Barr Tribunal on Abbeylara

The report is a joke. We arent allowed use guns when facing guns? And we should have walked in unarmed with cigerettes?

Report ignored expert evidence but allowed hearsay, absolute disgrace!

Based on this report pepper spray and tazers when facing guns, that means when Im attacked by an unarmed man I have to use what? Harsh language? And how can a Judge decide that every police force in the world is wrong and that the majority of expert witnesses that went against his opinion are wrong as well?

Hobart

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

The report is a joke. We arent allowed use guns when facing guns? And we should have walked in unarmed with cigerettes?

Report ignored expert evidence but allowed hearsay, absolute disgrace!

Based on this report pepper spray and tazers when facing guns, that means when Im attacked by an unarmed man I have to use what? Harsh language? And how can a Judge decide that every police force in the world is wrong and that the majority of expert witnesses that went against his opinion are wrong as well?

I was on holidays when the hullabaloo (no pun intended) broke out in regards of this in the press. But, I feel a number of questions have to be answered:

1) What was Carthy doing with a gun and licence? Are the Guards not responsible for this?

2) Why did the Guards not consult his GP at all during the stand-off?

3) Did the Guards do everything they could to try and end this in a peacful manner?

4) Why was he consitantly refused access to his solicitor, family and cigarettes. Despite repeatly asking for each?

5) Why was he shot in the back?

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

The report is a joke.

Having read it, I'd say that's an unsupportable position.

We arent allowed use guns when facing guns?

The report explicitly does not say that. It merely says that the ERU should have the option of less-lethal weapons available in their arsenal, and that they would have had a good chance of success in this case.

And we should have walked in unarmed with cigerettes?

1. Tape cigarette case to rock with duct tape or cellotape.
2. Throw rock through window.
And that's assuming that you don't want an opportunity to use less-lethal weaponry when Carthy showed himself to collect the cigarettes, or that negotiation of his surrender for those cigarettes wasn't an option.

Report ignored expert evidence but allowed hearsay, absolute disgrace!

Firstly, what specific expert evidence was ignored?
Secondly, what specific hearsay was admitted?
Thirdly, isn't it a bit rich to complain about hearsay given the history of Carthy's shotgun being confiscated and his interrogation over the burning of a GAA mascot?

Based on this report pepper spray and tazers when facing guns, that means when Im attacked by an unarmed man I have to use what?

The same things you would use now, one would assume.

And how can a Judge decide that every police force in the world is wrong and that the majority of expert witnesses that went against his opinion are wrong as well?

What specific expert testimony did the Judge overrule solely with his own opinion?

Hobart wrote:

1) What was Carthy doing with a gun and licence? Are the Guards not responsible for this?

Carthy had a firearms certificate, issued years beforehand. Page 412 deals with Carthy's shotgun being confiscated the first time. Apparently, there was a rumour that he'd threatened to shoot kids using the handball court he'd rebuilt. Noone ever made a complaint, noone ever admitted to hearing him say it, but when he got into a dispute with his employer, who he was starting to sue for wrongful dismissal, his employer's wife complained to the Gardai and repeated this rumour and said that she and her husband were in fear for their lives. The gardai decided to confiscate the shotgun, which they did through the subterfuge of telling him that a temporary custody order had been issued. Carthy spent the next two months seeking it's return once he discovered this, and succeeded in doing so.

The tribunal basicly says that the complaints were groundless and while it doesn't say the gardai did the wrong thing, it does say that it led to him distrusting the gardai as a result (which probably had an effect on the siege itself).

I have to say, that's quite different from the stories I'd been told as to how he lost his shotgun. I had heard that he had actually fired at people, and I couldn't understand why the certificate wasn't immediately revoked and criminal charges brought as a result. Now we've learnt that instead of the correct procedure being followed, subterfuge was used. Had the complaint been validated first, the subterfuge would have been warranted as the least adversarial way to get the shotgun; but because it wasn't validated, it changes from being a good idea to being a garda not following the law as written. There is a procedure to revoke a firearms certificate and confiscate a firearm; Barr is very explicit on this point - he feels no further powers are needed in this area as all that are required are already granted - so if there was a case to revoke the cert, why wasn't that done? And if there was no such case, why confiscate the gun under false pretences?

5) Why was he shot in the back?

Wrong question. The correct question is; if an armed suspect is to be stopped by armed Gardai or any armed police unit, they are supposed to be trained to shoot for center mass for a number of reasons:
1. It's an easier target and thus more likely to be hit in a stressful situation
2. It's the deepest part of the human body and so it is more likely that the bullet won't exit the other side and hit a bystander
3. If force has to be used in such a situation, it's to prevent further loss of life or injury; stopping the suspect is the key criteria, not trying to wound him severly enough to immobilise him. By the time the trigger is pulled, the suspect's health should have been decided to be something that needs to be sacrificed to protect the lives of others - so you shoot to stop as efficently and effectively as possible. That's the standard training manual.

