irish_bob wrote: » are you in medicine
LeixlipRed wrote: » Fantastic to see compensation paid to the family of a man who was shot because he was a bit simple and had gone off the rails (He never shot at the police as some have already pointed out). One of the most disgusting acts of police brutality ever seen in this country. When they're not pinning murders on people, they're actually murdering people. Scum
LeixlipRed wrote: » Fantastic to see compensation paid to the family of a man who was shot because he was a bit simple and had gone off the rails
(He never shot at the police as some have already pointed out).
One of the most disgusting acts of police brutality ever seen in this country. When they're not pinning murders on people, they're actually murdering people. Scum
K-9 wrote: » I don't think the problem was the shooting, it was how the Guards handled the siege. €20 million and tribunals are an expensive way of finding out though.
Mairt wrote: » Well I for one am glad he's dead and not a member of AGS. Attitudes like yours will have a member of the Defence Forces or An Garda Síochána murdered in this country. As I said earlier, god forbid I'm in a similar situation (I'm routinely armed in the course of my duty) whereby some crack pot is a threat to my life (or the life of my comrades) I don't want a member of my unit hessitate in taking action because of the fear of a tribunal brought against us, with the result that I or one of the lads are murdered. But then, you might find justification for our murder and bend over backwards making excuses for the my killer. An Garda Síochána "scum", for a Mod of a Maths forum I'd have thought you would be an intelligent person - stop posting stupidity. .
LeixlipRed wrote: » Why couldn't they have shot him with beanbags? Gassed him? Shot him in the hand? Is it that our wonderful police force possibly didn't have the equipment nor expertise to do any of the above? Of course not, sure the Guards are fantastic.
markpb wrote: » The Gardai on the scene can only use the tools their management made available to them. If their superiors or the government decided that bean bags or other less lethal weapons weren't worth the money, there's not much the ERU can do about that.
LeixlipRed wrote: » Yawn. Mentally ill man shot dead by police. And all you can say is, "well done lads". FBI investigation? Wow, a police officer from a country with some of the worst gun crime in the world comes to Ireland and says, in his opinion, he should have been shot earlier. Well, we should probably arm Billy from Mayo, straight out of Templemore with an M16 and have him pick off speeding motorists from a Texaco car park. Then pin the murders on someone from Donegal. No bother! Disgusting to see how little people care about a mentally ill person (a group of people already hugely marginalised and ostracised in this country) being murdered by our joke of a "professional" police force. Why couldn't they have shot him with beanbags? Gassed him? Shot him in the hand? Is it that our wonderful police force possibly didn't have the equipment nor expertise to do any of the above? Of course not, sure the Guards are fantastic.
homerjay2005 wrote: » so where did this 20 million go - lawyer fees? this f8cking case was a farce from the start and as the FBI official said on the first independant inquiry, they should have shot him earlier.
homerjay wrote: that should have been enough, there was no need to take this further.
stepbar wrote: » The Guards were no angels in all this. It didn't help that they left a metally ill man without cigs for the best part of 2 days. Nor was he allowed access to a solicitor. To put it short, they made a balls of the standoff.
Mairt wrote: » No professional would allow a solicitor to visit an obviously armed and dangerous individual.
Mairt wrote: » N Remember the armed raid at the post office in Luck, Co.Dublin when a member of AGS fired on, and killed two armed robbers?.. While the threat to life was every bit as real, except these two were obvious scumbags and one was a nut but the threat to life was comparable IMO.
Deleted User wrote: » why do people mind this guy getting killed?
Mairt wrote: » It beats the shit outta me too. The loss of the poor chaps life is a desparately sad thing for his family no doubt, and I do accept that he was ill (never seen a healthy corpse :P ). But shit, he left the police no alternative but to kill him.
