approaching armed police with a gun..

Edwardius · 20-07-2006 07:56PM

Flukey, he had already been shot by "trained professionals" twice with the express intent of disabling him and "continued walking in an upright and menacing fashion" (tribunal quote), with a loaded gun in hand. I think at that point a the "trained professionals" decided to shoot him somewhere other than the leg. The problem at this point would be that, in order to disable someone, having failed to do by shooting him in the leg, you're going to have to aim for the upper body, possibly the shoulder. If the target is at a distance and the shooter relying on a weapon that lacks long range accuracy there's every chance you're gonna get the guy in the back (were there guys closer to carthy that could have disabled him more effectively than the officer shooting?). It could also have occurred because the marksman decided the guy wasn't getting the message after being shot twice already, was still threatening and, regretably, decided that taking him out properly at that point in time would be the best way to end the siege with (at that point) the minimum of human casualties.

civdef · 20-07-2006 08:16PM

i always liked the idea of shooting people with tranquilisers if u plan to shoot them with a bullet? surely there must be sedatives now a days that put a man outnearly as fast as a bullet? like 1 second? if a man gets shot hes going to look at the wound before even thinking of shooting back, would that not be enough time?

You know when you go for an operation, they have a highly specialised anaesthetist put you under? Ever wonder why that is?

Here's why, people are all different, a dose that would kill one person would barely make another drowsy. A dose strong enough to act instantly will kill a fair proportion of those that receive it.

Ever watch a documentary where they shoot animals with tranq guns? Notice it takes a few moments for the animal to go down? What would happen in those moments if someone carrying a loaded gun was shot with one of those darts?

That clear things up a bit?

civdef · 20-07-2006 08:20PM

On "shooting to kill" - it's rubbish.

Police officers are trained to "shoot to stop". There's a reason for that. You can shoot a person in such a way that they'll die, but it'll take a while, maybe just a few seconds, in the liver (method of choice for Mob hitmen), for example. They'll still be dead, but they will have time to shoot back in the meantime.

Police officers are aiming to remove the threat immediately, which means shots to centre mass - i.e. the upper chest (the head would be even better, but very easy to miss - so the chest is a safer bet). There is certainly a high risk that the target will die, but it's not inevitable, a surprising number survive with prompt medical care, but the "shock factor" from a chest hit is more effective for quick incapacitation.

Diogenes · 20-07-2006 08:49PM

civdef wrote:

On "shooting to kill" - it's rubbish.

Police officers are trained to "shoot to stop". There's a reason for that. You can shoot a person in such a way that they'll die, but it'll take a while, maybe just a few seconds, in the liver (method of choice for Mob hitmen), for example. They'll still be dead, but they will have time to shoot back in the meantime.

Police officers are aiming to remove the threat immediately, which means shots to centre mass - i.e. the upper chest (the head would be even better, but very easy to miss - so the chest is a safer bet). There is certainly a high risk that the target will die, but it's not inevitable, a surprising number survive with prompt medical care, but the "shock factor" from a chest hit is more effective for quick incapacitation.

Thats actually what I was trying to say, rather then aiming for an arm or leg going for the body mass. I assume that's what happened in this case.

Clare gunner · 20-07-2006 08:57PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

No offense to you personally, but I think I am going to attempt to exercise the "Right to Free Speech" and reply to the larger audience on boards. Oh, and please forgive me for my odd sense of humour. I think that I have read too much Jonathan Swift and would like to be just like him when I grow up. I only wish I could write a parody like him... Oh well, maybe someday?:D

Not at all,at least you are reading some decent satire.:)

Yes, I believe it's called the "Right to bear arms"? Something that's over 200 years old? When the USA was mostly farmers and hunters? And during a time when people thought they might have to defend themselves against Native Americans, attacking (1812?) British, who burned Washington, DC, or overthrow their government every now and then, among other things?

Close enough,and proably also has ever prevented the USA from being invaded by the Germans,Kaiser&3rd Reich,Japan "You cannot invade America,you would find a rifle behind every blade of grass" Admiral Yamamoto,[who was wise enough to know about the US as he lived there for a few years to study his future enemy.] And the Soviets,who were so concerned about this that viable ground invasion plans never came to be. Ironically the US is learning somthing about RKBA,and militas albiet perversely in Iraq.