So, given those points, why did the gardai go to shoot Carthy in the legs? No bullet hit higher than the small of his back. And shooting him in the legs like that would only have killed him more slowly anyway - by the time the fourth and fatal shot hit him, Carthy had suffered massive and frankly very horrific trauma and was rather unlikely (in my unqualified opinion) to have survived without some very talented medical assistance.

dermot_sheehan

I have not yet read the report and probably won't until someone places it online so I really should suspend judgement, but just some general observations.

After firing at police and walking towards armed police officers, in any nation on this earth you are considered a dead man walking. You have previously expressed an intent to kill police officers and you are in the act of carrying it out. In any nation on this earth you would be quickly killed in a hail of gunfire.

Secondly, wtf was he doing with a firearm. For anyone to get a firearm you shouldn't be a threat to public safety and should have a valid reason for it. Firearm possession is not a right but a privilege, I think the main issue in this case was what was a mentally disturbed person doing with a legal firearm. If his mental illness was so profound (according to his family) to act as an excuse for him in firing at gardai and then later advancing towards them with a shotgun, why did he have a gun? A person whose mental judgement is impaired in anyway should not have a firearm, if the state was not aware of his mental illness, why did his family, doctor, solicitor not alert the state so that his firearms certificate could be cancelled and he no longer pose a threat to public safety.

Yes the ERU (and indeed all officers in my opinion) should have access to pepper spray and tazers but that's beside the point, firearms would be employed in this situation even if those tools were available since he had a firearm. As the Minister for Justice said public perspective on this would be completly different if two gardai were ended up in caskets for carrying out their duty.

gabhain7 wrote:

I have not yet read the report and probably won't until someone places it online so I really should suspend judgement, but just some general observations.

There are no plans to put the report online, from the government at least...

After firing at police and walking towards armed police officers, in any nation on this earth you are considered a dead man walking. You have previously expressed an intent to kill police officers and you are in the act of carrying it out.

I agree with your general idea, but in this case, that's not quite what happened, and killing Carthy would not have been the sole option if the ERU's training and equipment had been more extensive. That's the conclusion Barr draws.

Besides which, the impact points of the rounds fired suggest strongly that the Gardai were not shooting to stop him, but were trying to shoot to immobilise - which is again indicative of poor training.

Secondly, wtf was he doing with a firearm. For anyone to get a firearm you shouldn't be a threat to public safety and should have a valid reason for it.

Carthy hunted wildfowl. That was the good reason (and one that needed several people outside the Gardai to sign off on official paperwork giving him permission to shoot on their lands btw). And up until the actual siege itself, he wasn't deemed to be a threat to public safety - in fact the Barr report paints a picture of a man who was stable under treatment but who was hounded into instability by malicious gossip and by the actions of local Gardai. Note also that those who shot with him testified that at no point did he ever appear to be a threat with a firearm while hunting.

Firearm possession is not a right but a privilege

Nobody in this country has ever seriously argued that it is a right. What has been argued, however, is that the Gardai must uphold the law as written, not whatever they feel is best, which is what the Barr report says happened with the confiscation of Carthy's shotgun.

If his mental illness was so profound (according to his family) to act as an excuse for him in firing at gardai and then later advancing towards them with a shotgun, why did he have a gun?

His family said his mental illness was profound at the time of the siege. His psychiatrist (a qualified expert in mental illnesses) said otherwise before the siege, in a written record to the local gardai. At that point, the only voice saying he shouldn't have the shotgun was the wife of his employer, who he was suing for wrongful dismissal; and malicious gossip which the gardai were never able to get anyone to repeat on the record. It appeats that the degree of mental instability he suffered from increased in the time leading up to the siege.

if the state was not aware of his mental illness, why did his family, doctor, solicitor not alert the state so that his firearms certificate could be cancelled and he no longer pose a threat to public safety.

1. The state was told he had a mental illness.
2. His psychiatrist told the state he was fit to hold a firearms certificate.
3. Noone ever gave evidence that he was a threat to public safety.
4. The Irish Medical Council's code of ethics is very clear - confidentiality does not prevent the practitioner from informing a third party if not doing so threatened the safety of the patient or anyone else.

Lastly, note that not one medical association or professional stated that they would support mandatory mental fitness certificates for firearms certificate applications. This was because no medical professional would want to sign off on someone being fit to hold a firearm in a way that would leave them liable if something were to go wrong. Which tells you that they can't predict what will happen after a mental health evaluation, and so those evaluations are of limited benefit at best. Besides which, you're looking at 72 hours of observation at a minimum per person according to the mental health practitioners and there are 215,000 firearms certificates issued or renewed each year - it'd be wholly unworkable!

It merely says that the ERU should have the option of less-lethal weapons available in their arsenal, and that they would have had a good chance of success in this case.

On the second point, he goes against policy of every police force I am aware of (using less-lethal weapons on a suspect armed with a firearm and who has already fired at police). I haven't read the report yet (must stroll down to Molesworth some day at lunch) - what exactly does Justice Barr base this claim on?

How does he define a "good chance of success" - ie 50:50 or better that the arresting Garda wouldn't get his head blown off in the process?

