Gardai shooting to kill?

Sleipnir

You don't "shoot to kill" or "shoot to incapacitate", you just SHOOT!
If you shoot with the intention of only injuring someone in the leg or arm then chances are you'll miss no matter how many times you pull the trigger.

If one of the Garda involved was shot and killed because he hesitated, knowing that he'd be accused of shooting to kill, what would we be saying now?

"They let the thieves away with it"
"They musn't be very well trained"

Their damned if they do and damned if they don't.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You misunderstand.... I would prefer to have seen the whole gang point their guns so that they could be eliminated

I'd have preferred to have seen none of the gang point their guns so that none of them had to have been eliminated as opposed to arrested but perhaps that's just me.

ambro25

Having been trained for years in firearms handling (hunting) and once accidentally involved in a 'real' firefight (shot at with .22LR, accidentally replied with 8x57 Mauser instead of 12-bore ) - I actually find pros and cons to both sides of this debate... and though I certainly don't profess to have as much training and/or conditioning and/or professionalism as the G-Men in question, I'd testify to a few true things being that, when you're being shot at, (i) everything goes to sh*t (ii) you *might* have enough reflex/fast enough neurones to differentiate shoot-to-kill / shoot-somewhere-where-they-are, and (iii) everything (read: the handling, the outcome) depends on the situation at hand, which can be examined with 20/20 hindsight to your heart's content but will forever remain a done thing that can't be undone. Shooting-to-maim is wholly and absolutely unrealistic (since you don't know how a bullet will travel inside a body - it depends on a whole bunch of factors, including randomness), and particularly so when firearms are involved on both sides.

I'm siding 110% with the guys in blue on this one, given that it was (probably, havent' heard much details about this) at very-close-quarters and there was (manifestly) intent to maim/kill from the perps. Any other consideration, unless you are actually either a Gardai, a Judge or an MP, is IMHO absolutely irrelevant.

My two cents

Trotter

jman0 wrote:

So... i guess the consensus is: Bring on the Death Penalty and Let our Gards Be Judge and Jury!

/sarcasm

Have you been effected by the scourge of drug dealers selling drugs to children in your neighbourhood, having 12 year olds being given free heroin to get them hooked early..

Or.. Have you ever been in a post office when these people run in with sawn off shotguns (Not sure what guns todays fellas had) which are designed to cause maximum damage on impact, and POINT them at people collecting their pensions?

Or... Maybe had a syringe pointed at you by a crazed junkie threatening to give you aids unless you empty your wallet? (You might find that fellas that rob post offices tend to dabble in supplying these drug dealers..knowing full well where the money for the stuff comes from)..

I havent had any of these things happen to me.. And ya know what.. If I did.. I wouldnt have AN OUNCE of sympathy for the people that did it to me.

Maybe the Gardai spend too much time looking at the effects of these people on communities to have too much sympathy either. If someone walks into my living room with a balaclava and a weapon and screams for money, would I ask him whether he is sure of what he's doing?

Theres too many do gooders in this country. You choose to be an armed robber, live with the consequences. Its about time the good decent people of this country got back in control. If it takes the Gardai shooting first at a fella pointing a gun and wearing a mask.. so be it.

Rew

I know is been said a few times but ther eis no such thing as shoot to wound.

At Abbylara as sombody said the shooting its self was not the problem, in fact the cops didnt shoot early enough going by the rules they use in those situations. The events leading up to it were a problem. As i recall he was shot in the legs and the fatal shot actully travled from his legs up in to his torso killing him. As sombody else said there are major arterys in the arms and legs including the shoulder.

The cops are left with little choice when faced with armed criminals they have to consider worst case and act accordingly. If they didnt meet an armed threat in such a way the criminals would think that using guns will get them what ever they want.

whiskeyman

The robbers sealed their fate with the decision to arm themselves with guns.
Using other weapons - knives etc... lead to a different method of attack should it be required, and it is only for very close quarter combat.
With the presence of guns, armed perps have to be neutralised if they refused to surrender. Shoot to wound should be out of the question. It's shoot to neutralise - they have to be taken out. A wounded perp could still discharge a firearm on the ground.
I presume the Gardí have to first notify their presence "drop your weapons" before they deem it essential fire?

sceptre

whiskeyman wrote:

I presume the Gardí have to first notify their presence "drop your weapons" before they deem it essential fire?

