Garda shoots dog in Longford

Plumbthedepths · 06-12-2018 5:21pm

uptothetop wrote:

I thought that gards are not allowed to have guns. Do they have weapons?

Detectives are routinely armed. The ERU and ARU carry weapons in their vehicles. Roughly 25 per cent of the force is weapons qualified.

tuxy · 06-12-2018 5:22pm

uptothetop wrote: »

I thought that gards are not allowed to have guns. Do they have weapons?

Regular Gardi do not. Detectives,ARU and drug squad + a few more divisions do also. There is also a safe with guns in the station that can be opened at the request of the head garda on duty in case of an emergency. All Garda do receive some level of firearms training at some point.

The guy in the video was a detective and is required to carry a pistol when on duty.

facehugger99 · 06-12-2018 5:23pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Detectives are routinely armed.

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

tuxy · 06-12-2018 5:26pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

Why?
I still maintain that slash hooks and attack dogs being used against you is a legitimate reason to draw a weapon

seamus · 06-12-2018 5:27pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

Standard procedure here would be to suspend the Garda with pay pending the outcome of the Garda investigation.

Unless he's demoted, he will still carry his weapon.

There's very little to fault him on here. His weapon control was spot on; pointed away and down until needed, a clear verbal warning issued, and then a single shot fired when it wasn't heeded.

Plumbthedepths · 06-12-2018 5:31pm

facehugger99 wrote:

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

Why do you think that?

Plumbthedepths · 06-12-2018 5:33pm

seamus wrote:

There's very little to fault him on here. His weapon control was spot on; pointed away and down until needed, a clear verbal warning issued, and then a single shot fired when it wasn't heeded.

Perfectly exceuted response to an attack on an armed officer by the guard in question. He protected himself which he is required to do and minimised the danger to the public.

Gravelly · 06-12-2018 5:36pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

I think you are wrong.

The Guard acted in an extremely professional manner from what I've seen, and should be commended on his reactions. I feel sure the GSOC investigation will find he did nothing wrong.

upandcumming · 06-12-2018 6:10pm

tuxy wrote: »

https://i.gyazo.com/b8982c0e8c8624ce428b249f8bdf07ab.png

Let's play a game. What is holding the tie, bottom left.
That's as clear an image I can get.
Weird how some posters had claimed it was only the garda holding his own tie.

Really?
That's as good as some fella claiming that it was settled people going into halting sites dumping their rubbish!

Zorya · 06-12-2018 6:11pm

Gravelly wrote: »

I think you are wrong.

The Guard acted in an extremely professional manner from what I've seen, and should be commended on his reactions. I feel sure the GSOC investigation will find he did nothing wrong.

Yep, the video might even be used in future training sessions to show how a detective properly goes about neutralising an imminent threat. Keep calm. Try t talk people down. Issue clear warning if threatened. Respond appropriately and in a timely fashion when ignored.

Not to mention that it might make wrong-doers at least slightly less likely to set their attack dogs on the police force.

goat2 · 06-12-2018 6:15pm

tuxy wrote: »

Yes and you would hold the tie much closer to the neck if you wanted to take control of someone.

The dogs blood has been found now and will be safely held by forensics so it's not really up for debate anymore imo.

My theory would be the woman shot the video to get evidence of a Garda with his weapon drawn. She deliberately kept the dog out of frame and managed to get the gun going off too which she wouldn't have anticipated.

We did not see all of what happened, as I did not see or hear dogs in this video, I felt sorry for the Guard in this case, he was physically held by the tie by someone on that video.

Plumbthedepths · 06-12-2018 6:17pm

upandcumming wrote:

Really? That's as good as some fella claiming that it was settled people going into halting sites dumping their rubbish!

I remember the guy who made that claim. Seems he's gone to ground especially on threads with a particular subject matter.

gwalk · 06-12-2018 6:23pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I doubt the one in the video will be for much longer.

Offended by a guard conducting self defence

Seen it all now

Generation snowflake

Signore Fancy Pants · 06-12-2018 6:26pm

Raheem Euro wrote: »

Ok but you said that because of the above or 'all that' you were glad gardai weren't armed. Also the post you said that in clearly indicates you weren't aware of it.

My comment stating I was glad all AGS are not armed stemmed from Captain Obvious statement that armed AGS members do not have proceedures of degrees of force.

Of course his statement was misunderstood by myself at the time. I see now that he is specifically references the firearm itself, not the actions which in an ideal world wold escalate to using one.

So, no containing shots and no warning shots. Its just straight to centre mass.

This has since been further clarified by another poster, they do indeed employ degrees of force. This gladly voids my statement.

Now, I'm very aware of target acquisition, degrees of force, rules of engagement and shot placement....hence "aware of all that". Just not on the AGS side.

dense · 06-12-2018 6:36pm

Zorya wrote: »

Yep, the video might even be used in future training sessions to show how a detective properly goes about neutralising an imminent threat.