On Carthy having the gun at all, the Gardai attempted to take it off him (by a fairly sloppy process), his psychiatrist wrote the Gardai a letter that he was fit to possess a firearm and that he would be subject to continuing evaluation by his GP - but his GP never was told about it.

civdef wrote:

On the second point, he goes against policy of every police force I am aware of (using less-lethal weapons on a suspect armed with a firearm and who has already fired at police). I haven't read the report yet (must stroll down to Molesworth some day at lunch) - what exactly does Justice Barr base this claim on?

The testimony of the UK, Canadian and New Zealand police officials they called in. All bar the UK officer said that once Carthy walked out the door with the shotgun there was no option but to shoot to stop, by the way; they're all referring to earlier uses of the less-lethal weapons. (The UK official recommended using a police dog once Carthy left the cottage).

On Carthy having the gun at all, the Gardai attempted to take it off him (by a fairly sloppy process), his psychiatrist wrote the Gardai a letter that he was fit to possess a firearm and that he would be subject to continuing evaluation by his GP - but his GP never was told about it.

The letter doesn't mention continuing evaluation at all, it's a very short one-paragraph thing that says he's been seen by the psychiatrist for a while and is being successfully treated, and is fit to hold a certificate. And the thing is - the Gardai had no grounds to take the firearm off him at that point other than hearsay reported by a party with a serious axe to grind.

Sparks wrote:

The testimony of the UK, Canadian and New Zealand police officials they called in. All bar the UK officer said that once Carthy walked out the door with the shotgun there was no option but to shoot to stop, by the way; they're all referring to earlier uses of the less-lethal weapons. .

I don't get it - you seem to be saying that the international police forces agreed that once the suspect was carrying a firearm, less-lethal weapons were not an option - so how does that tally with Barr's conclusion that they posed a good chance of success? In this case there was no "earlier" - the man was armed with a firearm from the get-go.

The dog thing is fair enough, given that risking a dog is more acceptable, though from what I've seen of them, they'd be more likely to send the dog into the house after him while he was considered to be less alert.

Gobán Saor

I think the most surprising thing is the way this has been "spun" relentlessly by the media and especially by RTE. It is really a fascinating study in media handling and (mis)management.

The way Barr was presented could be summarised:
- huge embarassing failures by Gardai
- named Gardai personally responsible for John Carthy's death
- enormous questions to answer, yadda, yadda, yadda

When the Commissioner/GRA etc demurred from the ready made consensus, the story was then further spun as "Gardai STILL unwilling to accept responsibility"

I think it's different. Firstly, remember a major element of criticism of the Guards, by and on behalf of the family, was centred on the fourth (and fatal) shot. The family's case (argued relentlessly at the tribunal) was that this shot was unjustified, reckless, unlawful and went beyond "necessary force." Detailed forensic and anatomical evidence focussed on bullet trajectories, angles of entry/exit etc in an effort to establish that Mr Carthy was already on the ground/already incapacitated/presented no further threat when this shot was fired. THIS WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL.
Secondly what we are left with is negligence by the Gardai, specifically relating to the management of the operation. Now, fair enough, negligence is not good BUT there were extremely mitigating circumstances. (Like being fired upon 30 times by a man of known mental instability) Essentially it amounts to a finding of "tried their best, made some mistakes, could have done better." On the other hand, RTE's conduct during the siege was found to be "irresponsible" - I think thats a higher degree of culpability than "negligent" - though you wouldn't think so from listening to RTE. Thirdly, Barr actually commended some aspects of the Garda operation and singled out individual members for praise. Again, you wouldn't have thought so from the initial media reports.

In their reactions, I think Garda/GRA were far too defensive and apologetic. I think they should have come out robustly and said something like: "Look, the main allegation against us (mad cops shooting wildly) was rejected; we did our best; we made some tactical errors due to inexperience/lack of training in this type of situation but we've already learned the lessons and rectified this. Others were at fault too - RTE, psychiatrist etc" Instead, they allowed the "Garda negligence" spin to go almost unchallenged and came across as evasive and looking like a force with something rotten to hide rather than one that was largely vindicated.

sh_o

Antoin O Lachtnain has put the Barr Tribunal report online:

http://www.eire.com/2006/07/25/barr-tribunal-on-line/

Ok guys, heres where my commenst come from:

A, Barr finds that less lethal weapons should be deployed first against an armed suspect which means Gardai MUST use less force than they are threatened with, thats insane. Like I said, if Im attacked tomorrow with a baseball bat whats my first option? Will I be told 4 years later that I could have used harsh language or diplomacy?

B, UK, NZ, Canadian and FBI consulted. All said they would have shot and killed hiim, only the UK offered an alternative (Which I agree is worth merit as a similar police force) however in contrast the FBI said they would have shot himi sooner. They are the world authority on this subject so why does Barr ignorew these statements, these witnesses and draw his own opinion that is opposed not supported by experts.

C, He got his gun back because the Superintendent was over-ruled for removing it. He would not have had a gun if the Gardai had not been ignored.

D, 10 doctors gave evidence, only 3 said that the cigarrettes were a factor. 7 did not agree with this, in fact 4 stated it was no bearing.

