Man Shot Dead By Gardai During Attempted Robbery

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 02:26PM

"A well executed operation"
"Excellent work by OCU and all other members involved"

What the hell?!

If Gardaí knew there was going to be an armed robbery (supposedly armed gardaí were lying in wait in unmarked cars), how did they allow a situation to arise where lethal force was necessary, allowing an innocent bystander they knew was at risk to have a shotgun put to his head, and then allowed another lot of the scumbag robbers to flee the scene by car before eventually capturing them??!

How the f**k do they allow a situation like that to arise when they obviously had plenty of information as to exactly where and when the scumbags were planning to strike? Seems like an absolute jokeshop of an operation.

sunnyjim · 17-05-2009 02:41PM

Vote4pedro, people like you would be accusing them of being 'thought-police' if they were to arrest the scumbags as they left their house that morning.

Besides, they can't arrest anyone if no crime has been commited.

Murphy(Cork) · 17-05-2009 02:53PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

"A well executed operation"
"Excellent work by OCU and all other members involved"

What the hell?!

If Gardaí knew there was going to be an armed robbery (supposedly armed gardaí were lying in wait in unmarked cars), how did they allow a situation to arise where lethal force was necessary, allowing an innocent bystander they knew was at risk to have a shotgun put to his head, and then allowed another lot of the scumbag robbers to flee the scene by car before eventually capturing them??!

How the f**k do they allow a situation like that to arise when they obviously had plenty of information as to exactly where and when the scumbags were planning to strike? Seems like an absolute jokeshop of an operation.

Fan of 'Minority Report' I see :rolleyes:

donvito99 · 17-05-2009 02:53PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

"A well executed operation"
"Excellent work by OCU and all other members involved"

What the hell?!

If Gardaí knew there was going to be an armed robbery (supposedly armed gardaí were lying in wait in unmarked cars), how did they allow a situation to arise where lethal force was necessary, allowing an innocent bystander they knew was at risk to have a shotgun put to his head, and then allowed another lot of the scumbag robbers to flee the scene by car before eventually capturing them??!

How the f**k do they allow a situation like that to arise when they obviously had plenty of information as to exactly where and when the scumbags were planning to strike? Seems like an absolute jokeshop of an operation.

Even if the Gardai stopped the car earlier they still would have fired shots. The criminals wernt just gonna put down their guns.

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 02:58PM

sunnyjim wrote: »

Vote4pedro, people like you would be accusing them of being 'thought-police' if they were to arrest the scumbags as they left their house that morning.

Besides, they can't arrest anyone if no crime has been commited.

Excuse me, but what do you mean by 'people like me'? Someone who actually stops to look at the shooting dead of a man on a Dublin street and asks was it necessary that it came to that?

Facts are, Gardaí knew an armed robbery was about to take place, and that it would involve dangerous criminals who have shot victims before. They planned an operation, obviously a considerable one with the involvement of many different organisations. Somehow despite this prior knowledge and extensive resources they allowed a situation to develop whereby an innocent member of the public had a gun put to his head. They were then in a situation where they had to shoot dead a man instead of allowing our courts to deal with him. This same operation even managed to allow a car of the robbers to escape, despite all this prior knowledge they weren't even able to close the street down immediately, let alone intercept an armed robbery, which you have full prior knowledge of, before someone has a gun to his head?!

But you're right, "people like me" might actually ask these sort of questions instead of yahoo-ing that some bloke in a Garda bib managed to shoot someone dead.

And as for: Besides, they can't arrest anyone if no crime has been commited, I can only presume/hope you're not a member of the Garda as you would surely know several offences had been committed, very, very serious ones in fact.
Off the top of my head, had the Gardaí intercepted the cars carrying the robbers at the top of the street before they got near the securicor van which the Gardaí knew was the intended target, they could possibly have been convicted for; conspiracy, attempt, both of which, as far as I'm aware, allow the perp to be punished as if he had been convicted of the actual crime (so in this case they could have been given the exact same sentence as they would have got for the actual armed robbery, or assault causing harm, or assault on a peace officer or whatever they were to be convicted of). In addition, I'd have thought the Gardaí could have also used their information as to when and where the crime would go down, to get numerous others involved in the planning but not the execution of the crime under offence of complicity.
So there you go, an armed robbery stopped before it could get off the ground, a crime ring smashed, and no innocent people having shotguns pointed to their heads, the public not endangered, and leaving the courts to administer justice, which anyone with two braincells to rub together knows is the preferable way of administering justice in any civilised state.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above

And please don't be as ridiculous as to use terms like 'people like you' again.