Regardless of whether they have to or not, according to the RTE report in this case they did.

Trotter

whiskeyman wrote:

I presume the Gardí have to first notify their presence "drop your weapons" before they deem it essential fire?

Yep.. I expect each Garda would have roared "drop it" or "drop your weapons" clearing them to shoot if needs be.

In this case that warning was ignored. If Im holding a 6 week old puppy and 12 armed gardai tell me to drop it.. I will... never mind a weapon!! Why?? I know what to expect if I dont.

About time there was a bit of a risk involved in robbing a post office. As that American Sheriff said on Today FM last week.. we are too engrossed in rehabilitation of career criminals.. lets get back to punishment..or words to that effect.

happygoose

The ERU are as highly trained as other other equivalent policing force in the world. They had a job to do and they did it this morning. It is unfortunate that the consequence is that two lives have been lost and a poor garda(í) conscience will be wrath forever with memories of today, even though they were just carrying out their job.

The first few messages on this thread were utter bull, from far left and far right. "Shoot to kill", what a load of far removed kak. Abbeylara and Abbeyleix too, diffferent cases/circumstance should be treated individually. Similarly,b'**** on the other side of the spectrum, you can't take out five criminals with shots to the head.

I'm glad to hear, through various reports today, that the vast majority of people are behind the Gardaí and what happened this morning.

Rew

They have a procedure they have to follow or they will be done for murder same as anyone else. Part of it requires them to issue a warning (within reason).

whiskeyman

sceptre wrote:

Regardless of whether they have to or not, according to the RTE report in this case they did.

Well, in that case. I think it's a job very well done for the Gardaí.
They had no fatalities their side and protected the public.
They put their own lives at risk to face the scum of society and prevailed.
This will hurt the mentality of the criminal underworld - easy targets are going out of fashion and we're taking you on.

shltter

I would not jump to conclusions that the Gardai were right or wrong the story we have heard this morning is the Gardas side of the story

listening to joe duffy

apparently the raiders did not fire first
only one of them was armed
the gardai were aware of the robbery in advance

it put a slightly different complexion on events that is not to say the Gardai were not justified in their actions but the fact that a story was spun this morning that gardai returned fire makes me wonder why lie about it


it is sad to see people rejoicing in the death of anyone

Trotter

Think of it this way.. I heard before it costs €70000 a year to house a prisoner.. Thats 3 school busses with seatbelts. (Second hand obviously!)

ambro25

@shltter

Whether they 'returned' fire or not, is irrelevant, really. The real issue, IMO, would therefore appear to be whether the perps were given a chance to drop their weapon(s) or not. If they were and chose not to cooperate, well... I know what I did (well, shot back after requesting the other guy to 'stop shooting'), and what Gardai seemingly and rightfully did too, i.e. not wait to be shot at first and possibly maimed/killed. What would you have done? :rolleyes:

shltter

whiskeyman wrote:

Well, in that case. I think it's a job very well done for the Gardaí.
They had no fatalities their side and protected the public.
They put their own lives at risk to face the scum of society and prevailed.
This will hurt the mentality of the criminal underworld - easy targets are going out of fashion and we're taking you on.

I dont know about protecting the public apparently a woman and her three year old child live in a flat above the Post office

the first they were aware of this was when they heard the shouting and shots if public safety had been the gardas first concern surely removing that woman and child last night would have been the way to go


Surely a job very well done would have been 5 people arrested

dream brother

Put youself in the cops shoes, if there is a chance you could died doing your job and the only way out is to shoot the robber, then what option do you have. After all they're here to protect people from criminals, yet there's every chance that they could be shot at and wounded or worse!

ambro25

shltter wrote:

Surely a job very well done would have been 5 people arrested

True and good, but how do you propose to do that when the perps have one or several weapons and are not (allegedly) in a disposition to surrender?

MrPudding

shltter wrote:

Surely a job very well done would have been 5 people arrested

How do you arrest an armed man that is determined not to be arrested?

