Garda shoots dog in Longford

BBFAN wrote: »

That it was his mates van. Fairly simple.

Back that up please.

Where's your source?

Why was he with his "mate"?

tuxy wrote: »

There are two different stories being posted on whatsapp and facebook. One story by travellers and one by friends of the man who owns the van.
In one story the detective is friends with the man who owns the van

And even using bits from both stories I can't make judgment on what happened yet. Still lots of info missing.

What's the other story? You only present one story here?

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Back that up please.

Where's your source?

Why was he with his "mate"?

No, I asked for proof first. That's the way it works son.

tayto lover wrote: »

Proof?

I asked for proof of the other version first. That's the way it works.

BBFAN wrote: »

No, I asked for proof first. That's the way it works son.

Proof that you have lost the plot?

Well your post above is one example. You are refusing to provide proof of your comments, whilst simultaneously demanding other posters provide proof of their first.

Lost.the.plot you have...

..and don't call me "son", it's Senor.

Now, back up YOUR comments or shut up asking people to back up theirs.

tayto lover

BBFAN wrote: »

BBFAN has never defended travellers. I challenge you to produce a post where I have done so?

I'm not going to search for your posts but if it wasn't you I apologise.
However I still want proof of your own claims.

BBFAN wrote: »

No, I asked for proof first. That's the way it works son.

You are presenting 2 items as pure fact
1) that the guard and van driver are friends
2) that the guard was off duty

Now please back up those points that you are posting as facts, some evidence please

BBFAN wrote: »

No, I asked for proof first. That's the way it works son.

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm not going to search for your posts but if it wasn't you I apologise.
However I still want proof of your own claims.

So you have no proof that I've defended travellers?

Good, I accept your apology.

I present no proof for my claims here because no-one else in this thread has presented ANY proof for their claims therefore the burden of proof is lowered to the ground. As is the norm on AH as far as I can see.

BBFAN wrote: »

So you have no proof that I've defended travellers?

Good, I accept your apology.

I present no proof for my claims here because no-one else in this thread has presented ANY proof for their claims therefore the burden of proof is lowered to the ground.

LOL

tayto lover

BBFAN wrote: »

So you have no proof that I've defended travellers?

Good, I accept your apology.

I present no proof for my claims here because no-one else in this thread has presented ANY proof for their claims therefore the burden of proof is lowered to the ground.

You have no proof then.

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

LOL

I thought LOL went out of fashion when my 12 year old stopped saying it in the 2008?

BBFAN wrote: »

So you have no proof that I've defended travellers?

Good, I accept your apology.

I present no proof for my claims here because no-one else in this thread has presented ANY proof for their claims therefore the burden of proof is lowered to the ground.

So all of your points can then be disregarded because they have no factual basis

So please stop posting them as fact when they are nothing only your thoughts and opinions

By the way, I have no idea if they were friends or if he was off duty, but I’m not making stupid assumptions either way

tayto lover wrote: »

You have no proof then.

Same way you have no proof that I've ever defended travellers? Yes, you're correct.

MactheKnife90

Does anyone care?? Really? A scumbag being a scumbag threatening an armed Guard with his dog.
He grabs the Guard-intent.
The Guard is in imminent danger-Guard eliminates the danger.

Whats the problem here? Apart from the Guard shouldnt have got himself within reach of the Scumbag but maybe he was trying to protect the man in the van.

Panch18 wrote: »

So all of your points can then be disregarded because they have no factual basis

So please stop posting them as fact when they are nothing only your thoughts and opinions

By the way, I have no idea if they were friends or if he was off duty, but I’m not making stupid assumptions either way

By your logic 99.9% of posts in this thread can be disregarded as none of them have any factual basis?

I don't think you can tell me to stop posting? I think that's called back seat moderation?

irishproduce

AmberGold wrote: »

The Garda have to put up with some sh!te.

Not only from the criminals but now he will be hauled over the coals and scrutinised for every little action he took during the incident.
We should be proud and confident to allow our police force take necessary action without the chill effect they must feel in any incident where the knackers' rights are stacked against the guards.

MactheKnife90 wrote: »

Does anyone care?? Really? A scumbag being a scumbag threatening an armed Guard with his dog.
He grabs the Guard-intent.
The Guard is in imminent danger-Guard eliminates the danger.

Whats the problem here? Apart from the Guard shouldnt have got himself within reach of the Scumbag but maybe he was trying to protect the man in the van.

I care about an innocent dog being killed. Don't you?

irishproduce wrote: »

Not only from the criminals but now he will be hauled over the coals and scrutinised for every little action he took during the incident.
We should be proud and confident to allow our police force take necessary action without the chill effect they must feel in any incident where the knackers' rights are stacked against the guards.

You honestly think we should be proud of an obviously unstable individual killing a dog?

seamus

Virgin Media news just played it. It's the same video. There is no clearer video

MactheKnife90

BBFAN wrote: »

I care about an innocent dog being killed. Don't you?

An pity for sure but its handler threatened to use it as a weapon.
Thats up to the authorities who allow any ars3hole to have a dog.

Ive no doubt it was a fine animal in the wrong hands.

Nekarsulm

BBFAN wrote: »

You honestly think we should be proud of an obviously unstable individual killing a dog?

You honestly believe we should be proud of the other characters involved?

BBFAN wrote: »

I thought LOL went out of fashion when my 12 year old stopped saying it in the 2008?

Well, when I see someome acting like a child, I mirror them, hence the "LOL".

Your argument of "im not showing you proof, if you dont show me proof" is beyond childish and in no way adds to discussion.

You are in your 40's or early 50's and this is how you conduct yourself?

My time is too valuable to interact with you.

Goodbye.

BBFAN wrote: »

By your logic 99.9% of posts in this thread can be disregarded as none of them have any factual basis?

I don't think you can tell me to stop posting? I think that's called back seat moderation?

I’m not telling you to stop posting at all

I’m asking you to stop posting bull**** as if it’s absolute fact when it clearly isn’t

There’s a big difference