20 Year old Irish man,shot dead by US police

Steve · 03-07-2008 04:21PM

jennieinthe08 wrote: »

I knew AJ and all of us will really miss him. He was really excited to go to America and couldnt wait to go. I really think ot was wrong place wrong time because knowing him he didn't have a bad bone in his body. I'd love to know why such force was used because I really can't imagine him doing anything to provoke being shot dead. He was DEFINATELY not the type to carry a weapon. I hope he's at peace and they get to the bottom of this to prevent it happening again.
xxxx

My condolences.

I hope the truth is found and justice, if appropriate, is served.

yayamark · 03-07-2008 04:34PM

+1

humanji · 03-07-2008 04:34PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What, and you'd feel safe walking around at night knowing there's a 18 year old garda with an itchy trigger finger keeping the place safe...

get out of that garden, the majority of garda are good people but there's a few thugs in there that I would not feel safe around if I knew they were armed....

Police should not be armed!

Nobody said the Gardai were going to be armed. What the hell are you going on about??? The US is riddled with guns and nutters. The combination of the two makes it a necessity for cops to be armed. It's not like criminals refuse to shoot the unarmed.

yayamark · 03-07-2008 04:45PM

dont worry about it drunk monkey just has a problem with the Gardai

Another one added to my ignore list.

molloyjh · 03-07-2008 04:53PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's why i've never visited or intend on visiting America....

Cops are shooting civillans everyday, I think the cops in this case as making out that he could have been escaping from a burgulary (which is utter rubbish).
Even if he was that's no reason to shoot a man dead...

Shame on America...

My heart goes out to his family and friends, this is a very sad case...

I'm sorry but this post beggars belief! You have no idea what happened so cannot make any kind of informed judgement on the situation. I've been to the States a good few thimes. I don't love the place like some people do, but its far from the rampantly violent place you;re making it out to be.

As for the story, there's a few things about it that are a bit odd. First there's the psychiatric help thing and second is the fact that they haven't had a deadly shooting in 20 years there. It would suggest to me that maybe the guy had an episode at the wrong time and in the wrong place? I would be reluctant to lay all of the blame at the police officers feet as more often than not the police are decent people trying to do their job. I'd say the officer involved is devastated over whats happened. It will be interesting to see over the next while what actually happened.

My condolences go out to this guys family...

Deadeyes · 03-07-2008 05:02PM

What the police are not saying speaks loudest to me.
1. They didn't say he was a suspect in the burglary.
2. They didn't say he was running from the scene of the crime.
3. They didn't say he was armed in any way.

If any of these had been the case the Police Dept. would have said so, because it would make them look better. "responding to a burglary" is typical police speak. It plants the suspicion of guilt in the publics mind. It's like when they say they're taking PCs to examine them for illegal images. People immediately think paedo and allow the police leeway, but really it means nothing, it doesn't even mean they even suspect such a thing.

At this stage though anything could've happened. I'm sure we'll get to hear a more complete story in time.

molloyjh · 03-07-2008 05:04PM

Deadeyes wrote: »

What the police are not saying speaks loudest to me.
1. They didn't say he was a suspect in the burglary.
2. They didn't say he was running from the scene of the crime.
3. They didn't say he was armed in any way.

If any of these had been the case the Police Dept. would have said so, because it would make them look better. "responding to a burglary" is typical police speak. It plants the suspicion of guilt in the publics mind. It's like when they say they're taking PCs to examine them for illegal images. People immediately think paedo and allow the police leeway, but really it means nothing, it doesn't even mean they even suspect such a thing.

At this stage though anything could've happened. I'm sure we'll get to hear a more complete story in time.

It would be unusual in a high profile case like this for them to make any comment while the investigation is going on. The last thing they want to do is give the media an opinion of what happened that turned out to be false as one something is reported, its very hard to take back. People will tend to believe the first story rather than the second.

humanji · 03-07-2008 05:10PM

Deadeyes wrote: »

What the police are not saying speaks loudest to me.
1. They didn't say he was a suspect in the burglary.
2. They didn't say he was running from the scene of the crime.
3. They didn't say he was armed in any way.

I really don't get the logic behind this. They didn't say a lot of things about it because it only happened a couple of days ago. They've to investigate what happened in case they go off an tell everyone the wrong information.

seamus · 03-07-2008 05:16PM

Deadeyes wrote: »

What the police are not saying speaks loudest to me.
1. They didn't say he was a suspect in the burglary.
2. They didn't say he was running from the scene of the crime.
3. They didn't say he was armed in any way.

They rarely say any of these things until the police investigation is complete.

You're getting confused by the difference between media speculation and police statements. Usually the media will interview eyewitnesses who say things like, "He had a gun" or "he ran from the cops".