irish_bob wrote: » speaking as someone who is related to a mentally ill person , i can say with confidence that the mentally ill in this country are treated almost too delicatley , it is nion impossible unless you seriously hurt someone to be committed in this country and while as a psychiatricst in here has already stated , the police can arrange for a doctor to see someone they suspect of being a danger to themselves , it rarely results in any concrete action being taken , unless as i said already that the mentally ill person has committed a violent act long ago, people were put in the big house for often being nothing more than an embarrassment to thier family , the pendelum has completly swung the ( liberal ) other end of the spectrum nowadays , mentally ill people are an extreme burden on society and the familys they come from , i fully sympathise with the guardai on this one , john mc carthy being unhinged like he was could have killed someone whos life was more worth living than his own , he is all likelyhood much better off the way he is now
sam34 wrote: » i have seen you spout this nonsense on another thread in the past. To say that "it is nion impossible unless you seriously hurt someone to be committed in this country" is inaccurate and misleading. plenty of people are committed against their will to psychiatric units up and down this country every single day. the vast majority of them will not ahve committed any crime, and will not have posed a danger to others. generally speaking, the majority of mentally ill people are more of arisk to themselves (and not just by suicide, btw) than to others. people can be committed for many different reasons, and to state thet "serious hurt" has to be caused before someone is committed is wildly inaccurate. it is a relatively straight forward process to commit someone to hospital, if they meet the criteria for doing so. i deal with it every day of the week, as do hundreds of my colleagues. i have no idea on what you are basing your statement that if the guards arrange for an assessment it rarely results in any "concrete action" being taken. Again, this is inaccurate. a lot of involuntary admissions are initiated by the gardai, for a variety of reasons. Not all of the people the gardai bring to a hospital will be detained, certainly. the gardai are not doctors and they are not expected to have medical knowledge. they merely ahve to have a concern for the person in question - they then have a right, indeed a duty, to have them medically assessed, by a GP initially. you claim to be realted to a mentally ill person - if that is the case, your last paragraph astounds me. i feel sorry for your relative, because not only do they have to battle against society's stigma against the mentally ill, they clearly have to battle against that same perception in their own family. mentally ill people cannot, and should not, be just locked away indefinitely. most people with mental illness have relapses of illness, when they become acutely unwell for a period, and then return to relative good health in between these periods. when unwell, they can certainly pose a risk to others. however, as i have already said, the greater risk is generally to themselves. the vast majority of homicides in this country are not perpetrated by the mentally ill. they account for about 3% of all homicides. sure, the media will latch on to that 3% though, and will print sensationalist and emotive headlines "crazed killer.... psycho gunman..... lunatic at large" etc etc etc. that crap in the media does nothing for the public perception and leads to people making frankly ill-informed judgements. you cannot lock people up because they "might" be a risk to someone else at some unknown point in the future. if you do that, you may as well lock up everyone, because i have news for you, we all have the potential to become mentally ill. it could happen you, me or anyone elso tomorrow. your final sentence, quite frankly, disgusts me. who are you, and who are any of us, to decide that one person's life is "more worth living" than anyone else's? thats a very dangerous slippery slope to be starting on. as i have already said, i feel sorry for your relative, and i hope the rest of your family are more tolerant and supportive.
irish_bob wrote: » my post wasnt directed at you , i didnt quote one of your posts i dont care what you think , your not the 1st judgemental person ive ever met and you wont be the last i stand by what i said , people who are not right are treated too sensitivley in this country nowadays
irish_bob wrote: » while as a psychiatricst in here has already stated , the police can arrange for a doctor to see someone they suspect of being a danger to themselves
sam34 wrote: » firstly, i never claimed that your post was directed at me. secondly, while you didnt quote me directly, you made reference to a previous post of mine on this thread. (highlighted above for you) thirdly, LOL at you calling me judgemental, when you clearly have such a narrow-mimded and stigmatising attitude towards mental illness, despite claiming to have a family member affected. fourthly, you seem to be advocating locking up permanently those people who are ill. throwing away the key, in effect. this is a gross infringement of peoples human rights and in blatant contravention of the european charter of human rights. see, the mentally ill are people too, remember? they have rights like you and me. you cannot lock people up permanently because they *might* at some stage pose a risk to someone. what do you use to measure that potential risk? as i already pointed out, everyone has the potential to become mentally ill... should we lock everyone up preemptively?? or should we lock up all males between the ages of 17 to 25, because thats when most schizophrenic illnesses develop in young males? or maybe we should lock up young male drivers - i mean, they're involved in a lot of fatal road traffic accidents, so therefore they are a danger on the roads to the general population..... lets lock them up while we're at it, shall we? no system, be it the psychiatric service or teh criminal justice system, is 100% foolproof. there will always, unfortunately, be mistakes made. there will be cases like the brendan o donnell one, where you can look back and see that services might have been able to intervene and might have been able to prevent the tragic outcome. but at the end of teh day, the fact remains that the vast majority of mentally ill people do not pose a risk to society at large. you cannot deprive a large group of people of their liberty indefinitely because a small portion of them may at some stage pose some risk. it is not feasible. and it is not right.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