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 03:01PM

Murphy(Cork) wrote: »

Fan of 'Minority Report' I see :rolleyes:

I'm afraid I don't quite follow?

donvito99 wrote: »

Even if the Gardai stopped the car earlier they still would have fired shots. The criminals wernt just gonna put down their guns.

Yes they may have still fired shots. But they wouldn't have endangered the public, been in a position to hold an innocent person hostage and endanger the public at large by allowing a car to speed away from the scene with armed and dangerous men inside. I'd have considered it preferable to follow and flank the vehicles till they could be intercepted in a way that doesn't cause serious risk of death to the public. But hey, that's just me.

budda15c · 17-05-2009 03:11PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

Excuse me, but what do you mean by 'people like me'? Someone who actually stops to look at the shooting dead of a man on a Dublin street and asks was it necessary that it came to that?

Facts are, Gardaí knew an armed robbery was about to take place, and that it would involve dangerous criminals who have shot victims before. They planned an operation, obviously a considerable one with the involvement of many different organisations. Somehow despite this prior knowledge and extensive resources they allowed a situation to develop whereby an innocent member of the public had a gun put to his head. They were then in a situation where they had to shoot dead a man instead of allowing our courts to deal with him. This same operation even managed to allow a car of the robbers to escape, despite all this prior knowledge they weren't even able to close the street down immediately, let alone intercept an armed robbery, which you have full prior knowledge of, before someone has a gun to his head?!

But you're right, "people like me" might actually ask these sort of questions instead of yahoo-ing that some bloke in a Garda bib managed to shoot someone dead.

And as for: Besides, they can't arrest anyone if no crime has been commited, I can only presume/hope you're not a member of the Garda as you would surely know several offences had been committed, very, very serious ones in fact.
Off the top of my head, had the Gardaí intercepted the cars carrying the robbers at the top of the street before they got near the securicor van which the Gardaí knew was the intended target, they could possibly have been convicted for; conspiracy, attempt, both of which, as far as I'm aware, allow the perp to be punished as if he had been convicted of the actual crime (so in this case they could have been given the exact same sentence as they would have got for the actual armed robbery, or assault causing harm, or assault on a peace officer or whatever they were to be convicted of). In addition, I'd have thought the Gardaí could have also used their information as to when and where the crime would go down, to get numerous others involved in the planning but not the execution of the crime under offence of complicity.
So there you go, an armed robbery stopped before it could get off the ground, a crime ring smashed, and no innocent people having shotguns pointed to their heads, the public not endangered, and leaving the courts to administer justice, which anyone with two braincells to rub together knows is the preferable way of administering justice in any civilised state.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above And please don't be as ridiculous as to use terms like 'people like you' again.

Firstly, I'm not a member of AGS. This guy had a string of previous convictions and if I'm not mistaken, according to one of the earlier posts, one of them was a firearms offence (open to correction).

This is a perfect example of how rehabilitation and minor prison sentances/convictions haven't worked. Had they been intercepted and convicted of a more minor charge they would be on the streets in a couple of years, if not months doing this sh1t again, with probably even more street cred. These people need to be taken off OUR streets for as long as possible and for good if possible.

Hindsight is a great thing and this appears to be the way this discussion is going..

Relevant · 17-05-2009 03:14PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

Excuse me, but what do you mean by 'people like me'? Someone who actually stops to look at the shooting dead of a man on a Dublin street and asks was it necessary that it came to that?