Frankly, if this "law" was to be taken literally, and I wanted to own a gun in the USA (as a citizen) of that peaceful land, I think I would like to have a howitzer with plenty of fragmentation HE rounds to make sure that I didn't miss Bambi when hunting. And just think what an impression you could make on a robber? You could take out his SUV and half the block while he was trying to flee the scene.

Belive it or not ,you are perfectly entitled to do so if you live in a State that allows possesion of destructive devices,if you can afford one appx $500k,the rounds,appx $500 per shot $200 fed transfer tax per round,and have FBI and BATF approval to do so.As for hot pursuit shooting,fine if in Texas,CA ..dont think so

And since most of these gun owners have more than one gun in the States, maybe I would have a T-70 tank as my second weapon? I understand that they run over 60 mph, and if a neighbor's house got in the way while I was pursuing my robber, I could take a short cut and run through it. If I ever caught up with him (or "her," don't want to be discriminatory), if (s)he survived my howitzer and T-70, I could perform a citizen's arrest (another one of the "rights" of USA citizens), and call the Texas Rangers, if in that "friendly" state that Bush has a ranch (Texas translated means "friendly" by the way), and a Chuck Norris-type guy could show up in his cowboy hat and boots and kick his/her (whatever) into jail.:rolleyes:

T70???What a POS!Be patroitic for Chrissake!! American manufactures count on your busisness.Buy an Abrahams M1A1 outguns,out runs, out survives any known tank on the planet apart from maybe the German Leopard 2.A snip at 60 million dollars apiece,but you might want to wait a few years until they are sold off as surplus.Citizens arrest,err we can do that here as well.

[

QUOTE]Now, you might say that I was using excessive force and could be jailed in the good ole USA? Perhaps not, if I had contributed to a certain Sheriff's campaign fund that was disclosed in the CA press in OC, and was given a Deputy Sheriff's badge, ID, and license to roll my howitzer behind my T-70.

And if this didn't keep me out of jail, then if I had OJ's money, I could hire the "dream team." How does the saying go in the States? "Money talks and OJ walks!" And while the trial was going on, I could write a terribly written book and make millions with all the media publicity (just like OJ), as well as appear on talk shows during prime time.

Nothing different over here dude!Thats a world wide thing,money talks.At least your politicos are open about accepting money,ours make a big secret of it.

Interesting... The Economist suggested this at the time (and has not printed a retraction yet), as did several other publications. And the talk shows picked up on it. Ever watch Jey Leno? Of course, there is never any truth to things humourous... especially if it originates from a California comic. And being that I am temporarily overseas and working in So Cal, I cannot be trusted either.:D

Well I wouldnt be too sure on the Economist either.Considring we laughed our butts off here when it suggested Ireland is the richest country in the World!!!Man,I really must get my personal oil refinery out of my living room.
Considering I lived in So Cal [SD] for three years,I am not surprised no one takes you/us seriously.Lay off with the falseness,and actually let other people get words in edgewise if possible,nor do I want to know your entire life story,mental problems etc etc within 10mins of meeting you.

Once again, please forgive my odd sense of humour. I think I watch too much Jay Leno and love the writings of Jonathan Swift, too.:cool:

[/QUOTE]

Nil problemo,different strokes for different folks and all that.:)

InFront · 20-07-2006 09:13PM

Stephen wrote:

No matter how mentally unbalanced he was, the armed gardaí should hardly be expected to stand there and let him approach them with a possibly loaded shotgun.

Certain people are is making one wrong insinuation and that is that Carthy was shot as he approached the firing Garda. He approached the Garda, throwing away a cartridge and with a gun held down at his waist, the Garda aimed or fired a warning shot, Carthy ran away from the police and the house and THEN Carthy was shot - four times - twice in the head, once in the neck and then in the lower back. Personally, I feel sorry for the firing gardai who did what they had to do and who knows what Carthy may have done had he gotten into Abbeylara. But there are stunners available that would have detained him safely instead of a bullet.

The main gripe that I have with the police actions is not the shooting, given their limited equipment, they kind of had to shoot. Its the 24 hours before that - refusing to give him cigarettes and not talking to his GP about his illness and didnt get a properly trained negotiator on the scene. And the fact that they were ill prepared with equipment that could have detained Carthy without killing him. The Gardai dealt with him like a wild animal, not a human being who although very ill, might have been talked out of his situation, as has happened on other sieges of a similiar nature in the past.