The police on the other hand say things like, "We were responding to an armed robbery call", or, "We were fired upon by an individual". They're very careful about not placing blame or saying misleading things so close to the incident.

passive · 03-07-2008 06:23PM

yayamark wrote: »

dont worry about it drunk monkey just has a problem with the Gardai

Another one added to my ignore list.

Damn good plan...

drunkmonkey · 03-07-2008 06:48PM

yayamark wrote: »

dont worry about it drunk monkey just has a problem with the Gardai

i've no problem with the Gardai, I think there good guys and i like the way they handle things, what i've a problem with is armed Police, In America it's a way of life but we should never allow it to creep into our society, I'd love to go to America but not with there gun laws the way they are, I wouldn't feel safe without a colt 45 and that's not a position I want to put myself in..

America really need to tackle it's gun culture head on, Let's hope Obama & Hilary have the balls between them to say enough is enough and come down like a hot sledge on the NRA...

vote4pedro · 03-07-2008 06:53PM

seamus wrote: »

They rarely say any of these things until the police investigation is complete.

You're getting confused by the difference between media speculation and police statements. Usually the media will interview eyewitnesses who say things like, "He had a gun" or "he ran from the cops".

The police on the other hand say things like, "We were responding to an armed robbery call", or, "We were fired upon by an individual". They're very careful about not placing blame or saying misleading things so close to the incident.

Yes, but how often do stories leak to the press? If the police were getting a rough ride in the press and they knew something that would suggest otherwise, it wouldn't be strange for a respected/trusted journo to be told something by someone in the know to be published but without attributing it to the source.
Not saying that's why there's been no clarification here yet, the fact the local paper didn't deem it that big a story earlier on in the thread suggests its not a huge incident, but the lack of details and the fact the man was (presumably) unarmed do raise a lot of questions.

PeakOutput · 03-07-2008 07:17PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd love to go to America but not with there gun laws the way they are

so quit being a bitch and go im in maine at the moment (apparently a fairly pro gun place) and i feel way safer here then i do in dublin stay out of dodgy areas just like you wouldnt go to moyross if you were in limerick. its not rocket science its common sense

also an unarmed police force is a luxury i hope we never lose but it might become necessary

Pyr0 · 03-07-2008 07:21PM

What is with all the "A Cop shot someone ??! HE DESERVES TO DIE FOR THAT ! SCUM !!11ONE" Attitude going around these days ? A Police officer is trained to analyse the situation to determine if using exsessive force is necessary, but we're only human and no amount of training can prepare someone, even a police officer, for a very unexpected movement or action a suspect might take ! When it comes down to it, the police officer realises its either him, the suspect or any inncocent people that will get injured or killed and if the suspect happens to be armed, then that makes the situation a lot worse and unpredictable.

People are saying also "Shoot to wound not to kill" have you any idea how many bullets it can take to bring down somebody down ? Especially if they're pumped up ? Some bullets are made to just make a narrow path through the body, doing very little damage when coming from a 9mm or a .45. Others are made to tear and rip holes into their victim causing horrific injuries, now I'm pretty sure if the police used this kind of ammunition, there'd be uproar about police brutality. Putting one or two bullets into someones leg as they're either waving a gun around, pointing it at you, or charger at you wouldn't be an easy thing to do. The police are actually trained to put 2 in the chest and 1 in the head if the first two don't bring them down, i may be wrong as I've only heard it in numerous law enforcement documentaries.

At the end of the day I suppose, no one knows what really happened except the police officer involved and I personally feel sorry for the police officer and any Officer put in that extraordinary situation that has to deal with public uproar demanding their blood, he'll have to deal with shooting dead a man for the rest of his life, i'm sure that isn't an easy thing to deal with. And of course the family in question have my sympathy.

Lay off the "its the Police's fault for shooting someone regardless of situation" attitude, its sickening.

Mena · 03-07-2008 07:27PM

Right, I hope I never get most of you lot on a jury. Talk about jumping to conclusions before anything is known... Holy crap.

Get the facts then cast judgement. Until then, STFU.

03-07-2008 07:28PM

Bambi wrote: »

No, they're not but please continue talking out of yer swiss on the subject, this is AH after all :pac:

Id appreciate a less condescending tone next time. Especially considering you added nothing to the debate. They're not sent out on a "shoot to kill" protocol. Otherwise there'd be carnage.

One poster beat me to it.

FruitLover wrote: »

Not exactly - they shoot to incapacitate. Naturally, death is often a side-effect of a couple of bullets in the chest.

sdanseo · 03-07-2008 07:30PM

DadaKopf wrote: »

Yeah, feck sake. The kneejerkism in this thread is insane.