Facts are, Gardaí knew an armed robbery was about to take place, and that it would involve dangerous criminals who have shot victims before. They planned an operation, obviously a considerable one with the involvement of many different organisations. Somehow despite this prior knowledge and extensive resources they allowed a situation to develop whereby an innocent member of the public had a gun put to his head. They were then in a situation where they had to shoot dead a man instead of allowing our courts to deal with him. This same operation even managed to allow a car of the robbers to escape, despite all this prior knowledge they weren't even able to close the street down immediately, let alone intercept an armed robbery, which you have full prior knowledge of, before someone has a gun to his head?!

But you're right, "people like me" might actually ask these sort of questions instead of yahoo-ing that some bloke in a Garda bib managed to shoot someone dead.

And as for: Besides, they can't arrest anyone if no crime has been commited, I can only presume/hope you're not a member of the Garda as you would surely know several offences had been committed, very, very serious ones in fact.
Off the top of my head, had the Gardaí intercepted the cars carrying the robbers at the top of the street before they got near the securicor van which the Gardaí knew was the intended target, they could possibly have been convicted for; conspiracy, attempt, both of which, as far as I'm aware, allow the perp to be punished as if he had been convicted of the actual crime (so in this case they could have been given the exact same sentence as they would have got for the actual armed robbery, or assault causing harm, or assault on a peace officer or whatever they were to be convicted of). In addition, I'd have thought the Gardaí could have also used their information as to when and where the crime would go down, to get numerous others involved in the planning but not the execution of the crime under offence of complicity.
So there you go, an armed robbery stopped before it could get off the ground, a crime ring smashed, and no innocent people having shotguns pointed to their heads, the public not endangered, and leaving the courts to administer justice, which anyone with two braincells to rub together knows is the preferable way of administering justice in any civilised state.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above And please don't be as ridiculous as to use terms like 'people like you' again.

Your first point is based around the assumption that the gardai were privvy to the full plan of the gang in full and could predict exactly how everything would happen.

Secondly, what exactly would they have arrested them for in advance? How would you prove they were on their way to rob a security van in a court? The only possible charge would be one for possession of a firearm and since reports in the paper suggest that they were not all in the one car this charge would only be brought against one gang member. Attempting to stop the car in advance would still have lead to an incident potentially endangering members of the public and gardai.

Finally, you discuss the "facts" Unless you were there and were one of the guys involved you dont know the facts and are merely speculating

timmywex · 17-05-2009 03:20PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't quite follow?

Yes they may have still fired shots. But they wouldn't have endangered the public, been in a position to hold an innocent person hostage and endanger the public at large by allowing a car to speed away from the scene with armed and dangerous men inside. I'd have considered it preferable to follow and flank the vehicles till they could be intercepted in a way that doesn't cause serious risk of death to the public. But hey, that's just me.

Ah, so stop one person with a firearm, and get one conviction rarther than multiple ones! Where would you have stopped them? Every road has houses and people walking, and even stopping the car would be hard! It was much better option to follow and observe, then let them make their move first, then corner them, rather than trying to stop a car with firearms on board, and having a high speed chase through a city with the possibility of shots being fired aswell!!

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 03:28PM

Firstly, I'm not a member of AGS. This guy had a string of previous convictions and if I'm not mistaken, according to one of the earlier posts, one of them was a firearms offence (open to correction).

This is a perfect example of how rehabilitation and minor prison sentances/convictions haven't worked. Had they been intercepted and convicted of a more minor charge they would be on the streets in a couple of years, if not months doing this sh1t again, with probably even more street cred. These people need to be taken off OUR streets for as long as possible and for good if possible.

More minor charges? A conviction for attempt can bring the same conviction as a conviction for the actual crime! The reason you want them taken off our streets is presumably so they don't go around holding shotguns to people heads or speeding off from crime scenes, yet both those situations were allowed develop on Friday.

Relevant wrote: »

Your first point is based around the assumption that the gardai were privvy to the full plan of the gang in full and could predict exactly how everything would happen.

It's an assumption yes, but considering the Gardaí seemed to know exactly where they would strike (they were lying in wait) and knew the intended target (and so the exact time they would strike) is it too much to suggest being in a position to 'lockdown' the street's exits or be quickly ready to intercept the robbers is too much? Really?