Saruman · 20-07-2006 09:22PM

could not agree more... someone comes at me with a loaded gun and has shot at me 30 times... and i have a gun.. im going to shoot.. as did all the trained police officers.

edit: just noticed InFront's post... i was not aware of that... i thought.. as the media reported that he came out brandishing a shotgun and they shot him before he could shoot again!!

Either way.. are irish police actually able to negotiate? I mean are there negotiators??

CLADA · 20-07-2006 09:27PM

InFront wrote:

Carthy ran away from the police and the house and THEN Carthy was shot - four times - twice in the head, once in the neck and then in the lower back. .

Tell me "InFront" what colour is the sky in your world?

Clare gunner · 20-07-2006 09:30PM

Diogenes wrote:

Could he have bought some from dealer out of the locality? Could he have brought it in from abroad? Stolen it? Got it from somebody else?

See the key word in your post is "assume". Something you shouldn't when handling/dealing with a firearm.

Yes I know that the first three letters of ASSume are Ass. However theorising to prove your point is also not practible in this case;
Carthy was a liscensed gun owner,there is no reason for him to have stolen ammo, nor has there been any reports of stolen ammo in the Abbylara area.[2]No you cant buy in ammo from abroad just like that,it is even more paperwork than going to your local dealer[3] even if he did get it from somone else,it is no crime there either if the other person was a liscensed gun owner.I should also mention that most Irish shooters have an ammo limit on their certs,so if the gaurds checked about and are capable of doing basic math,they could add up how many Carthy had and had a fair idea of how many rounds he might have.
A shotgun,especially a double barrel is not exactly a combat shotgun,it is slow to reload,has only two shots,and is an ineffective weapon beyond 40 meters.It is effective due to the fact that with one discharge it launches a swarm of submissiles,which start to rapidly disperse. There are some "magic bullet "rounds for shotguns,but are not available to the general public in Ireland.like Armour piercing shotgun rounds,etc.It is most doubtful that Carthy would have access to that type of ammo.If he had,that wall would have been no protection for the ERU.The stuff he was using was common birdshot or game loads.Also the ERU are wearing ballictic helmets and bullet proof vests,that is well capable of defeating shotgun ammo of that type.Knock you over all right and you will be sore as Hell,but alive.

You could after a few hours assert that on the balance of probability that he was likely to have only birdshot. But you could not catagorically state for sure that you were sure that he only had birdshot.

"Lads it's fairly likely he's only got birdshot, so off you go like".

"Lads ,we checked the dealers around ,he bought over his limit of no 4s, to the tune of 3 boxes so thats 75 along with the 100 he was allowed,he has fired off sofar 30 at us that leaves 145 rounds .He know he has a liscensed double barrel,type Bakil[?].It isnt penetrating the wall so you are safe enough ,keep the head down.Now we will wait till around three AM and see about a recon around the house and formulate a tac plan for a dynamic entry when he is asleep". Would be a more appropiate response.

You're a armed police officer and someone is waving a gun, you assume it's loaded.

ASSume it's loaded?? Talk to the Met police SO19 about how many they have bumped off because they thought toy guns were real and loaded.:(
It is a fair assumption,but you are obliged as a police officer to give the armed suspect three chances to surrender and lay down his gun. You may only fire in THE GRAVEST EXTREME to save your or colleuges lives.And then only the bare minimum of rounds to end the threat. If there is a less leathl option available you are obliged to use it. There was no less leathl option available that day,either thru ignorance of such,or whatever.If you claim to be an "elite"unit you are supposed to be on top of the state of the art equipment of your profession,somthing the ERU was sadly Not!

InFront · 20-07-2006 09:32PM

CLADA wrote:

Tell me "InFront" what colour is the sky in your world?

Im saying that he had to be detained using what resources they had - guns. Ideally, they would have been better equipped.

If he had been pointing a gun at them, ready to fire they should shoot, because its quickest.
If he is running away, on the other hand, it is better to stun him. This is also rapid, but if he happens to pull the trigger as the stunner goes off, at least no Gardai wil be injured. They had no stunners, so they had to shoot.

Its a hazy blue-ish sky at the minute. Whats your point?

Clare gunner · 20-07-2006 09:48PM

civdef wrote:

On "shooting to kill" - it's rubbish.