E. Throw a rock at a person with a gun? You think this a good option? No, its not. Also add that the one thing you are trained NOT to do is enclose or approach a mentally unstable person (Yes we do in fact get this training which Barr recommends)

F, We are critisised for being so close to the house, well thats called a closed and secure perimeter. Perhaps we should have been a mile down the road and let him go get smokes himself?

G, Hearsay: who can verify the claims that he was assaulted in custody? Not a living soul. Did he make a dying declaration? A statement? In fact, wasnt he mentally unstable? Sorry, but I thought the presumption of innocence covered ALL people.

H, His supposed solicitor wasnt a registered or practising solicitor, are we mind readers? Besides that, who would take responsibility for the GP or solicitors safety while in the house? Would we instead be blamed for allowing access had people been killed? Yes is the answer to that. No police force in the world hands an armed person 2 hostages.

Thats why I dont have faith in this report:

The person controlling it had no background for such a task, his results are not supported.
4 years in a chair to judge actions on a street under duress, fear and fatigue. Add to that that Carty aimed and fired multiple times before being shot, add the hours of negotiations that did take place.
Now add to that the fact that its the Gardai's fault that we dont have tazers, stun guns, etc. well I will gladly take them, yes please. But the reality is you cannot use what you dont have and the government (with support from the public) will not issue such tools and therefore we use A, Batons and B, Guns.

You aim a gun and fire at a police officer you should expect to die and the cop not blamed for defending himself. If thats not the case then we are nothing but walking targets and cannon fodder to throw at criminals. You cannot ask us to protect you but complain when we protect ourselves.

And now I hear people calling Lusk murder, for gods sake, 2 armed criminals against 1 armed cop.

santosubito

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Ok guys, heres where my commenst come from:

G, Hearsay: who can verify the claims that he was assaulted in custody? Not a living soul. Did he make a dying declaration? A statement? In fact, wasnt he mentally unstable? Sorry, but I thought the presumption of innocence covered ALL people.

H, His supposed solicitor wasnt a registered or practising solicitor, are we mind readers? Besides that, who would take responsibility for the GP or solicitors safety while in the house? Would we instead be blamed for allowing access had people been killed? Yes is the answer to that. No police force in the world hands an armed person 2 hostages.

And now I hear people calling Lusk murder, for gods sake, 2 armed criminals against 1 armed cop.

A couple of things:

G, is, for me, troubling. I've only now read the report on line. I must say I find it distressing that a judge, retired or otherwise, would say that anyone was "probbaly" assaulted. He either was or wasn't. If there's no proof, then, technically, he wasn't. But I'm sure the gardai and legal eagles on this site have seen plenty of accused get off on technicalities in court, I certainly have. For example, witness Pat McLaughlin, who knew Mr Carthy and gave him a lift after the goat incident and subsequent arrest, said Mr Carthy said a Garda had been "doing something to him". But he said he was sure Mr Carthy had NOT said anything about any abuse "or anything likje that" (P42). You would think if Mr Carthy had been abused and was talking about his ordeal, he would have mentioned it. Either way, he could have been abused, but then again he might not. There's a definite absence of proof, however.

H: This is another interesting point. After his call for Michael Finucane emerged, in late 2000 I recall, a few of us tried to see if we could track him down. We tried the phone book, golden pages, and directory inquiries. There was no Michael Finucane listed. He was an apprentice. There was a Michael Finucane in Dublin 6, but there was no way of knowing if that was him. That was several months after Abbeylara, so I presmuse the Gardai would have had the same difficulties.

As an aside, I was at Abbeylara and left about an hour before Mr Carthy was shot. We were driven up to the cordon. I confess to bricking it (yes, he repeatedly fired his shotgun at the Gardai). It was a frightening to know that there was someone with a gun who could shoot it at any time. We were about 100 feet from the ERU, so I suppose he could have seen us. Those four or five minutes have always stuck with me. I kept imagining how frighteing it must have been for the Gardai - even though they are trained.

Now, in relation to Lusk and just for the sake of accuracy, only one of the raiders was armed.

I think it was Colly Griffiths who had the handgun. The other man, Eric Hopkins, was close by. From what I understand, Griffiths pointed his gun at the ERU officer, who shot him, Hopkins then made a move towards the officer and appeared to reach into his pocket, and he shot him as well.

I've downloaded, but not read the report.

Karlitosway1978, you are not 'accused', the Garda is accused as a corporate body and collection of individuals.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

A, Barr finds that less lethal weapons should be deployed first against an armed suspect which means Gardai MUST use less force than they are threatened with, thats insane. Like I said, if Im attacked tomorrow with a baseball bat whats my first option? Will I be told 4 years later that I could have used harsh language or diplomacy?

You first option is anything up to and including a baseball bat. A considered, thought out and justified option is something more than a baseball bat.

B, UK, NZ, Canadian and FBI consulted. All said they would have shot and killed hiim, only the UK offered an alternative (Which I agree is worth merit as a similar police force) however in contrast the FBI said they would have shot himi sooner. They are the world authority on this subject so why does Barr ignorew these statements, these witnesses and draw his own opinion that is opposed not supported by experts.