Secondly, what exactly would they have arrested them for in advance? How would you prove they were on their way to rob a security van in a court? The only possible charge would be one for possession of a firearm and since reports in the paper suggest that they were not all in the one car this charge would only be brought against one gang member. Attempting to stop the car in advance would still have lead to an incident potentially endangering members of the public and gardai.

If you had have read my post above, possession of a firearm is not necessarily the only crime they committed. Clearly there was conspiracy to commit an armed robbery, the Gardaí must have had the information as to that if they were lying in wait, and an attempt was made if there were 8 blokes with balaclavas and shotguns stopped a half mile away from the securicor van.
yes, there still would be danger involved, but you know what also involves danger to the public? Armed robbery which leads to a guy almost having his head blown off.

So streching this, is it ok to use members of the public to lure out violent criminals just so they'll go down for lets say, 10 years instead of 5?

Finally, you discuss the "facts" Unless you were there and were one of the guys involved you dont know the facts and are merely speculating

You are right, excuse me, I'm just going by what numerous newspapers are reporting. May I ask why you didn't use that line to rebut all those people above saying that this scumbag was a robber? Surely those people also don't know the full facts as they weren't there :rolleyes:

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 03:30PM

timmywex wrote: »

Ah, so stop one person with a firearm, and get one conviction rarther than multiple ones! Where would you have stopped them? Every road has houses and people walking, and even stopping the car would be hard! It was much better option to follow and observe, then let them make their move first, then corner them, rather than trying to stop a car with firearms on board, and having a high speed chase through a city with the possibility of shots being fired aswell!!

You seemed to have ignored what I said about them being able to charge these guys for numerous other offences. But sure you're right, what a shame the Gardaí didn't allow yer man to maybe blow a leg off one of the securicor workers, sure then the whole lot of them could have been done on some sort of even more serious conspiracy charge. happy days then!

And please, please, now that I someone is here asking rational, reasoned, polite and sober questions of the Gardai and of this grizly and serious incident, can we avoid someone coming on and crying about it being dragged off topic (it's not) and that it should probably be locked merely because someone is asking some questions and trying to foster a debate about such a serious incident instead of us all trawling through 70 posts of "Well done garda, its the only way them scum will get learned".

Relevant · 17-05-2009 03:39PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

It's an assumption yes, but considering the Gardaí seemed to know exactly where they would strike (they were lying in wait) and knew the intended target (and so the exact time they would strike) is it too much to suggest being in a position to 'lockdown' the street's exits or be quickly ready to intercept the robbers is too much? Really?

It is not necessarily the case that the information they had was admissable as evidence. In order to "lockdown" the street they would have had to evacuate all the houses, divert cars, get people to leave their workplaces, do you not thing the gang would get suspicious?

vote4pedro wrote: »

If you had have read my post above, possession of a firearm is not necessarily the only crime they committed. Clearly there was conspiracy to commit an armed robbery, the Gardaí must have had the information as to that if they were lying in wait, and an attempt was made if there were 8 blokes with balaclavas and shotguns stopped a half mile away from the securicor van.
yes, there still would be danger involved, but you know what also involves danger to the public? Armed robbery which leads to a guy almost having his head blown off.

The courts operate on a basis that you have to prove the intent. It would be very difficult to prove that the gang intended to rob it even if they were found with balaclavas and a gun

vote4pedro wrote: »

So streching this, is it ok to use members of the public to lure out violent criminals just so they'll go down for lets say, 10 years instead of 5?

As has been already discussed you cannot arrest someone until they commit a crime.

vote4pedro wrote: »

You are right, excuse me, I'm just going by what numerous newspapers are reporting. May I ask why you didn't use that line to rebut all those people above saying that this scumbag was a robber? Surely those people also don't know the full facts as they weren't there :rolleyes:

My point was that you are coming out saying what the gardai (who are trained professionals at this type of incident) should have done, but you are basing it on ideals and speculation.

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 03:50PM

Relevant wrote: »

It is not necessarily the case that the information they had was admissable as evidence. In order to "lockdown" the street they would have had to evacuate all the houses, divert cars, get people to leave their workplaces, do you not thing the gang would get suspicious?

I meant park a Garda car at either end to prevent escape by car. Not rocket science. Don't Gardaí even have those 'stingers' available to them which puncture tyres that drive over them?

