Time to arm the gardai

bravestar · 08-12-2009 09:39PM

OP, I believe that full time serving members of AGS should be give the option of being armed on an individual level. If they choose to do so, then they are given the appropriate training and armed. If any member does not wish to be armed, then they can opt out of it.

realismpol · 08-12-2009 09:41PM

bravestar wrote: »

OP, I believe that full time serving members of AGS should be give the option of being armed on an individual level. If they choose to do so, then they are given the appropriate training and armed. If any member does not wish to be armed, then they can opt out of it.

Yeah actually i was thinking along those lines. Thats probably the best solution for all.

Whitewater-AGS · 08-12-2009 09:43PM

Hellm0 wrote: »

There will ALWAYS be a criminal element. We have the ERU for serious occasions where that level of force is required. But granting the police the ability to carry arms for day to day tasks simply is not wise. By allowing the Gardai to carry arms on every occasion we also grant them the power to decide, on the spot (and as a representative of the state) whether a member of the public needs a bullet in the head. This is not something lost on the criminal community, the knowledge that a situation can escalate to the use of firearms that bit easier will, without a doubt, increase the danger of that situation for everyone. I would rather a Gardai get slashed in the face doing his job than the embrace a society where law is enforced at the end of a bayonet.

But why should I be faced with the risk of getting slashed in the face?
A batton and spray v knife is not a level playing field full stop!

donvito99 · 08-12-2009 09:45PM

realismpol wrote: »

I want examples of european countries where the above you are stating has happened. Yeah. Because if you can't back up your statements with facts to a degree then what your saying does not hold any sort of merit.

Where in you're posts have you backed up your statements to a sufficient degree? If you can point this out to me and generally detail what kind of background you have in the matter(which you seem to have)then I stand corrected. However, you kinda have to have some sort of experience at this stage by the way you've put down and disregarded other peoples posts, quite moderator-ish at some times.

Your over exaggerating the situation. A garda deciding wheither to put a bullet in someones head??? You know about procedure and training with firearms with comments like that of course. There would be strict guidelines for the use of firearms by police as there are in all countries. Thats what training is for. Its not just a garda deciding hey this guy looks threatening ill just have to pop one in his head look out joe public here i come.

Thats not what happens there are strick procedures for even when a gun can be unholstered and actually even pointed at someone. Lethal force is the last option anyone ever wants to take unless your life or the life of a member of the public is directly at risk. Talk about using hyperbolic statements.

And the last comment you'd rather a garda gets slashed in the face then use a firearm. WOW just wow how someone could say such a thing boggles the mind. Obviously not a serving member are you?

Please quit the hyperbolic factless statements and we can have a proper debate on the merits of using firearms.

This isn't the wild west and please have some more faith in public representatives then to assume they would just put a bullet in the head of their fellow citizens for the sake of it.

Where did he say that this is what Gardaí will go out doing for the most minor situations.

realismpol · 08-12-2009 09:48PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Where in you're posts have you backed up your statements to a sufficient degree? If you can point this out to me and generally detail what kind of background you have in the matter(which you seem to have)then I stand corrected. However, you kinda have to have some sort of experience at this stage by the way you've put down and disregarded other peoples posts, quite moderator-ish at some times.

I can do that no problem but the problem is or seems to be argument for the sake of argument rather then a proper debate in the context of the original posting.

In the end of the day the best solution i think for everyone would be if we simply put it to the irish people and the gardai to have their vote on wheither they should be armed or not.

bravestar · 08-12-2009 09:51PM

Hellm0 wrote: »

There will ALWAYS be a criminal element. We have the ERU for serious occasions where that level of force is required. But granting the police the ability to carry arms for day to day tasks simply is not wise. By allowing the Gardai to carry arms on every occasion we also grant them the power to decide, on the spot (and as a representative of the state) whether a member of the public needs a bullet in the head. This is not something lost on the criminal community, the knowledge that a situation can escalate to the use of firearms that bit easier will, without a doubt, increase the danger of that situation for everyone. I would rather a Gardai get slashed in the face doing his job than the embrace a society where law is enforced at the end of a bayonet.

As a serving member I find your comment both offensive and sickening.

donvito99 · 08-12-2009 09:52PM

realismpol wrote: »

I can do that no problem but the problem is or seems to be argument for the sake of argument rather then a proper debate in the context of the original posting

Yes but I'm failing to believe your argument because I am currently under the opinion that you are posting baseless information, and are condemning my and others post.