Police officers are trained to "shoot to stop". There's a reason for that. You can shoot a person in such a way that they'll die, but it'll take a while, maybe just a few seconds, in the liver (method of choice for Mob hitmen), for example. They'll still be dead, but they will have time to shoot back in the meantime.

Police officers are aiming to remove the threat immediately, which means shots to centre mass - i.e. the upper chest (the head would be even better, but very easy to miss - so the chest is a safer bet). There is certainly a high risk that the target will die, but it's not inevitable, a surprising number survive with prompt medical care, but the "shock factor" from a chest hit is more effective for quick incapacitation.

Well, Civ,it must be or have been policy or tactics in the Gardai,as that came from two SB detectives that I know .Both now retired[fortuneatly?]
Again leaving the officer open to massive lawsuits as well.A head shot isnt too much of a problem for a trained sniper [which were conspicously absent at Abbylara,not a average ERU copper with an uzi.That is not a sniper]I'm talking somone who is dedicated to single shot one kill [if necessary] who is able to pop golf balls at 150 meters with his bolt action rifle. THERE you might have had a chance of an incapacitating shot as Carthy exited the house,and it was agreed he would not leave the house at all,and said sniper had "green light" to fire. Again,precision shooting to hit vital or non vital organs is very difficult,especially in a situation like a gunfight,considering it takes how many years to learn where to cut what in med school to be a surgeon.Even if the ERU were allowed to use the so called "Mr Turkey" targets[Basically a three overlay target of a human showing outside,organs ,and bone structure],which they are not,as alot of do gooder groups consider them dehumanifying of human beings,they have to make do with shiloutte targets,which are not very conductive to shot placement in the human anatomy to debilitate a target.
Ironically,if one of the ERU had picked the shotgun up that they had and either had it loaded with a bean bag round[old 70s ammo] Carthy would be still with us albiet with some really busted ribs ,or if he even had fired a load of bird shot onto the road and richocceted into Carthy[old South African police trick in Arpethied era for riot control] he would still be alive.

Sparks · 20-07-2006 10:09PM

Vegeta wrote:

a rubber bullet
a marksman
attack dogs
high power water cannon
tear gas
flash bang

The tribunal report says that these would have had a good chance of success, but that they weren't available to the Gardai at the time.

And it's their not being available that's cited as the error. The entire report is basicly saying that the men who fired did not act unlawfully, but everything leading up to the shooting and afterwards was basicly one big cockup.

LovelyHurling · 20-07-2006 10:12PM

Sparks wrote:

The tribunal report says that these would have had a good chance of success, but that they weren't available to the Gardai at the time.

And it's their not being available that's cited as the error. The entire report is basicly saying that the men who fired did not act unlawfully, but everything leading up to the shooting and afterwards was basicly one big cockup.

just noticed sparks' mod role, gave me wee chuckle:D

cushtac · 20-07-2006 10:19PM

InFront wrote:

Certain people are is making one wrong insinuation and that is that Carthy was shot as he approached the firing Garda. He approached the Garda, throwing away a cartridge and with a gun held down at his waist, the Garda aimed or fired a warning shot, Carthy ran away from the police and the house and THEN Carthy was shot - four times - twice in the head, once in the neck and then in the lower back.

Not true, he was walking towards a Garda when three others having tea in the Carthy's new house saw him, warned him & finally shot him. Carthy was shot four times - twice in the legs and twice in the lower back. Look it up on RTE.

civdef · 20-07-2006 10:23PM

The tribunal report says that these would have had a good chance of success,

In my opinion , the tribunal is wrong on that point, and this would be shared by the vast majority of police forces round the world, which do not use less-lethal weapons when a firearm is involved.

The only one that would pose an acceptable risk would be the dog, which is used fairly commonly internationally, though this can be fairly hard on the poor dogs.

InFront · 20-07-2006 10:33PM

cushtac wrote:

Not true, he was shot four times - twice in the legs and twice in the lower back. Look it up on RTE.

sorry that was my mistake, youre correct there

Sparks · 20-07-2006 10:37PM

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

wrong it lies with whoever gave a mentally unbalanced man a gun licence.

That's not what Barr reports. Carthy's mental health was apparently managable when the licence was granted, it was not until later stress from job loss, the ending of a personal relationship, and rumours all over the town that lead to his mistreatment at the hands of individual named gardai that his mental health significantly deteriorated.

the situation should never have arisen. and as for your critical analysis of the ERU, i'd rather an experts view.