What we know:
An Irish man has been shot dead

A police officer shot him

There was an allegation of a robbery

It happened in Silverton, Orgeon

What we don't know
Anything about Hanlon or his mental state

What he was doing

What provocation led to the shooting

Firearm policy and training of the Oregonian police service

We know nothing, yet so many people will jump to conclusions based on teary-eyed feelings of nationalism and anti-Americanism. Oh, no, a son of mother Ireland could never do anything wrong, it must be those nasty, gun totin' Americans. Total Irish exceptionalist narccissism.

Never a truer word spoken. Speculation is fine in small measures provided it's labelled as such, but I have no time for people who have posted things like

ThE_IVIAcIVIAIV wrote: »

the shame, what an ****in idiot cop i hope he dies.whats the world coming to? and maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time... and didn't rob anybody. and having mental problems is no reason to be shot. and sure the cop wouldn't have known about his probs.... poor family.

Shame on YOU, for one. You should be banned.

Bold is mine.

03-07-2008 07:30PM

Dragan wrote: »

Well in the public eye the whole guilty till proven innocent thing applies it seems.

It goes for both the cop and the kid. More facts are needed but from what we know so far it sounds dodgy. People normally dont get shot to death for burglary when they are unarmed. Maybe he implied he was armed, who knows, but it warrants questioning. Its certainly not black and white.

dotsman · 03-07-2008 07:50PM

Christ, there's some smell of BS from this thread. We know very, very little about what happened and therefore, can come to no conclusion yet.

The only facts we know are that:

The victim was believed to have psychological problems (but according to the Oregonian, he was never actually diagnosed?)
The officer who fired the shot had only graduated just over a year ago. (So, perhaps more likely to panic if faced with what he perceived to be a life-threatening situation)

However, how relevant the above "facts" are to what happened is still unknown. Call me an optimist or maybe just someone who believes in the spirit of the "innocent until proven guilty", but for the moment, I offer my sympathies to both the family of the victim and also to the officer (who, until proven otherwise, either did nothing wrong, or just panicked and now must live with the consequences).

Phototoxin · 03-07-2008 07:55PM

We know ONE fact, a kid got shot by the police in a town where nobody has been shot for 20-odd years.

QFT

second

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What, and you'd feel safe walking around at night knowing there's a 18 year old garda with an itchy trigger finger keeping the place safe...

get out of that garden, the majority of garda are good people but there's a few thugs in there that I would not feel safe around if I knew they were armed....

Police should not be armed!

Anyone see the documentarty 'hostage' last week. Basically these blokes were doing armed robbery. Anyway 30 shots were fired, 3 gardai injured, 2 civillians wounded and 1 robber killed.

As it transpired an gardee shick-iloney fired all the shots. the robbers fired none. :eek:

so no to guards with guns

Overheal · 03-07-2008 08:45PM

DadaKopf wrote: »

Yeah, feck sake. The kneejerkism in this thread is insane.

What we know:
An Irish man has been shot dead

A police officer shot him

There was an allegation of a robbery

It happened in Silverton, Orgeon

What we don't know
Anything about Hanlon or his mental state

What he was doing

What provocation led to the shooting

Firearm policy and training of the Oregonian police service

We know nothing, yet so many people will jump to conclusions based on teary-eyed feelings of nationalism and anti-Americanism. Oh, no, a son of mother Ireland could never do anything wrong, it must be those nasty, gun totin' Americans. Total Irish exceptionalist narccissism.

Quoted For Truth. Could not have put it better.

With regard to the location and the History of shootings in the area, that could mean anything. I think it suggests that this was an abnormal situation - that the cop would not ever have had to shoot anyone. As Stevec aptly put it by pulling that trigger, even if to save lives, a police officer is putting his job, life and liberty on the line any time he does, with each incident for good or bad is analyzed rigorously by his superiors.

Guns: Terribly inaccurate. I've gotten my hands both on the 9mm Beretta (used by a lot of military forces, some police forces), Glock 9mm, and the Desert Eagle .457 (just for shíts and giggles) and personally I couldnt even put a hole into the target from farther away than 25 feet. (Though notably the my favorite was the Glock - least recoil)

Anyway, regarding "Why didn't he use a taser?" well for one, are all police forces even equipped with Tasers?

More than 11,000 agencies in the US deploy TASER brand technology. Some 3,500 of these agencies give Tasers to all their patrol officers, according to the company.

Secondly, Tasers can be lethal too.

And sure, RIP buddy.

Manic Moran · 03-07-2008 10:07PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

but the lack of details and the fact the man was (presumably) unarmed do raise a lot of questions.