I have said many times where I stand.

realismpol · 08-12-2009 09:55PM

Look in the end of the day this debate is getting a little heated and we probably myself included should tone it down a bit. Its getting a little too personal. People are making comments they will later regret and that are very offensive.

I think that the best solution is to let the irish people and the gardai themselves have a vote on this. Its naturally a very heated issue however its one i personally think needs to be addressed. We can't deny that crime in general is getting worse. We just have to look at the amount of robberies, assaults and murders taking place to know this. Attacks on gardai are getting worse and only this year we've already had a few attempts on gardai lives one very serious. Im simply putting my case forward that i feel its about time we at least take into consideration that all serving members of the gaurds need to be armed.

The best way is probably a referendum. That way everyone accepts the outcome democratically.

donvito99 · 08-12-2009 09:58PM

realismpol wrote: »

Look in the end of the day this debate is getting a little heated and we probably myself included should tone it down a bit. Its getting a little too personal. People are making comments they will later regret and that are very offensive.

I think that the best solution is to let the irish people and the gardai themselves have a vote on this.

Completely agree with ya. If Gardaí say We want sidearms, fair play, I have no problem with that. because I trust them to know what their doing, and they obviously know some thing they don't.

Yet you still haven't answered a question I have posed to you a number of times,

generally detail what kind of background you have in the matter(which you seem to have)

realismpol · 08-12-2009 10:01PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Completely agree with ya. If Gardaí say We want sidearms, fair play, I have no problem with that. because I trust them to know what their doing, and they obviously know some thing they don't.

Yet you still haven't answered a question I have posed to you a number of times,

sure im robocop.

Hellm0 · 08-12-2009 10:41PM

bravestar wrote: »

As a serving member I find your comment both offensive and sickening.

I, like every other citizen of Ireland, should not have to be worried about how offended or sickened our public servants are. You took a job to defend the public safety and the Republic of Ireland, and for that you deserve every bit of thanks I, and others, can muster. But surely you, as a fellow citizen, are aware of the trade offs between having a civil society and living in a police state. Giving every officer the option of lethal force is like treating a skin rash with a flame thrower.

Interesting article btw

TheNog · 08-12-2009 11:57PM

Hellm0 wrote: »

I, like every other citizen of Ireland, should not have to be worried about how offended or sickened our public servants are.

Does this mean the citizens of Ireland walk all over and treat us like dirt?

Seems so from your comments so far especially about the slashing in the face. Totally uncalled for and most certainly unacceptable.

You took a job to defend the public safety and the Republic of Ireland, and for that you deserve every bit of thanks I, and others, can muster. But surely you, as a fellow citizen, are aware of the trade offs between having a civil society and living in a police state. Giving every officer the option of lethal force is like treating a skin rash with a flame thrower.

Interesting article btw

You are comparisions of civil and police state are tbh very much over the top and to compare policing with what could happen Ireland as to what is happening in Brazil is tabloidish.

Compare like with like so do so with policing in Developed Countries.

Ian Beale · 09-12-2009 12:02AM

Hellm0 wrote: »

I, like every other citizen of Ireland, should not have to be worried about how offended or sickened our public servants are. You took a job to defend the public safety and the Republic of Ireland, and for that you deserve every bit of thanks I, and others, can muster. But surely you, as a fellow citizen, are aware of the trade offs between having a civil society and living in a police state. Giving every officer the option of lethal force is like treating a skin rash with a flame thrower.

Interesting article btw

They also have a right to go home to their families in one piece at the end of the day, if all Gardaí were armed it's not like they'd suddenly go around drawing their weapons every opportunity they get, it's about having the necessary equipment to deal with any situation and using common sense to determine what force is needed whether that be a baton, spray or firearm.

the locust · 09-12-2009 12:31AM

foreign wrote: »

Being trained in using a firearm will not make a member any more or less professional, you either are or are not.

I can see what your saying and where your coming from but 'stick to my guns' haha! What you say is true but, I believe being trained in firearms and having to carry one makes a person switch on more and take there job more seriously. i.e. think more about going into a situation and what can come of it. Also the discipline of carrying a firearm, i.e. not taking your belt off and leaving it behind your arse in the office. Management wouldn't let a lot of idiots through the college if they couldn't trust them with firearms. Which would wean out undesirables in the recruitment/training, upping the standard.

foreign wrote: »

You earn respect from people in your dealings with them, not because you are carrying a firearm. And that will never change.