You have it. It's called Report of the tribunal of inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara, Co.Longford on 20th april, 2000.
Few posters here seem to have read it though.

CLADA wrote:

(1) Why was the psychologist not asked to explain why he recommended the return of a gun licence to John Carty while treating him for mental illness.

He was. The reason the firearms certificate and shotgun were returned was that they were taken without good cause, at the behest of the wife of his employer, who he was suing for wrongful dismissal, and on the strength of rumours that he'd threatened to shoot the kids using the local handball alley so that he could get time to use it himself (he was an avid handball player and had rebuilt the alley himself). Barr concludes that these rumours were baseless gossip, probably stemming from a comment made in jest and repeated without the jest.

God knows this could happen to any of us as thousands are being treated for depression, I believe the report says the Gardai should not have been outside, what if by that stage he was completely over the edge could we have had another Columbine, Dunblane, Hungerford.

The Barr report concludes that this is highly unlikely. And comparisons with Columbine, Dunblane and Hungerford aren't valid, the cases are too different.

|.Murderer.| wrote:

I always find it humorous when people try and criticise the actions of the gardaí in these situations.

Is Barr laughing, do you think?

The gardaí made that decision based on their years of experience and training which isn't, of course, saying that there isn't a fault within the training itself.

That's precisely what Barr is saying.

Flukey wrote:

Whatever about shooting him, there was no need to kill him. He could have been stopped without killing him.

Correct, but not once he walked out the door. At that point, he was going to be shot. It wasn't done correctly, but it was going to happen. Barr is quite clear on this - the killing was not unlawful but was avoidable had the siege been managed better.

Flukey wrote:

All true Diogenes, but they still did not have to kill him. These were trained marksmen. They could have taken him out without killing him.

No, they couldn't have. Apart from the daft language, you're assuming that they'd shoot him in the shoulder or something and it'd work out like a hollywood movie. Thing is, none of the shots hit him above the first lumbar vertabrae. And he still died.

CLADA wrote:

I take it the two initial rounds into the legs were an attempt to put him down but were unsuccesful.

They were the initial rounds; but the damage they did was so severe, he'd probably have died from them anyway, just not immediately.

Tazzle wrote:

I'm not an expert on marksmanship by any means. But how difficult is it for an armed officer to inflict a disabling non-fatal wound?

Very. Gunshot wounds are not clean things. Bullets tumble and don't move through the body in a straight line. All the rounds that hit Carthy bounced around a fair bit going through him and did a lot of damage.

InFront wrote:

Certain people are is making one wrong insinuation and that is that Carthy was shot as he approached the firing Garda. He approached the Garda, throwing away a cartridge and with a gun held down at his waist, the Garda aimed or fired a warning shot, Carthy ran away from the police and the house and THEN Carthy was shot - four times - twice in the head, once in the neck and then in the lower back.

None of the bullet holes in the post mortem exam were above the first lumbar vertabrae.

Sparks · 20-07-2006 10:39PM

LovelyHurling wrote:

just noticed sparks' mod role, gave me wee chuckle:D

To be fair, I read the report because it makes a lot of recommendations regarding firearms licencing laws, so the mod role shouldn't be that surprising.

CLADA · 20-07-2006 11:17PM

You have it. It's called Report of the tribunal of inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of John Carthy at Abbeylara, Co.Longford on 20th april, 2000.
Few posters here seem to have read it though.

I can't agree that a retired judge can give an expert opinion on tactical armed operations and crisis scene management. His comments on the option of less lethal weaponry are an example.

LovelyHurling · 20-07-2006 11:20PM

Sparks wrote:

To be fair, I read the report because it makes a lot of recommendations regarding firearms licencing laws, so the mod role shouldn't be that surprising.

jeez louise i take it back so.

Im sure nobody argues with the fact that the guy had to be shot. The policemen only failed in their negotiations, the shooting was merely a reflection of this. In the end, the shooting had to happen, but it shouldnt have been allowed escalate into that.

Sparks · 20-07-2006 11:22PM

I can't agree that a retired judge can give an expert opinion on tactical armed operations and crisis scene management.

Which is why he had expert testimony from other armed police forces on those exact points.

Sparks · 20-07-2006 11:24PM

LovelyHurling wrote:

Im sure nobody argues with the fact that the guy had to be shot.