The courts operate on a basis that you have to prove the intent. It would be very difficult to prove that the gang intended to rob it even if they were found with balaclavas and a gun

No, it wouldn't, especially coupled with whatever Garda surveillance information they had already put together.

As has been already discussed you cannot arrest someone until they commit a crime.

As I have already said, that is wrong: Conspiracy, attempt and complicity are actionable under our criminal law.

Relevant · 17-05-2009 03:57PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

I meant park a Garda car at either end to prevent escape by car. Not rocket science. Don't Gardaí even have those 'stingers' available to them which puncture tyres that drive over them?

Yes they should do that, in an ideal world. The stinger could also potentially cause the car to lose control and plough into a group of kids on the side of the road

vote4pedro wrote: »

No, it wouldn't, especially coupled with whatever Garda surveillance information they had already put together.

As I have already said, that is wrong: Conspiracy, attempt and complicity are actionable under our criminal law.

There is no point in arguing with you any further on this. I fully accept that under law it is possible to prosecute someone for conspiracy but getting the evidence to back it is not an easy thing to do

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 04:01PM

Relevant wrote: »

Yes they should do that, in an ideal world. The stinger could also potentially cause the car to lose control and plough into a group of kids on the side of the road

Grand, if you think that, we'll go for a garda car or two parked at either end of the road so.

There is no point in arguing with you any further on this. I fully accept that under law it is possible to prosecute someone for conspiracy but getting the evidence to back it is not an easy thing to do

So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

Relevant · 17-05-2009 04:04PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

It isn't about "making the case easier" It is about there being a case to begin with.

ART6 · 17-05-2009 04:10PM

Vote4pedro you have put forward reasoned arguments but I would contest them. I am not in the AGS, have no police or military experience, am not a lawyer or court official, and was not there. I can only go by the news reports and by giving some thought to an issue outside of my experience. Obviously the Gardai had intelligence that the raid was planned, but would that intelligence stand up in court? Is it provable evidence? I might have gained intelligence in my local pub that my neighbor was planning the rob my house, but if I go to the Gardai and tell them that, will they arrest him? Will they stop him in the street and arrest him if he has a jemmy in his car and is near my house? Will a court sentence him if they do?

There is another issue here too. As in war, intelligence is all very well, as is a carefully planned strategy, but both must take into account the fact that the opposition can also think, plan, and react to changing circumstances. All the good guys can do is to choose a plan and be prepared to adapt it as circumstances change. I don't doubt that the Gardai plan was to handcuff the lot of them before they could complete the crime (why would they not? It would be a hell of a lot safer than a shootout), but that didn't happen because of how the crooks reacted. I cannot see how that situation could have been dealt with in any way other that the way it was.

vote4pedro · 17-05-2009 04:13PM

It isn't about "making the case easier" It is about there being a case to begin with.

Garda sources that give exact time, date and whereabouts of attempted robbery, presumably the people involved too + intercepting those people near the scene of the crime + intercepting them with weapons and other paraphenalia, all at the exact time the tip-off says the crime will go down.

You're actually going to tell me there's no case at all to be answered re: conspiracy or attempt to commit armed robbery

Relevant · 17-05-2009 04:19PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

Garda sources that give exact time, date and whereabouts of attempted robbery, presumably the people involved too + intercepting those people near the scene of the crime + intercepting them with weapons and other paraphenalia, all at the exact time the tip-off says the crime will go down.

You're actually going to tell me there's no case at all to be answered re: conspiracy or attempt to commit armed robbery

The source of the information might have been some bloke in a pub. While the information is good enough to act on it is not necessarily sufficient for the courts. Also getting people to testify against these lads isn't always easy

Mutz · 17-05-2009 04:20PM

vote4pedro wrote: »

Grand, if you think that, we'll go for a garda car or two parked at either end of the road so.

So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

Vote4pedro, in the real world, things never go according to plan and if the criminals don't want to be caught, they'll try everything and go through anyone to escape.

If the Guards had blocked the road as you say, we could be dealing with two or more dead or seriously injured Gardai as a result of being rammed or shot at. The result would more or less be the same, proportionate use of force would have been used regardless.