I've been asking around residents of them thar parts, and the local paper has a picture of a Hyundai Elantra with the back window shot out. A car is considered a deadly weapon, and trying to run over a cop (including in reverse) is liable to get you shot. Of course, it could just have been a car in the background which got hit by rounds which missed, but it's a possibility.

In any case, this is all just speculation, but it's to show that there's always a few other things to worry about than just 'did he have a gun?'

Others are made to tear and rip holes into their victim causing horrific injuries, now I'm pretty sure if the police used this kind of ammunition, there'd be uproar about police brutality

Umm.. That's going to be the standard load amongst both cops and private citizens. I've hollowpoints in my sidearm. It's far more effective than FMJ rounds, as it has greater energy transfer into the target, and also reduces the problems of overpenetration through walls and such like should they miss.

People normally dont get shot to death for burglary when they are unarmed.

You picked the one wrong example. Residential burglary is pretty much the one crime in the US where you run the risk of getting shot, no questions asked.

NTM

Run_to_da_hills · 03-07-2008 10:23PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

You picked the one wrong example. Residential burglary is pretty much the one crime in the US where you run the risk of getting shot, no questions asked.

It is also pretty much the sole reason in the constitution why one is allowed to bare arms in the states, i.e. protection of property.

It wasn't me! · 03-07-2008 10:33PM

People are going a little overboard with statements regarding the accuracy, or lack thereof, of stock pistols. Pistols are accurate enough. Clamp a Glock in a suitable vice and it'll hit a heart sized target at 50 yards handily enough, at the very least nine times out of ten, using good ammunition. The other side of that is that pistols are very difficult to shoot well, and require far, far more practice for a similar relative standard of accuracy than a rifle. That's in my experience. I've tried my hand at Olympic style smallbore pistol once or twice and I can say it's something I'd love to get into at some point, but it's an extraordinarily demanding thing to try, and an expensive sport. The thing is, pistols are more than up to the accuracy demands of competitive and police or military needs, but the skill required to use them is huge, and that's why they're not regarded as accurate. It's entirely possible to use them with impressive accuracy if the time is put in.

Manic Moran · 03-07-2008 10:53PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is also pretty much the sole reason in the constitution why one is allowed to bare arms in the states, i.e. protection of property.

Not quite.

The presumption is that a burglar poses an immediate risk to your safety. Yes, a few States will permit lethal force for property, but the Constitutional self-defense right is for yourself and your family. He may only be breaking in to steal a TV, but you don't know that at the time. Your home is your castle, your place of sanctuary. If a man will violate that, there's no telling what else he may violate.

NTM

Overheal · 03-07-2008 11:25PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not quite.

The presumption is that a burglar poses an immediate risk to your safety. Yes, a few States will permit lethal force for property, but the Constitutional self-defense right is for yourself and your family. He may only be breaking in to steal a TV, but you don't know that at the time. Your home is your castle, your place of sanctuary. If a man will violate that, there's no telling what else he may violate.

NTM

the Right to Bear Arms in the constitution has been the source of debate for over 200 years. It doesnt say what kind of arms you can bear, if you are entitled to keep stuffed arms from a grizzly bear, whether you're even allowed to FIRE the arms, etc. But conventionally the Right to Bear Arms was placed in the constitution To defend home property and livelihood and (imo) to acknowledge the importance of the Armed Militia in the American Revolutionary War.

This is why in some states its perfectly legal to carry firearms around. Some states allow for concealed weapons, etc. and now florida is passing into law a bill which will allow employees to keep firearms in the parking lot of wherever they work (although Disney World apparently has a big problem with that, go figure)

03-07-2008 11:27PM

Hey, since Bush took over with his Texas wild west attitude, it's shoot first and ask questions later (same in Iraq).

Manic Moran · 03-07-2008 11:50PM

Overheal wrote: »

the Right to Bear Arms in the constitution has been the source of debate for over 200 years.

Maybe you missed it, but the Supreme Court finally made its first direct ruling on the issue in its 200+ year history last week.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The implications cannot be overstated. There's a swarm of litigation coming now, to overturn various firearms restrictions.

NTM

Overheal · 03-07-2008 11:55PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe you missed it, but the Supreme Court finally made its first direct ruling on the issue in its 200+ year history last week.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

NTM

Last week..pfft. I was doing important things last week. Im sure of it..

Thanks for the link though. Good read and I guess I should redact; this paper seems to reference that the 2nd ammendment is autonomous of militia service

But hey if theres ever a homeland invasion I know a gun range a few blocks away: they got reaps of M-16 carbines and Ak-47s. Even some Not-For-Sale RPGs on display. I is gonna have fun.

Manic Moran · 04-07-2008 12:08AM

Where are you at again?

NTM

20 Year old Irish man,shot dead by US police

Comments