Well, there was argument on that point from the UK police who said a police dog would have given an option to restrain Carthy without lethal force even at that stage, but personally I wouldn't blame the police who pulled the trigger for pulling the trigger. Their aim was poor, however. The injuries Carthy sustained before the fatal shot were horrific.

Brian Capture · 20-07-2006 11:33PM

I personally think the whole John Carthy / Abbeylara thing is overrated.

Most excessive media coverage ever.

LovelyHurling · 20-07-2006 11:33PM

Sparks wrote:

Well, there was argument on that point from the UK police who said a police dog would have given an option to restrain Carthy without lethal force even at that stage, but personally I wouldn't blame the police who pulled the trigger for pulling the trigger. Their aim was poor, however. The injuries Carthy sustained before the fatal shot were horrific.

Sure, but we have to accept there was no police dog available to them, so given what resources they had, there was no other option. They couldnt let him get away into the vilage. This is an issue over resources.

Sparks · 20-07-2006 11:59PM

I didn't say I agreed with the guy LH, just that he had dissented.
And it's not over resources, it's over training, and how the post-incident matters were handled.

Diogenes · 21-07-2006 11:19AM

Clare gunner wrote:

Yes I know that the first three letters of ASSume are Ass. However theorising to prove your point is also not practible in this case;
Carthy was a liscensed gun owner,there is no reason for him to have stolen ammo, nor has there been any reports of stolen ammo in the Abbylara area.[2]No you cant buy in ammo from abroad just like that,it is even more paperwork than going to your local dealer[3] even if he did get it from somone else,it is no crime there either if the other person was a liscensed gun owner.I should also mention that most Irish shooters have an ammo limit on their certs,so if the gaurds checked about and are capable of doing basic math,they could add up how many Carthy had and had a fair idea of how many rounds he might have.

No they don't you admit it's entirely possible that he could have got have got ammo from elsewhere, and Mc Carthy could have got it from anywhere. It's all well and good saying you checked the locality, but you cannot without complete certainity say 100% he's not got a fully loaded weapon.

A shotgun,especially a double barrel is not exactly a combat shotgun,it is slow to reload,has only two shots,and is an ineffective weapon beyond 40 meters.It is effective due to the fact that with one discharge it launches a swarm of submissiles,which start to rapidly disperse. There are some "magic bullet "rounds for shotguns,but are not available to the general public in Ireland.like Armour piercing shotgun rounds,etc.It is most doubtful that Carthy would have access to that type of ammo.If he had,that wall would have been no protection for the ERU.The stuff he was using was common birdshot or game loads.Also the ERU are wearing ballictic helmets and bullet proof vests,that is well capable of defeating shotgun ammo of that type.Knock you over all right and you will be sore as Hell,but alive.

If you know definitely that it is loaded with birdshot. Theres no way for saying that he he absolutely was armed with birdshot. But it this way, if he was waving around a shotgun at you, which assumption would you work off;

That he probably was armed with birdshot, so its ok?

That he probably was armed with birdshot, but my life is on the line so I should not risk the possibility that its not....

"Lads ,we checked the dealers around ,he bought over his limit of no 4s, to the tune of 3 boxes so thats 75 along with the 100 he was allowed,he has fired off sofar 30 at us that leaves 145 rounds .He know he has a liscensed double barrel,type Bakil[?].It isnt penetrating the wall so you are safe enough ,keep the head down.Now we will wait till around three AM and see about a recon around the house and formulate a tac plan for a dynamic entry when he is asleep". Would be a more appropiate response.

Yeah but Mc Carthy came out to meet them, so the latter part of your tactical plan falls apart right there.

ASSume it's loaded?? Talk to the Met police SO19 about how many they have bumped off because they thought toy guns were real and loaded.:(

While I'll admit there are plenty of instances of unlawful shooting by the police, anyone holding a toy or replica weapon who after being told to lay down their weapon, and refusing to do so is in the wrong. Armed police who are faced with someone who is brandishing what could be a firearm, should assume it is a firearm, and after repeated attempts to ask the man who is brandishing such a weapon, to lay it down, are right to fire.

The above is not to say I think instances like the DeMenze shooting or the Forest Hill instances. But someone brandishing a potential firearm, should be dealt with under the assumption that it is a firearm.

I think you're not being fair on the police, I think it's not right to ask people who risk their lives confronting armed and dangerous men, to assume that in some instances that they're not armed.