MrP

Trotter

shltter wrote:

it is sad to see people rejoicing in the death of anyone

Nobody is rejoicing... But the reality is.. these guys pulled weapons out with the intention of using them.

I feel much safer knowing the Gardai have a way of finding out these things are about to happen and are prepared to deal with it in the way they did.

Any loss of life is a bad thing, Im thinking about how many drains would have been dug over the next 10 years by 5 fellas as opposed to just 3. Pity they wont be made to work, just drink tea and watch TV in cells.

You use a gun in a post office, you know the consequences. Im so tired of the anti-garda sentiment when things like this happen. Non lethal weapons should be available to detain armed robbers.. IF the robbers are using crowbars. If they're using guns.. they need to deal with the results.

No innocent civilians hurt (physically anyway), no Gardai injured, 5 armed robbers unable to do the same next week. That will be seen as a decent result.

Quantum

CJhaughey wrote:

Seems that with the recent killings in Lusk of two robbers, the guards are shooting to kill not wound.
I seem to remember the guards also killing some of their own in Abbeyleix a few years back, Are they adequately trained or trigger happy?

The Gardai have specific rules on situations where weapons should be fired. These are rigorous and well justified.

I don't believe Gardais should EVER shoot to wound. If the targets of their gunfire are, or are perceived to be, a danger to the public, or to the Gardai themselves, then they should be shooting to kill in as few shots as possible.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

LOL I love how the Chuckie brigade are all up in arms because the Gardai carried out their duty. I suppose the correct method should be point blank in the back of the head.

If your including me in that sweeping remark your wrong, going on the facts at hand I have no issue with the ERU's response in this case.

The shooting of John Carthy is a seperate incident and not as clear cut IMO, I followed the Barr tribunal quite a bit and I think my opinion on that shooting was shared by many experts who gave evidence at the tribunal.

shltter

ambro25 wrote:

@shltter

Whether they 'returned' fire or not, is irrelevant, really. The real issue, IMO, would therefore appear to be whether the perps were given a chance to drop their weapon(s) or not. If they were and chose not to cooperate, well... I know what I did (well, shot back after requesting the other guy to 'stop shooting'), and what Gardai seemingly and rightfully did too, i.e. not wait to be shot at first and possibly maimed/killed. What would you have done? :rolleyes:

It is relevant that is the story that was put out first if it is untrue why put that story out

if they ordered them to put down their weapons and gave them sufficent time to do that

and if the raider/s refused then there is no problem the gardai did the right thing

what makes me dubious is that the gardai put out a spin first followed slowly by the facts

secondly if the raiders only had one gun why are two men dead surely that means that an unarmed man was killed

I just dont think that we should ever just take the gardas word for it
this is an example of a case where we need a garda obudsman to investigate these cases so we can all be sure that the proper course was taken

shltter

MrPudding wrote:

How do you arrest an armed man that is determined not to be arrested?

MrP

If that was the case then fine the gardai would have no option but to shoot

as i have said if that was the case why the lie that the gardai had returned fire

shltter

Trotter wrote:

Nobody is rejoicing... But the reality is.. these guys pulled weapons out with the intention of using them.

I feel much safer knowing the Gardai have a way of finding out these things are about to happen and are prepared to deal with it in the way they did.

Any loss of life is a bad thing, Im thinking about how many drains would have been dug over the next 10 years by 5 fellas as opposed to just 3. Pity they wont be made to work, just drink tea and watch TV in cells.

You use a gun in a post office, you know the consequences. Im so tired of the anti-garda sentiment when things like this happen. Non lethal weapons should be available to detain armed robbers.. IF the robbers are using crowbars. If they're using guns.. they need to deal with the results.

No innocent civilians hurt (physically anyway), no Gardai injured, 5 armed robbers unable to do the same next week. That will be seen as a decent result.

well i beg to differ

por wrote:

Well done Gardai, good to see them cleaning the streets of S**T,
Pleople who carryout armed robberies don't deserve anything better.
Agin well done, 2 less pieces of s**t in the world.