It won't.
The guard looks terrified.
I cant blame him.
Then, on balance he appears to have overcome that and performed as well as can be expected in such a situation.

I think I may have been exposed to too much Hollywood style gun fights where emotions are acted out to script.
So, yeah maybe you're right!

Raheem Euro · 06-12-2018 6:38pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's no confusion. There is only one degree of force with a firearm in the police. No warning shots, no limb shots, no shoot to wound. The rules of engagement state when it can be used. And while it has been a while since my days in the army, I don't recall any instruction for shooting people in the limbs, although the firearm could be used a little more liberally.

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification.

So, armed AGS are only instructed to shoot to kill? There are no degrees of force within AGS?

No verbal warning, no armed mitigation measures before firing for effect?

Im glad more AGS are not armed so.

The question marks above indicate you don't know and were asking the question. Then later you said to me 'I know all that'. Well obviously you didn't.

Also after the question marks you say you're glad the garda aren't armed meaning that you don't approve of their approach. Which means you think warning shots and limb shots should be fired. So again you didn't 'know all that' since you disagree with it.

Zorya · 06-12-2018 6:43pm

dense wrote: »

It won't.
The guard looks terrified.
I cant blame him.
Then, on balance he appears to have overcome that and performed as well as can be expected in such a situation.

I think I may have been exposed to too much Hollywood style gun fights where emotions are acted out to script.
So, yeah maybe you're right!

I don't know for sure. I thought he stayed very calm, considering the ''dirty fcuking tramp'' haranguing he was getting, and that he was trying to stop that other eegit getting into the van. I did think he should rethink his footwear, looked a little too dapper for detective work. How the hell could he run fast in those dancing shoes?

The poor man though. And his family. They will probably have to move house. I pity him for the trouble on his head.

Effects · 06-12-2018 6:47pm

runawaybishop wrote: »

Is it Volkswagen that will not accept cash for commercials because they do not want certain people being seen driving around in their new vans.

I don't think they care who drives their vans as long as they get paid.
There's nothing to stop a traveller getting a bank draft with their cash, and using that at the dealership.
I'd say travellers would rather spend less money than the cost of a VW Transporter.

Auguste Comte · 06-12-2018 6:49pm

Whatever about the rights or wrongs of the incident itself if this Guard or his family are under threat from these people the state should drop every resource they posess on them. Cab, customs, revinue, social welfare the whole 9 yards.

runawaybishop · 06-12-2018 6:50pm

Effects wrote: »

I don't think they care who drives their vans as long as they get paid.
There's nothing to stop a traveller getting a bank draft with their cash, and using that at the dealership.
I'd say travellers would rather spend less money than the cost of a VW Transporter.

Travellers do not go near banks, questions would be asked. As far as I can remember there was a bit on the radio a couple months ago about how Volkswagen (?) Will not accept cash so that travellers will not ruin their brand

Plumbthedepths · 06-12-2018 6:58pm

Effects wrote:

I don't think they care who drives their vans as long as they get paid. There's nothing to stop a traveller getting a bank draft with their cash, and using that at the dealership. I'd say travellers would rather spend less money than the cost of a VW Transporter.

You know once you carry out a transaction in the bank over 5k they are required to notify Revenue.

Signore Fancy Pants · 06-12-2018 7:05pm

Raheem Euro wrote: »

The question marks above indicate you don't know and were asking the question. Then later you said to me 'I know all that'. Well obviously you didn't.

Also after the question marks you say you're glad the garda aren't armed meaning that you don't approve of their approach. Which means you think warning shots and limb shots should be fired. So again you didn't 'know all that' since you disagree with it.

I will try to explain this to you again, maybe more simply this time, pay attention.

I was asking those questions above based on my misinterpretation of Captain Obvious's earlier post. I mistakenly took it that the AGS do not use degrees of force. In that context I would disaprove of all AGS members carrying weapons. This however is incorrect, they do have degrees of force, just not containing or warning shot nor aiming for lower mass. As I said already, this nullifies my concerns and voids my comment.

Now, you said the below:

"Aiming for the center of mass gives the best chance of hitting the target.
If you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF. Warning shots also carry a risk. What goes up must come down. As far as I know they aren't allowed, maybe Captain Obvious can confirm that. Verbal warnings are obviously required where possible"

I am aware that aiming centre mass gives the best chance of hitting the target. I have been trained in this and in turn I have trained people this, have you?

I am aware that if you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF.

I am aware that warning shots also carry a risk and what goes up must come down.

Since 1998, I have been trained in the use of small arms weapons from 9mm to 84mm. I am very aware of all levels of degrees of force and rules of engagement which are applicable to the military. We are taught to aim centre mass but we are also instructed, where possible, to aim low and at the legs if circumstances permit and situation dependant.