It is a fair assumption,but you are obliged as a police officer to give the armed suspect three chances to surrender and lay down his gun. You may only fire in THE GRAVEST EXTREME to save your or colleuges lives.

Such as when confronted by a man who's fired dozens of cartridges off at you and you're colleagues?

And then only the bare minimum of rounds to end the threat. If there is a less leathl option available you are obliged to use it. There was no less leathl option available that day,either thru ignorance of such,or whatever.If you claim to be an "elite"unit you are supposed to be on top of the state of the art equipment of your profession,somthing the ERU was sadly Not!

I dont think thats fair. Very few jobs require you to risk your life and limb. To ask police to got a step further, and not use lethal force aganist a man who's shot at you and is armed is a bit too much

Clare gunner · 21-07-2006 12:18PM

Diogenes wrote:

No they don't you admit it's entirely possible that he could have got have got ammo from elsewhere, and Mc Carthy could have got it from anywhere. It's all well and good saying you checked the locality, but you cannot without complete certainity say 100% he's not got a fully loaded weapon.

Straw arguement.You are now twisting it that he could,would,should,etc.FACT is that there are methods and procedures in place in this country to find out this information.In the face of things he was not going to have any super duper mini nuke shotgun ammo.He was one man with a shotgun,against a supposedly trained unit in kevelar and armed with much more superior weaponary than his.But the trouble is the ERU had all the gear,but no idea. A SWANT unit to use a trade term.Special Weapons No Tactics.

That he probably was armed with birdshot, but my life is on the line so I should not risk the possibility that its not....

You are in an "elite" unit ,those sort of risks are what you are being paid for.

Yeah but Mc Carthy came out to meet them, so the latter part of your tactical plan falls apart right there.

Straw arguement again.Read what I said about taking him down at 3AM,when the ERU wer sneaking around the house,but wouldnt risk an entry.Obvisouly a simple cottage is too tough for them,God help us if they ever have to storm a office complex or somthing more complicated.
Piss Poor training,and piss poor command decisions and/or will to end the siege.As for him walking out.There should have been a plan in position to deal with that.There was none![as per Barr report]

While I'll admit there are plenty of instances of unlawful shooting by the police, anyone holding a toy or replica weapon who after being told to lay down their weapon, and refusing to do so is in the wrong. Armed police who are faced with someone who is brandishing what could be a firearm, should assume it is a firearm, and after repeated attempts to ask the man who is brandishing such a weapon, to lay it down, are right to fire.

They are,but then the consequences have to be taken as well.Looks really good if it is a 12yr old kid waving a toy gun and was just trying to play hard man at the cops.

I think you're not being fair on the police, I think it's not right to ask people who risk their lives confronting armed and dangerous men, to assume that in some instances that they're not armed.

I am being realistic.YOU are armed ,YOU have been trained in the use of deadly force.The responsibility lies with YOU.It is a different situation when you are dealing with a street shooting or a siege situation.

Such as when confronted by a man who's fired dozens of cartridges off at you and you're colleagues?

When you are behind a brick wall,wearing visored and ballistic armour that can defeat birdshot???

I dont think thats fair. Very few jobs require you to risk your life and limb. To ask police to got a step further, and not use lethal force aganist a man who's shot at you and is armed is a bit too much

Well if you join the police force,you are not on a career to make friends with the general public!Try politics.If you voulenteer for an ERU/SWAT type unit,it is going to have alot more risks than a beat cop.Again your training should have provided for this,your commanders should have complete control of the situation,and everyone should know the rules of engagement.
NONE of which was presentat Abbylara,which has been found out in the Barr report.Basically the whole shambles rests on the heads of the Gardai,and there is no amount of worming that is going to change those facts.
It was an incompetant mission,run by incompetants,with near enough every rule broken in police seige tactics,containment,negotiations,etc.
Sorry if you dont like this or you or a member of your friends or family are ERU or cops.But this was a FK up from start to finish.

civdef · 21-07-2006 12:51PM

Straw arguement.You are now twisting it that he could,would,should,etc.FACT is that there are methods and procedures in place in this country to find out this information

CG, you clearly have no experience of this subject. I have. It takes friggin' ages.

Ammunition purchases are manually entered into ledgers by the dealer. A busy dealer will have thousands of individual sales per year, this means probably multiple ledgers. The only way to locate a sale to an individual is to manually pore through the entries. This takes a while when you want to isolate one sale to an individual in a known timeframe. If you wanted to locate all purchases by a person in the past few years (people often keep cartridges for much longer), you could easily spend numerous hours with each dealer. Now how many dealers do you want to check - or do you assume he only shopped local - big assumtion there.