Yes, I agree that a member of the public was put at risk but sure wouldn't the said member of the public still be at risk had the Gardai not been present?

Good to see that the Guards have some stones these days to tackle. And as for the Courts treating these gangs seriously and giving proper sentences, thats the biggest laugh I've heard in a while!

My two cents.

tricky D · 17-05-2009 04:52PM

Vote4pedro, you make assumptions which are incorrect according to eyewitnesses' accounts.

The Gardai were not lying in wait for them as unexpected events disrupted the plans of both the Gardai and the raiders. They were following other members of the gang and assumed the raid would be on a scheduled cash drop-off. Two National Surveillance Unit members were going to the shop to warn people and take necessary measures to protect the public when a second Securicor van arrived unscheduled (due to randomising movements/routines) and this one was raided. This caught both the Gardai and the radiers unexpectedly so nothing went exactly to plan for either 'side' and negates your assertion that the Gardai wilfully endangered the security guard's life. The NSU had little time to react and normally would leave such an interception to the other more specialised units (open to correction on the assumption that ERU or others would be the preferred interceptors). However on their arrival they saw a shotgun being held to the head of the guard. They shouted their warning, raider turned to shoot Gardai and got killed and the other one was shot. The NSU didn't have the luxury of having enough time to figure out if the other raider was armed. Public/Gardai in danger, warning, proportional force = lawful killing.

Source - Sunday Tribune account based on 5 witnesses.

AlekSmart · 17-05-2009 05:43PM

But you're right, "people like me" might actually ask these sort of questions instead of yahoo-ing that some bloke in a Garda bib managed to shoot someone dead.

And please, please, now that I someone is here asking rational, reasoned, polite and sober questions of the Gardai and of this grizly and serious incident, can we avoid someone coming on and crying about it being dragged off topic (it's not) and that it should probably be locked merely because someone is asking some questions and trying to foster a debate about such a serious incident instead of us all trawling through 70 posts of "Well done garda, its the only way them scum will get learned".

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above And please don't be as ridiculous as to use terms like 'people like you' again.

It`s difficult to read Pedro`s posts and not pause to wonder if there will ever be a world of such perfection that he will be happy in.

I note and share his discomfort with the "People like You" retort,yet I am also uncomfortable with his own use of the term "Some Bloke in a Garda Bib" as applied to the Garda who shot the two perpetrators.

Perhaps there are other issues with the notion of law enforcement which has allowed Pedro to focus on this one sad,grisly and senseless incident as if it had been some form of Fringe Festival production staged for public appreciation ?

I have little doubt but "That Bloke in a Garda Bib" had to draw very deeply upon whatever training and experience he possessed during the few seconds he had to make the judgement call as to whether to use lethal force or not.

I would suggest that that "Bloke in the Garda Bib" was granted very little leeway and in fact had the call made for him by the actions of the deceased and his accomplices

Attempting to dehumanise Authority Figures such as Police Officers is of course a long standing and well practiced tactic of many differing social elements who for whatever reasons do not accept the prevailing social or administrative mores.

However,in this particular case It appears to be used on a very personal level against a Garda,who is now and always has been,fully accountable for his actions.
Im quite sure Pedro will have full opportunity to second-guess and criticise the actions of that "Bloke in the Garda Bib" when the results of the Garda Ombudsmans investigation is complete.

I`m hopeful that if the results of such Investigation merit it,Pedro might just have in in him to acknowledge that,and perhaps offer an apology or even a consideration to another human being who found himself placed in a virtually impossible position that day.

In the meantime Pedro and any other individuals who harbour misgivings about the conduct of the Garda operation also have the Garda Ombudsmans Office as an independent body which WILL consider and act upon sustainable accusations of the type which Pedro so strongly believes in.

For my part I`m satisfied that it was a successful operation which concluded with minimal but still regrettable loss of life.
I believe that were it not for the Garda action there could well have been a far worse outcome.

It should also be borne in mind that the intelligence value from the foiling of the raid will yield substantial amounts of information.
Documents,mobile phones and other paraphernailia carried by the raiders could well be used to compromise a vast amount of associated criminal activity before it ever reaches the stage of Fridays event.