True. I agree. But do you ever notice when people spot a firearm on a plain clothes member, people start whispering to each other about the gun like school kids! Uniforms will be there taking details for example talking and giving advice and then the man that carries the gun turns up and gets more respect than the uniformed member! I know that's a stereotype but its true. Like they have more experience or are in some way more skilled - its maybe stupid and weird but people in a strange way respect that, and thats the respect i was referring to.

coach23 · 09-12-2009 12:39AM

Hellm0 wrote: »

I, like every other citizen of Ireland, should not have to be worried about how offended or sickened our public servants are. You took a job to defend the public safety and the Republic of Ireland, and for that you deserve every bit of thanks I, and others, can muster. But surely you, as a fellow citizen, are aware of the trade offs between having a civil society and living in a police state. Giving every officer the option of lethal force is like treating a skin rash with a flame thrower.

Interesting article btw

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong every officer already has the option of lethal force lad an asp baton can very very easily deliver a lethal strike and it's a credit to the gardai and the instruction given to them that this hasn't happened yet. and before you say well obviously the the guards arent going to hit lads in the head with a piece of metal, your right they'll try not to but the amount of times lads put their heads down towards the area going to be hit in an attempt to curl up or to not get hit is unreal and as i said its a credit to the training given to them and the ability of individual gardai to strike in the right place or to strike at all that saves serious injury or potential life threatening head wounds. Gardai armed would do the same thing, fall back on training and common sense.

op i see your heart is in the right place but it may be coming out a bit strong for most people taste. i think your trying to put the point of officer safety to the fore here and your right we should have the choice to be armed or not but a referendum is not needed the decision to arm gardai is purely up to one man, Fachtna murphy, he alone has the power to decide how gardai are armed and what it is they are armed with

the irish people arent ready for us to be armed some gardai arent ready lad, but the choice of whether i should be armed in this job should be mine its not about shooting people it's about not getting shot and holding an asp baton or can of oc spray to a man with a gun isn't going to stop that. Armed gardai are not readily enough available the RSU is an excellent step in the right direction but i think we need more of it and higher profile.

CharlieCroker · 09-12-2009 01:04AM

From a personal point of view I wouldn't want to be armed with a firearm at work.
I have been trained previously in both automatic rifles and handguns and have been deemed competent so that doesn't worry me.
I just dont believe that I need to be armed for me to do my job. What was required was pepper spray which has been issued, thank god and for the moment i believe that to be enough.
If something were to happen to society in the future that required me to carry a firearm, then i would but at the moment I don't want one.

Bare in mind though that all armed units (in my area anyway) are also issued with ASP and spray. The use of a firearm is the ABSOLUTE final stage in subdueing an offender. I've met plenty of armed members who've NEVER drawn their sidearm while on duty. As a result of this, i don't believe the whole force needs to be armed.

bravestar · 09-12-2009 01:47AM

Hellm0 wrote: »

I, like every other citizen of Ireland, should not have to be worried about how offended or sickened our public servants are. You took a job to defend the public safety and the Republic of Ireland, and for that you deserve every bit of thanks I, and others, can muster. But surely you, as a fellow citizen, are aware of the trade offs between having a civil society and living in a police state. Giving every officer the option of lethal force is like treating a skin rash with a flame thrower.

Interesting article btw

Well I, like every other member of AGS, are also citizens of Ireland and more importantly are human beings. The disdain your comment shows for members safety is sickening and you should be ashamed it.

Zambia · 09-12-2009 02:31AM

realismpol wrote: »

sure im robocop.

Robocop

The rank and file members are not calling for themselves to be armed. If they walk around doing the job every day and don't see the urgent need. I am happy enough there is no urgent need.

The other night I dealt with someone and between me and the police we could have shot the bloke 75 times. He didn't respect us at all. Most criminals in the course of their work aim to avoid the police. As the plan does not involve the police who cares what the police have.

In the case in question the offender did not know there was a police officer present if he did he would have robbed somewhere else. He would not have said to himself "I'm ok as long as he is not armed".