Now here's the really great bit - when you log a sale of a box of shotgun cartridges, you note the following information, name address, cert number, calibre/gauge, number of rounds, along with price if you use the same book for stock control purposes. You will note that size of shot is not mentioned, so there's no way of telling a box of Alphamax SG's from a box of 24g no.8's.

All this assumes that the person didn't just get a few extra cartridges from a friend whilst out shooting or whatever.

Now do you still reckon examining dealer's ledgers is a practical way for the Gardai to establish the exact number and nature of ammunition held by the suspect in a seige which lasted 20 hours?

Clare gunner · 21-07-2006 07:11PM

civdef wrote:

CG, you clearly have no experience of this subject. I have. It takes friggin' ages.

Ammunition purchases are manually entered into ledgers by the dealer. A busy dealer will have thousands of individual sales per year, this means probably multiple ledgers. The only way to locate a sale to an individual is to manually pore through the entries. This takes a while when you want to isolate one sale to an individual in a known timeframe. If you wanted to locate all purchases by a person in the past few years (people often keep cartridges for much longer), you could easily spend numerous hours with each dealer. Now how many dealers do you want to check - or do you assume he only shopped local - big assumtion there.

Now here's the really great bit - when you log a sale of a box of shotgun cartridges, you note the following information, name address, cert number, calibre/gauge, number of rounds, along with price if you use the same book for stock control purposes. You will note that size of shot is not mentioned, so there's no way of telling a box of Alphamax SG's from a box of 24g no.8's.

All this assumes that the person didn't just get a few extra cartridges from a friend whilst out shooting or whatever.

Now do you still reckon examining dealer's ledgers is a practical way for the Gardai to establish the exact number and nature of ammunition held by the suspect in a seige which lasted 20 hours?

Civ
I am kind of surprised at you an ex gun dealer would say this!
[Well Duh!! As a shooter I never noticed the procedures for entering the ammo sales,I just thought the dealer was doing it for a laugh:rolleyes:]
Sooo there is REALLY THAT big an amount of "busy" gun dealers in Longford???? And as the Barr report apprently said He DID shop local
!!!

Even if somone "gave"him cartridges,how many would you "give" a fellow shooter without raising eyebrows??If it was a box fine,but 500??? or some large amount,I would be looking askence at you.
And if it is was REALLY such a concern,WHY wasnt manpower expended on this,I mean how long does it take for somone to look in a book for the name Carthy a matching serial number of a liscense and to corrolate it with the other gun dealers information.
Lets face it.Did you ever stock anything more weird than 00 or slugs,which werent very available in 2000,ever?So it is highly doubtful that Carthy would have any exotic shotgun ammo.No matter which way you cut it ,it would have been anything from trap loads up to 00 or slugs.Not exactly AP or Jungle rounds or flechettes,which would give cause for concern.Seeing that stuff isnt available over the counter in any gun dealer I have been to in Ireland,and I have been in a few.

Put it like this without this developing into a conspircy theory arguement that in the end Carthy had a million rounds of shotgun ammo of all types and two remote control miniguns to fire it. IF this was such a big concern to the Gaurds they would have expended the manpower.You can send in a bunch of rookies to do this.

It seems to me to be a VERY LAME arguement that an "elite"Swat type unit armed with state of the art equipment,firearms and bullet proof kevelar,are worried about how many rounds an untrained depressive has with a double barrel,to not to be able to formulate a proper containment, and contingency plan if the suspect should exit with his gun.Nor that they couldnt plan a simltaneous assault on a cottage when the man was asleep at 3AM,when they could see him clearly asleep.Might have been different if there was more than one person in the cottage pulling sentry duty.But not one man asleep. Doesnt matter how many rounds or guns he has ,if he is asleep,and a trained professional force rushes him.But that is the key words here; trained professional.

CLADA · 21-07-2006 11:01PM

Sparks wrote:

Which is why he had expert testimony from other armed police forces on those exact points.

Mr Lancey was also an internationally recognised expert witness who indicated the Abbeylara incident was a classic case of suicide by cop yet Barr dismissed this theory.
So much for taking expert witness opinion into consideration.

approaching armed police with a gun..

Comments