I think the whole point of this exercise has been that it should not have got to the point of "shoot / don't shoot". This was a distressed person, not a serial bank robber.

D, 10 doctors gave evidence, only 3 said that the cigarrettes were a factor. 7 did not agree with this, in fact 4 stated it was no bearing.

So why, on the insistence of mental health professionals were mental institutions given an exemption from the smoking ban? Because the last thing people with mental problems need is nicotine withdrawal. Ever seen a smoker 24-72 hours without a cigarette?

E. Throw a rock at a person with a gun? You think this a good option? No, its not.

I don't think it was meant literally, but some method of delivering the cigarettes should have been found.

Also add that the one thing you are trained NOT to do is enclose or approach a mentally unstable person (Yes we do in fact get this training which Barr recommends)

Thats a little too literal but yes, give them their space, for everyone's safety and to prevent further distress.

F, We are critisised for being so close to the house, well thats called a closed and secure perimeter. Perhaps we should have been a mile down the road and let him go get smokes himself?

Only the ERU (and maybe the negotiator) should be anywhere near the scene. Everyone else should have been at least twice shotgun range away. Instead an entire circus of rubber-necking targets was provided.

G, Hearsay: who can verify the claims that he was assaulted in custody? Not a living soul. Did he make a dying declaration? A statement?

Convenient in a "fell down the stairs" kind of way, isn't it?

In fact, wasnt he mentally unstable? Sorry, but I thought the presumption of innocence covered ALL people.

"Mentally unstable", "emotionally distressed", etc. does not equate to "liar". An aroused (in the psychological meaning of the word) person is much likely to tell a harsh truth than a lie. There is the risk however that that truth may be coloured.

H, His supposed solicitor wasnt a registered or practising solicitor, are we mind readers?

No, but the Garda tends to be able to find citizens when it needs them.

Besides that, who would take responsibility for the GP or solicitors safety while in the house? Would we instead be blamed for allowing access had people been killed? Yes is the answer to that. No police force in the world hands an armed person 2 hostages.

Telephones work wonders these days.

4 years in a chair to judge actions on a street under duress, fear and fatigue.

Yes, that is how it is done. But remember this was an extended situation, not the snap decision it has been made out to be.

Add to that that Carty aimed

I understand he discharged the weapon repeatedly, but did he aim it at anyone?

Now add to that the fact that its the Gardai's fault that we dont have tazers, stun guns, etc. well I will gladly take them, yes please. But the reality is you cannot use what you dont have and the government (with support from the public) will not issue such tools and therefore we use A, Batons and B, Guns.

Thats a matter for the Garda (capital G) and DoJ. They have been negligent in not providing the capability (although I am slow to encourage the proliferation of the capability).

You aim a gun and fire at a police officer you should expect to die

The gun wasn't aimed at the time he was shot. The breech wasn't even closed.

And now I hear people calling Lusk murder, for gods sake, 2 armed criminals against 1 armed cop.

Not murder, but not an ideal result either.

santosubito wrote:

I must say I find it distressing that a judge, retired or otherwise, would say that anyone was "probbaly" assaulted. He either was or wasn't. If there's no proof, then, technically, he wasn't.

There is a difference between a Tribunal and a criminal prosecution.

You would think if Mr Carthy had been abused and was talking about his ordeal, he would have mentioned it.

Not necessarily. I was once threatened, albeit quite indirectly, by a garda (I'd been naughty, not bad). This is the first time I am mentioning it to anyone.

H: This is another interesting point. After his call for Michael Finucane emerged, in late 2000 I recall, a few of us tried to see if we could track him down. We tried the phone book, golden pages, and directory inquiries. There was no Michael Finucane listed. He was an apprentice. There was a Michael Finucane in Dublin 6, but there was no way of knowing if that was him.

Phone the number and ask "Are you Michael Finucane the solicitor?" or "Do you know John Carty?".

Talk to the Law Society, I imagine they keep a list of members, including apprentices and students.

If all else fails, ask the source (Carty) to clarify.

Now, in relation to Lusk and just for the sake of accuracy, only one of the raiders was armed.

Didn't the second have a sledge hammer or such or was that something invented for the private press briefings?

The gun wasn't aimed at the time he was shot. The breech wasn't even closed.

Incorrect, maybe you should check the facts before commenting.

All of the experts quoted in the report clearly state that less lethal weapons (not including attack dogs) are not appropriate for firearms incidents.

At the time of giving evidence to the Tribunal, Mr. Shuey reported that the Victoria police were in the process of introducing the Air Taser which he believes to be a highly effective less lethal option. However, he noted that it has the same limitations as other less lethal options in being unsuitable for dealing with firearms incidents involving confrontation with an armed offender. The Taser was not in use in Victoria in 2000.

Superintendent Matthews told the Tribunal that it is his view that ‘‘there is no less lethal weapon that is designed to be used against an offender carrying a lethal option, firearm’’.