Here in Australia every Cash in Transit Van is staffed by three Armed personnel. The cash in transit vans are still raided by Offenders. By your logic the presence of firearms should lead to a healthy avoidance of them.

So my points are #
They don't lead to greater respect.
They dont greatly increase the police being a deterent as the police are as great a deterent as their numbers allow.

When the AGS call to be armed that's when this debate needs to be held for real in the Dail.

I'm not really against you on this if I was in AGS I would want to be armed.

parsi · 09-12-2009 10:35AM

realismpol wrote: »

I want examples of european countries where the above you are stating has happened.

France (particulalry the suburbs of Paris) would be a prime example.

It's a different kettle of fish in some respects but it has happened there.

Eru · 09-12-2009 11:32AM

CiaranC wrote: »

Then why is there MORE crime in dozens and dozens of countries whose police forces carry guns than there is here?

I dont think youve thought this through.

By that logic no police would equal no crime at all. the police being armed doesnt cause gun crime just as having unarmed police doesnt cause non gun crime

source · 09-12-2009 12:00PM

Have any mules on here ever noticed that there is not much respect flowing from the eastern europeans towards the Gardai, having spoken to one while releasing him from custody, i asked him why all the attitude, he told me that in Poland they fear the police, because they'll be rough and have guns, whereas here we're too soft and the most we have is a baton.

Hooch · 09-12-2009 01:35PM

foinse wrote: »

Have any mules on here ever noticed that there is not much respect flowing from the eastern europeans towards the Gardai, having spoken to one while releasing him from custody, i asked him why all the attitude, he told me that in Poland they fear the police, because they'll be rough and have guns, whereas here we're too soft and the most we have is a baton.

Thats the point.....if you train a dog not to pee in the house by hitting him.......will he stop peeing out of respect....or fear??

I have always been against arming the whole service (hate being refered to as force anymore!!). We can do the job without it. People skills are better and respect is wide spread (apart from the view on some of these sites who are a small %). Im even against Tazer on a uniform belt. Tazer/bean bag round/Public Order O/C spray in certain cars would be a great help.

More armed units on patrol is what we need at the moment. Im not burying my head in the sand, but like thenog says I can see us being armed before I retire. And when the day come I will put it on my belt but until then I dont need, nor want one. AGS is now the only unarmed uniform police service on Earth....be proud of it.

CJhaughey · 09-12-2009 02:06PM

nice guy always wrote: »

AGS is now the only unarmed uniform police service on Earth....be proud of it.

You sure about that? AFAIK New Zealand is also unarmed uniform as well.

Hooch · 09-12-2009 02:08PM

CJhaughey wrote: »

You sure about that? AFAIK New Zealand is also unarmed uniform as well.

When I saw unarmed uniform, AGS cannot carry firearms in full uniform.

I believe New Zeland is an unarmed force, however if call it they may carry firearms in full unifrom.

We cannot, hense why RSU and Detectives do not wear regular uniform.

CJhaughey · 09-12-2009 02:22PM

nice guy always wrote: »

When I saw unarmed uniform, AGS cannot carry firearms in full uniform.

I believe New Zeland is an unarmed force, however if call it they may carry firearms in full unifrom.

We cannot, hense why RSU and Detectives do not wear regular uniform.

Ahh,OK I understand.

donvito99 · 09-12-2009 02:43PM

I believe that Sergeants in NZ carry firearms, open to correction of course.

pah · 11-12-2009 07:32PM

nice guy always wrote: »

hense why RSU and Detectives do not wear regular uniform.

RSU might aswell. Johnny scumbag off his head on coke on a job with a loaded shotgun doesn't know the difference between the group of RSU standing to his left and regular uniform to his right who may attend to the same call.

Liamario · 11-12-2009 07:34PM

The reality is, is that there are no Facilities!!!

coach23 · 12-12-2009 12:04AM

pah wrote: »

RSU might aswell. Johnny scumbag off his head on coke on a job with a loaded shotgun doesn't know the difference between the group of RSU standing to his left and regular uniform to his right who may attend to the same call.

RSU will be the ones pointing the MP7 at him, he'll get the difference fairly quickly!

Zambia · 12-12-2009 12:50AM

Liamario wrote: »

The reality is, is that there are no Facilities!!!

Expand please what facilities do you refer to ?

Time to arm the gardai

Comments