gun because he knew the Gardi would shoot him when there was a possibility he threatened others. He committed sucide by what is known as "death by cop" (forcing a police officer to shoot you on purpose)

With reguard to Abbeylara the last theory I heard was the man turned towards the crowd gathered with the gun because he knew the Gardi would shoot him when there was a possibility he threatened others. He committed sucide by what is known as "death by cop" (forcing a police officer to shoot you on purpose)

I have been following this case . You are totally incorrect in your statement. This man was turned away from the cops when he was shot, he was no danger to anybody. he was murdered by the ERU, shot in the back, the final and fatal shot was delivered when he was falling to the ground. Dont believe everything you read in the papers, have you not heard that a paper never refused ink ??? Suicide by cop was ruled out in the enquiry.

Sparks

smirkey wrote:

I have been following this case . You are totally incorrect in your statement. This man was turned away from the cops when he was shot, he was no danger to anybody. he was murdered by the ERU, shot in the back, the final and fatal shot was delivered when he was falling to the ground. Dont believe everything you read in the papers, have you not heard that a paper never refused ink ??? Suicide by cop was ruled out in the enquiry.

No danger to anybody? Look, it should never have happened in the first place, but once he left the cottage, you had a mentally unstable man, armed with a shotgun, who'd fired several times at the gardai already, and now he's out and wandering around. The ERU didn't have any tools to incapicate him safely, so they did the only thing they could to minimise casualties - they shot him. And you cannot shoot to wound, not at a moving, armed man who may shoot back.

The problem with Abbeylara, the fault over which gardai ought to be criticised, happend in the hours and months before the trigger was pulled. The poor bastard who actually had to fire didn't do anything wrong.

DublinWriter

smirkey wrote:

True he wasnt a danger to anyone yet was gunned down.

So they should have called a counsellor when he marched out of the house with a loaded shotgun held at waist level?

People tend to forget the fact that he was shooting at a neighbours house with the shotgun 24 hours earlier from of the window of his own house.

He'd still be alive today if he walked out of the house unarmed. End of story.

uberwolf

WRT the shooting in Lusk 71% of people believe it was justified according to a MORI poll in todays times.

Quiet how they can make that call without access to a full report on circumstances is questionable, though based on the story available I would agree. As an adjunct SF voters were less likely than the general population to state it was justified.

murphaph

uberwolf wrote:

Quiet how they can make that call without access to a full report on circumstances is questionable, though based on the story available I would agree.

As would I. Most people, if we're being honest with ourselves here, wouldn't shed a tear if they knew the Guards had done something unorthodox which led to an armed robbers death.

uberwolf wrote:

As an adjunct SF voters were less likely than the general population to state it was justified.

Classic!

Before this heads off in an inevitable direction and because it's ran its course by now anyway-Dúnta