How barr took those on board yet came out with:

However, in an Abbeylara type situation, use of a Taser gun, if available to the ERU officers who were close to John Carthy when he vacated his house, would seem to have given them good prospects of success in disabling and apprehending him without resort to a lethal option.

Boggles the mind.

At the time of the shooting Taser was not in use by UK firearms teams, furthermore -

Some of the devices were used by certain North American police
forces, but it appears from the reports available to the Tribunal, and particularly the first and second Steering Group reports of the Patten Commission, that at the time of their publication no less lethal weapon then available had passed safety and medical considerations which would have been acceptable in this jurisdiction.

Given that, it's hard to see how the gardai can be criticised for not having less lethal weapons available.

By the way the maximum range of a Taser is between 4.6m and 6.4m. A shotgun firing birshot is lethal out to around 25m, and more if heavier cartridges are used. Anyone here fancy those odds?

Small question - where's the part in the report where Barr says that the Gardai should be disarmed? All I see is his recommendation to give them more options than to hit a suspect with a baton or shoot him dead.

Also, on point C, he got his firearm back because there was no reason to take it off him in the first place. The gardai acted on the basis of a complaint of hearsay (and did so again later over the mascot).

santosubito

Victor wrote:

There is a difference between a Tribunal and a criminal prosecution.
Not necessarily. I was once threatened, albeit quite indirectly, by a garda (I'd been naughty, not bad). This is the first time I am mentioning it to anyone.
Phone the number and ask "Are you Michael Finucane the solicitor?" or "Do you know John Carty?".

Talk to the Law Society, I imagine they keep a list of members, including apprentices and students.

If all else fails, ask the source (Carty) to clarify.
Didn't the second have a sledge hammer or such or was that something invented for the private press briefings?

I don't see the logic of what you're writing here. You writing for the first time about your incident with a Garda is not the same as mr Carthy talking about his detention, saying a Garda did something to him, but specifically not mentioning any abuse.

Also, you imagine wrong, Victor. The Law Society does have a register of solicitors. But they don't include apprentice solicitors. Anyway, Michael Finucane later told the inquiry that he didn't know Joihn Carthy andhad never met him.

I know you haven't read the report, so you won't know that the Gardai at the scene DID ask Mr Carthy (Don't suppose there was much point in the Gardai ringing anyone and asking if he knew John Carty) to help them get in contact with the solicitor. "There was no reply to this request" (p154).

In relation to Lusk, no, the second guy didn't have a sledgehammer. That was the third guy, who wasn't shot. He was using it to hammer the security glass at the counter.

santosubito wrote:

You writing for the first time about your incident with a Garda is not the same as mr Carthy talking about his detention, saying a Garda did something to him, but specifically not mentioning any abuse.

I've never gone into the details of what was said and neither did Carthy. How is it not similar?

santosubito

Victor wrote:

I've never gone into the details of what was said and neither did Carthy. How is it not similar?

Well, that's my point. The tribunal said it was probable that something more than verbals took place, that he was assaulted. He spoke often and openly about his ordeal in Granard Garda station, yet specifically made no reference to being assaulted. I think if he had been assaulted he would have mentioned that. Is that not likely, if he was talking about what happened him there? Also, he signed the book at the station upon leaving to confirm he hadn't been abused.

santosubito wrote:

Also, he signed the book at the station upon leaving to confirm he hadn't been abused.

I'm sorry, but "lol".

Victor wrote:

I'm sorry, but "lol".

why? People sign notebooks all the time, we cannot physically force them too sign a form unless your suggesting Gardai put loaded weapons into mouths?

Concerning his shotgun, he had mental issues and that was why his license was challenged by the Superintendent, he had to get a doctor to certify him safe to hold a weapon. Considering the simple reality and history here, I consider the Superintendent and not the Doctor to have made the right call. No one would have died had people trusted the Supers decision.

As for the rest, well again your stating 'better solution' 'not ideal' 'possible' but yet not putting forward any genuine and realistic alternative other than the age old opinion that in some way Gardai should be taking risks with their lives that other people would not and finding magic ways to do things.

As for his condition, well bank robber or not, he had a loaded weapon, fired repeatedly and aimed at Gardai, he also had a grudge against Gardai. We did not make him do this, its not a conspiracy. His reasoning for shooting at Gardai does not make a bullet any less lethal to the target. In fact, you probable stand a better chance of negotiating with a normal bank robber.

Now, would you personally not shoot if a loaded gun was pointed at you? "Oh, shoot away, kill me, sure you dont really mean it"

As for weapons, your saying upto a baseball bat, no no my friend, thats equal but the report clearly claims that Gardai should be using less lethal weapons than threatened with. Therefore I should use less than a baseball bat and considering I have a Baton or nothing that means I should not be using my baton when faced with another weapon, again would you be willing to accept this restriction? Say for example if assaulted or attacked in your home?

And finally, you admit your not in favour of allowing Gardai have pepperspray, stun guns, tazers, etc yet seem justified in saying we are wrong to use guns? By that thinking you think the answer was a severe verbal scolding for being bold when shooting at Gardai, am I right?