I would feel much happier knowing that someone outside of the gardai was going to investigate this even for the gardai themselves maybe they did everything by the book and are completely in the right
If there was someone like a garda obudsman to investigate this then any cloud of suspicion from people like me could be lifted from the Gardai but Iam afraid as long as the Gardai shoot people and they themselves investigate it people like me are always going to be suspicous

shltter

shltter wrote:

well i beg to differ
I would feel much happier knowing that someone outside of the gardai was going to investigate this even for the gardai themselves maybe they did everything by the book and are completely in the right

you could ask the postmistress, she was there and a witness.

seamus

sh|tter - most of your points about only having one gun, and the Gardai not "returning" fire, are from Joe Duffy. Take it with a whole bag of salt please.

I've gone through a few news reports now, and none of them as far as I can see, mention how many raiders had weapons, nor that the Gardai were fired upon first.

I find it very interesting that you seem to be suspicious and questioning of anything the Gardai may or may not have said, yet you take the word of a tabloid daytime show as Gospel?

I for one, would highly doubt that an unarmed criminal, no matter how stupid, would put himself in the way of the ERU pointing automatic weapons at him and not surrender or otherwise get out of the way.

the_syco

Sarsfield wrote:

but I have family in the military. They don't hold the Gardai in very high regard in terms of their weapons training.

Military versus civilians. The military are never going to hold the civilain any higher than themselves.

=-=

A "warning" shot is when you shoot in the air, basiclly saying "I've got a gun", also known as making yourself a target, as they'll know who has a gun, hence who to kill first to maximize the terrorists chance of living.

=-=

A "true" warning shot would be a shot with a rubber bullet. A rubber bullet is designed to hit you. A normal bullet is designed to kill you. And yes, if a rubber bullet hits a vital organ, it can kill. As can any projectile flying at fast enough speed can hurt you. Water, if going fast enough, can hurt you. When someone says "non-lethal", they mean its not designed to kill.

Example: shotgun to the leg. Big exit wound. Legs pretty much f*cked.

Example2: rubber bullet to the leg. Possible exit wound, but only the size of the bullet.

irish1 wrote:

the ERU would have to have gotten pretty close to sustain serious injury.

Why should they put themselves in harms way? Would you do it, on a regular basis, for someone who is trying to kill you?

Sleipnir wrote:

You don't "shoot to kill" or "shoot to incapacitate", you just SHOOT!
If you shoot with the intention of only injuring someone in the leg or arm then chances are you'll miss no matter how many times you pull the trigger.

Proper training can help, but as its said above, you shoot thin air between the legs, or the big bulky chest. Hit air, or hit the terrorist.

=-=

True "shoot to wound" would be a sniper blowing the guys leg of arm off. Otherwise, you shoot at sibject to hit him. "Shoot to Kill" would be aiming @ his head. Anywhere else is fair game, tbh.

Big Ears

Some people here would nearly rather than a couple of guards had been shot dead and no criminals , from reports it seems they have done their job and done it well .

shltter

seamus wrote:

sh|tter - most of your points about only having one gun, and the Gardai not "returning" fire, are from Joe Duffy. Take it with a whole bag of salt please.

I've gone through a few news reports now, and none of them as far as I can see, mention how many raiders had weapons, nor that the Gardai were fired upon first.

I find it very interesting that you seem to be suspicious and questioning of anything the Gardai may or may not have said, yet you take the word of a tabloid daytime show as Gospel?

I for one, would highly doubt that an unarmed criminal, no matter how stupid, would put himself in the way of the ERU pointing automatic weapons at him and not surrender or otherwise get out of the way.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0526/dublin.html

the story has changed since this morning

the original story was that the gardai had been fired on this it now seems is untrue

as to wether there were more than one gun yes Iam going on the Joe duffy show
so what if it is untrue I am sure we will hear about it very soon

if it is true then as you say

seamus wrote:

I for one, would highly doubt that an unarmed criminal, no matter how stupid, would put himself in the way of the ERU pointing automatic weapons at him and not surrender or otherwise get out of the way.

why would he have been shot dead

AmenToThat

Apparently Amnesty Internation want an enquiry into the incident as it seems the gardai knew in advance that they were in a stolen car, had been tracking their movements and knew they had stored weapons and so arrests could have taken place before they even reached the post office.
How true any of this is is anyones guess I guess it will take a few days for the facts to come out but it certainly doesnt seem as clear cut a case for shooting as it did this morning.