This is obviously military specific and acts as mitigating factor as we are bound by both civilian and military law. As stated by me previously...if I shot a guy in the centre mass, it would be queried if I could have used a lesser degree of force to end the situation regardless of the threat posed to me.

I hope that clears it up, if not, well I cant be repeating myself.

Edgware · 06-12-2018 7:39pm

Warning shots are rubbish. If you pull the trigger use the weapon for what it was made for

Edgware · 06-12-2018 7:41pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Having watched the video and nearly being deafened by the high pitch screams, I'd say that Guard is in a whole heap of trouble.

You'd be a great lad on a jury.

theguzman · 06-12-2018 7:42pm

Edgware wrote: »

Warning shots are rubbish. If you pull the trigger use the weapon for what it was made for

Fire the warning shot through the roof after and say you gave them a warning. Padraig Nally should have been given a heroes medal, instead the state made him look like the bad guy.

Fann Linn · 06-12-2018 7:44pm

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

I will try to explain this to you again, maybe more simply this time, pay attention.

I was asking those questions above based on my misinterpretation of Captain Obvious's earlier post. I mistakenly took it that the AGS do not use degrees of force. In that context I would disaprove of all AGS members carrying weapons. This however is incorrect, they do have degrees of force, just not containing or warning shot nor aiming for lower mass. As I said already, this nullifies my concerns and voids my comment.

Now, you said the below:

"Aiming for the center of mass gives the best chance of hitting the target.
If you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF. Warning shots also carry a risk. What goes up must come down. As far as I know they aren't allowed, maybe Captain Obvious can confirm that. Verbal warnings are obviously required where possible"

I am aware that aiming centre mass gives the best chance of hitting the target. I have been trained in this and in turn I have trained people this, have you?

I am aware that if you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF.

I am aware that warning shots also carry a risk and what goes up must come down.

Since 1998, I have been trained in the use of small arms weapons from 9mm to 84mm. I am very aware of all levels of degrees of force and rules of engagement which are applicable to the military. We are taught to aim centre mass but we are also instructed, where possible, to aim low and at the legs if circumstances permit and situation dependant.

This is obviously military specific and acts as mitigating factor as we are bound by both civilian and military law. As stated by me previously...if I shot a guy in the centre mass, it would be queried if I could have used a lesser degree of force to end the situation regardless of the threat posed to me.

I hope that clears it up, if not, well I cant be repeating myself.

Is it the Irish Defence Forces instructing its personnel to shoot low and at the legs?

Thatnastyboy · 06-12-2018 7:45pm

theguzman wrote: »

Fire the warning shot through the roof after and say you gave them a warning. Padraig Nally should have been given a heroes medal, instead the state made him look like the bad guy.

He is seen as a hero in any circle I walk in tbh.

Didn't he get the gun back and all after?

tuxy · 06-12-2018 7:49pm

I don't remember any point where Nally was made to look like the bad guy. Any evidence to prove the state unfairly labelled him? A man was shot dead and it was unclear exactly what happened so of course the state had to take it to court.

Raheem Euro · 06-12-2018 7:54pm

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

I will try to explain this to you again, maybe more simply this time, pay attention.

I was asking those questions above based on my misinterpretation of Captain Obvious's earlier post. I mistakenly took it that the AGS do not use degrees of force. In that context I would disaprove of all AGS members carrying weapons. This however is incorrect, they do have degrees of force, just not containing or warning shot nor aiming for lower mass. As I said already, this nullifies my concerns and voids my comment.

Now, you said the below:

"Aiming for the center of mass gives the best chance of hitting the target.
If you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF. Warning shots also carry a risk. What goes up must come down. As far as I know they aren't allowed, maybe Captain Obvious can confirm that. Verbal warnings are obviously required where possible"

I am aware that aiming centre mass gives the best chance of hitting the target. I have been trained in this and in turn I have trained people this, have you?

I am aware that if you try to wing or clip someone and you miss then you may hit a
civilian or another Garda or DF.

I am aware that warning shots also carry a risk and what goes up must come down.

Since 1998, I have been trained in the use of small arms weapons from 9mm to 84mm. I am very aware of all levels of degrees of force and rules of engagement which are applicable to the military. We are taught to aim centre mass but we are also instructed, where possible, to aim low and at the legs if circumstances permit and situation dependant.

This is obviously military specific and acts as mitigating factor as we are bound by both civilian and military law. As stated by me previously...if I shot a guy in the centre mass, it would be queried if I could have used a lesser degree of force to end the situation regardless of the threat posed to me.

I hope that clears it up, if not, well I cant be repeating myself.

Typing wades of crap cannot misdirect from the fact that you did not know the questions you asked in the post I quoted. The fact that someone else answered them for you between when my post went up does not change the fact that you did not know.

tuxy · 06-12-2018 7:56pm

Please don't quote walls of text.

Garda shoots dog in Longford

Comments