Bottom line, we are entitled to defend ourselves, we MUST be allowed use force to effect arrests, protect life and property otherwise we are nothing but cannon fodder and there is no way for us to stop violent crime or people and this would allow them to run free in society.

Its thinking like this that makes me want a reserve, so Pat the Baker and others like yourself will actually get a chance to show us how easy it is and how it should be done.

padser

Karlitosway1978, have you read the report?

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

why? People sign notebooks all the time, we cannot physically force them too sign a form unless your suggesting Gardai put loaded weapons into mouths?

Isn't this one of the allegations in Donegal?

As for the rest, well again your stating 'better solution' 'not ideal' 'possible' but yet not putting forward any genuine and realistic alternative other than the age old opinion that in some way Gardai should be taking risks with their lives that other people would not and finding magic ways to do things.

No, I am saying that ordinary gardai, journalists, civilians, etc. should not have been in the firing line.

In fact, you probable stand a better chance of negotiating with a normal bank robber.

Do we have many "normal" bank robbers left these days. Many seem to be coke heads.

Now, would you personally not shoot if a loaded gun was pointed at you? "Oh, shoot away, kill me, sure you dont really mean it"

I would have got myself (or rather a bunch of other people that shouldn't have been there) into that position in the first place.

As for weapons, your saying upto a baseball bat, no no my friend, thats equal but the report clearly claims that Gardai should be using less lethal weapons than threatened with. Therefore I should use less than a baseball bat and considering I have a Baton or nothing that means I should not be using my baton when faced with another weapon,

Isn't a baton less than a baseball bat?

again would you be willing to accept this restriction? Say for example if assaulted or attacked in your home?

There exists the restriction that I have to use reasonable force.

And finally, you admit your not in favour of allowing Gardai have pepperspray, stun guns, tazers, etc yet seem justified in saying we are wrong to use guns?

Not for beat cops, whatever about dedicated units. Do you want reserve Walts going around with tasers?

Its thinking like this that makes me want a reserve, so Pat the Baker and others like yourself will actually get a chance to show us how easy it is and how it should be done.

Actually I'm not medically fit to join. And in any case, I'm probably more valueable elsewhere.

I would consider this. http://www.dublincity.ie/press_news/news/joint_policing_committees.asp

Victor wrote:

No, I am saying that ordinary gardai, journalists, civilians, etc. should not have been in the firing line.

Its our jobs to be in the firing line, be it gun, syringe, whatever. We are paid to deal with these people, tackle them and protect innocent people. We cannot do our jobs without being in danger. You have the option we dont have. Dont think that this report effects only the ERU. Its decisions and recommendations effect all Gardai.

Victor wrote:

Do we have many "normal" bank robbers left these days. Many seem to be coke heads.

As normal as any criminal in my opinion however a coke head could claim to have been acting outside character as well because of his drug induced state.

Victor wrote:

I would have got myself (or rather a bunch of other people that shouldn't have been there) into that position in the first place.

Again see the above point and also, we (The Gardai) didnt put anyone in a position of danger. Its part of the report that we 'should' have put a doctor and solicitor into or near the house therefore in danger not out of it. What people do outside a cordon is their choice.

Victor wrote:

Isn't a baton less than a baseball bat?

No they are equal, a piece of wood against a piece of wood. Gun against gun. The type of gun or indeed the type of wood isnt the issue. I dont carry a gun therefore I must consider how this report and its consequences will effect myself. Its important to get it straight from the start, exactly how far must it go before we can escalate to various weapons? As some papers have stated, "Do the Gardai have to wait until they are shot before opening fire?"

Victor wrote:

There exists the restriction that I have to use reasonable force.

That would allow you to shoot someone that has a gun aimed at you and has fired multiple times, in that case Gardai being allowed shoot an armed threat. However again I must point out, you have the option of retreating or avoiding the conflict. Gardai are paid to face the conflict and protect innocent lives. We must consider more than just our own safety.

Victor wrote:

Actually I'm not medically fit to join. And in any case, I'm probably more valueable elsewhere.

I would consider this. http://www.dublincity.ie/press_news/news/joint_policing_committees.asp

Well I fail to really see this point except maybe that you are speaking about something that will never effect you personally but I will say a committee speaking about the local community and feeding Gardai information concerning said community allows the Gardai to provide a community specific service. Thats co-operation not blaming and telling an expert how to perform their function. Its a 2 way street in those commitees with both sides speaking and listening (Also remember I work in the pilot area). I would however agree that they have proved effective to date. You dont tell a surgeon how to operate on you nor a mechinaic how to fix your car. You accept that they are the experts and know more than you. Why is it different for police officers?

padser wrote:

Karlitosway1978, have you read the report?

How could I not? It effects my career and its all Im hearing about.

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Its our jobs to be in the firing line, be it gun, syringe, whatever. We are paid to deal with these people, tackle them and protect innocent people. We cannot do our jobs without being in danger. You have the option we dont have.

A slight aside and meaning no disrespect, but you make this point quite often.