I hope that Pedro does not see anything in my opinion which represents a Yahoo reaction ?

Zambia · 17-05-2009 05:44PM

I would be of the opinion you wait to get as much evidence as possible as when you get the chance to arrest someone for such crimes you want to take them off the street for as long as possible.

Lets say you believe that you have a group in a car armed and ready for a raid. You jump the gun stop the car have the offenders dragged out only to find some balaclavas and a sawn off hurley in a sack, No offence there. You now cant go back to watching as the offenders know they are blown they lie low your budget restraint gets the surveilance unit watchers re-assigned and in a few months the offenders are back in business.

God knows when you get the chance again so when you want to arrest someone you make bloody sure there is no doubt when you show your hand.

I should piont out I'm not a Garda but I reckon that's how I would want them to work.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 17-05-2009 09:13PM

tricky D wrote: »

The NSU didn't have the luxury of having enough time to figure out if the other raider was armed. Public/Gardai in danger, warning, proportional force = lawful killing.

.

Is it even neccessry that a person to be armed for a guard to shoot them?.

Zambia · 18-05-2009 04:34AM

In all cases I believe there simply has to be a real and immediate threat to life, there is no provision to state they must be armed.

It it would just be harder to justify the shoot under review. Its a bit like the theory for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 18-05-2009 09:58AM

Firstly, well done to the AGS and the units involved, they did what had to be done. I feel a strange sense of pride that my state is standing up for itself and not allowing itself to be bullied.

I fully believe that these organised criminal gangs represent a very real threat to the state. That is, a threat to our country and a threat to every law abiding citizen in this state.

As an aside I was travelling in a bus through Hyde Road in Limerick (area associated with the Dundon/Mc Carthy gang) and I saw a pretty large piece of graffiti on the wall that said:

"ERU are rats"

I laughed. If they hate the ERU and their colleagues so much, then AGS must be doing a good job!

A lot of good work done and a lot left to do.

tricky D · 18-05-2009 12:04PM

Warren Proud Medalist wrote: »

Is it even neccessry that a person to be armed for a guard to shoot them?.

Dunno exactly, but I reckon reasonable suspicion, obscurred view and/or perceived immediate threat would be in play.

ART6 · 18-05-2009 03:21PM

A friend just emailed this to me. Not connected to this incident, but it does show how people in other countries see such things?

A guy in Polk County, Florida, got pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He "executed" the deputy who stopped him, shooting him eight times including once behind his right ear. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.

The killer was found hiding in a wooded area with his guns. SWAT team officers opened fire on him and hit him 68 times. Naturally the media went nuts and asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinal "Because that's all the ammunition we had!"

I am not suggesting that we should operate like that in Ireland, but I have to admit it does seem an effective way of removing a killer from the gene pool without getting into hysterics about his human rights.:)

utick · 19-05-2009 11:38PM

ART6 wrote: »

A friend just emailed this to me. Not connected to this incident, but it does show how people in other countries see such things?

A guy in Polk County, Florida, got pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He "executed" the deputy who stopped him, shooting him eight times including once behind his right ear. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.

The killer was found hiding in a wooded area with his guns. SWAT team officers opened fire on him and hit him 68 times. Naturally the media went nuts and asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinal "Because that's all the ammunition we had!"

I am not suggesting that we should operate like that in Ireland, but I have to admit it does seem an effective way of removing a killer from the gene pool without getting into hysterics about his human rights.:)

a lot of gun nuts around here, you can shoot burglers too, also recently someone told me if two people break into your home and you shoot one dead and the other one lives, if the police catch the survivor he can be charged with his acomplices murder.

hk · 20-05-2009 11:14AM

The above situation in the states is, i believe, that if somebody is killed during the commission of a crime, all persons involved in that crime are responsible for murder regardless of whether they actually pulled the trigger, ie if during a bank robbery one member of a gang kills a person then all memebrs of the gang participating in the robbery can be charged with murder. Similarly the above situation is that a person was committing a robbery which resulted in a person being killed, regardless of whether it was their accomplace or not.

Man Shot Dead By Gardai During Attempted Robbery

Comments