The general public face crime also. Not every day and not necessarily as "in your face" as gardai have to deal with, but whether its a cashier who gets robbed or a passer-by assaulted outside a pub or someone intimidated not to use the upstairs of a bus or granny getting mugged, it is the public who are the primary victim of crime. Granny wasn't trained to deal with muggers!

Sometimes this is lost in official and non-official garda-speak.

The difference between a police officer and a member of the public is that when a member of the public sees a suspicious individual / one making threats / someone being attacked, they have the option to walk away. Police officers don't.

Not for beat cops, whatever about dedicated units. Do you want reserve Walts going around with tasers?

Are you aware that both pepper and Taser are much less likely to inflict a serious injury on a customer than a baton? Where police officers are equipped with spray and batons, the batons are higher up on the level of force scale. Beat officers are the people most likely to be in a position to use short range weapons of this type effectively.

civdef wrote:

The difference between a police officer and a member of the public is that when a member of the public sees a suspicious individual / one making threats / someone being attacked, they have the option to walk away. Police officers don't.

Without wishing to over do the point the person being attacked tends not to "have the option to walk away".

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Concerning his shotgun, he had mental issues and that was why his license was challenged by the Superintendent

That's not what happened.

Considering the simple reality and history here, I consider the Superintendent and not the Doctor to have made the right call. No one would have died had people trusted the Supers decision.

The Supers decision was nevertheless unlawful. Which is why the Super never lawfully revoked the firearms certificate. In fact, it could equally be argued that the unlawful confiscation of the firearm contributed to Carthy's mistrust of the Gardai, which in turn was a major factor in the siege itself.

As for weapons, your saying upto a baseball bat, no no my friend, thats equal but the report clearly claims that Gardai should be using less lethal weapons than threatened with.

No, it doesn't. It refers to "less lethal weapons" because they stopped calling them "nonlethal" when it turned out that rubber bullets, tazers, mace and pepper spray and even water cannon could all kill those they were used on.
The phrase means that the weapon is less lethal than a firearm; not that the weapon is less lethal than the one you're facing. Seriously, otherwise it doesn't make any form of sense, does it? How is a baseball bat less lethal than a shotgun? Both can kill you. Can you be "more killed" by one than by the other?

Victor wrote:

Without wishing to over do the point the person being attacked tends not to "have the option to walk away".

They do however have the option to RUN away at the first chance or avoid the confrontation where possible. They dont look for or get involved with violent people unless they have no option of avoiding them or retreating. Imagine a world where Gardai ran away and/or ignored people because they were dangerous? Thats the point Im trying to make. We go into not away from violence and criminals.

Sparks wrote:

The Supers decision was nevertheless unlawful. Which is why the Super never lawfully revoked the firearms certificate. In fact, it could equally be argued that the unlawful confiscation of the firearm contributed to Carthy's mistrust of the Gardai, which in turn was a major factor in the siege itself.

I personally dont see why the siege was caused by his trust or lack off in the Gardai however no seige could have happened without the firearm therefore allowing him have it was the biggest factor.

Sparks wrote:

No, it doesn't. It refers to "less lethal weapons" because they stopped calling them "nonlethal" when it turned out that rubber bullets, tazers, mace and pepper spray and even water cannon could all kill those they were used on.
The phrase means that the weapon is less lethal than a firearm; not that the weapon is less lethal than the one you're facing. Seriously, otherwise it doesn't make any form of sense, does it? How is a baseball bat less lethal than a shotgun? Both can kill you. Can you be "more killed" by one than by the other?

The term I used was 'less lethal' so I dont really see the point your making however to run with it, a baseball bat is far less lethal than a gun. Guns have a far higher kill rate and damage rate. I baseball bat to any part of the body minus the head will rarely result in death. Bullets frequently do as they rip your internal organs apart and cause massive internal damage. Baseball bats very rarely have the required force or repeatedly accuracy to do this. Thats why you rarely see hitmen using blunt objects, they use guns and knives. You also dont see soldiers carrying batons during war, they do however carry knifes, the reason being they are there to kill people not incapacitate them.

Are you saying that all weapons under a gun carry equal damage/kill ratios? That is very much not the case, stun guns are not officially recorded as killing anyone to date however have been implicated in less than 10 worldwide. Pepper spray has never killed anyone either but again, has resulted in rare side effects.

The simple fact is that the report suggests less lethal weapons being used, if your facing a weapon you should not be required to go for less than your facing regardless of what the damage possibility is. Armed Gardai should be allowed perform their duties and if that means shooting a threat that has a gun or a weapon such as a knife then so be it. Its crazy to suggest otherwise and remember, its the criminal that causes the action, armed Gardai arent called for a shoplifter or a fight in Templebar.

I will say it again, Gardai deal with criminal cases and people, we do not have the responsibility for treating sick people. We do encounter them all the time but we are not doctors. If you point and fire a weapon at Gardai you should expect to be shot regardless of mental capacity. How many Gardai needed to be killed that day before shooting him was justified? Or is the answer 'never'? Provided you suffer a mental illness its OK to attack, injure and kill Gardai?