Abbeylara: waste of money

Phil_321

Does anyone else think the Abbeylara inquiry is the biggest waste of money currently occuring in Ireland.
A mentally unwell man walks towards Gardai and is repeatedly told to drop the shotgun he's carrying. He doesn't comply and gets shot. Case closed(or at least it should have been).
This is an inquiry into a freak one-off incident. An internal Garda review of the incident would have been sufficient.
I just can't believe that the government is pissing away so much money on this. It's been going on for over 3 years!

Sparks

Originally posted by Phil_321
Does anyone else think the Abbeylara inquiry is the biggest waste of money currently occuring in Ireland.

No. Once he left the door with a shotgun, it was rather cut-and-dried what had to happen. The Abbeylara inquiry, however, is looking at the events leading up to that moment and hopefully how to prevent a repeat of the event. Such as the Gardai reissuing his firearms licence after he'd been caught waving the shotgun around at people in public - a reissuing carried out on his psychologist's recommendation.

Thing is, you see (and I would know), the firearms legislation in this country is somewhat... lacking in certain areas while being excessivly draconian in others.

And as to the freak once-off comment, we can but hope - but then the parents in Dunblane wouldn't agree with you as they remember Hungerford.

Phil_321

Originally posted by Sparks

And as to the freak once-off comment, we can but hope - but then the parents in Dunblane wouldn't agree with you as they remember Hungerford.

Dunblane involved a heavily armed psycho embarking on a killing spree at a school. What has that got in common with Abbeylara?

It was in the Sunday Independant yesterday as costing 4.7 million euro. That would have been much better spent on health or education.

seamus

Originally posted by Phil_321
Dunblane involved a heavily armed psycho embarking on a killing spree at a school. What has that got in common with Abbeylara?

The man was mentally unwell. He could have easily walked down the road to the local school and done some serious damage/death to a few kids with one or two shots.

The issue isn't completely with the actions of the Gardai. People are disputing that because he was unwell, they shouldn't have shot, but that's a bit like a woman complaining about a man hitting her when she's holding a knife to his throat. They did what they had to do.

As Sparks says, our gun laws mean that sometimes, any raving loony can legally own a shotgun, and go around shooting people's pets, while most of the rest of us would be told to go jump. That's what the inquiry is trying to sort out, but there's been no need for the length or expense of it.

As typical in Ireland, it'll wind up with a few short recommendations, which end up being stored away and never legislated for. The only winners in this country are the solicitors.

Sparks

Originally posted by Phil_321
Dunblane involved a heavily armed psycho embarking on a killing spree at a school. What has that got in common with Abbeylara?

Who was comparing the two?
My point was that after Hungerford, the UK government brought in some hastily-composed changes to firearms legislation and said that that fixed the problem. (A statement heavily contested by anyone who knew anything about firearms at the time). A few years later, Dunblane happened, for the same underlying reasons as Hungerford - namely, that there was insufficent resources in mental health care, that mental health isn't taken into consideration by the police when granting licences; and that there was no means by which the dozen or so rifle clubs who denied membership to the shooter in Dunblane could protest his being granted a licence by the Scottish Police.
And the reason I made that point was that it shows that not taking time to analyse coldly why an event happened risks it happening again.

It was in the Sunday Independant yesterday as costing 4.7 million euro. That would have been much better spent on health or education.

And had you read the full article, you'd have seen that:
1) There were four seperate inquiries prior to the Barr Tribunal and none of them were conducted satisfactorially thanks to the CYA attitude of those involved;
2) The costs of the Barr Tribunal are tiny compared to other tribunals;
3) Even the Indo (not noted for being a left-wing establishment) is in favour of the Barr Tribunal taking place;
4) There are valid and important questions that only the Barr Tribunal has answered - like "Why was McCarthy shot in the back?" and "Why were the local armed Gardai's weapons not examined while the ERU's were?".

Originally posted by seamus
As Sparks says, our gun laws mean that sometimes, any raving loony can legally own a shotgun, and go around shooting people's pets, while most of the rest of us would be told to go jump.

Actually, anyone in Ireland can own as many shotguns as they like unless they've got a criminal record. Which is one of the things that needs changing - a shotgun is about the most dangerous firearm you can lay hands on, don't forget. It's a .50 calibre gun, in effect - and if you applied for a Barret Light 50, you'd be stopped pretty darn quickly, so why not for shotguns?
And there are a dozen other things that need fixing - but it's unlikely that they'll be addressed. There's a review of firearms legislation coming up this summer, and despite us petitioning them for over thirty years about these things, the Department of Justice still won't consult with either the NTSA, the NRPAI, the ICPSA or the NARGC about the technical aspects of legislation - even though those bodies represent the vast, vast majority of shooters in this country. It's gotten so bad that those running those organisations are now actively adversarial in their dealings with the government - and that's not a good situation, but it's been caused by the government treating them as potential criminals, when in fact they're nothing of the sort.

That's what the inquiry is trying to sort out, but there's been no need for the length or expense of it.

Actually, that's a wider field than the Tribunal is addressing, but you're right - Barr didn't have to happen, but the previous four investigations didn't do their jobs.

DublinWriter

You're correct - it's the Planning Tribunal all over again - lose Terms of Reference with the enquiry going off at a complete tangent. Expect a result sometime in 2043.

The enquiry is not, and should not, be about the pros and cons of Firearm Licencing in this country. The enquiry is only about the Garda handling of this unfortunate incident.

We really need a Police Ombudsman in this country who could investigate these things property and cost-effectively. It works well in the N.I. (Nuala O'Loan), so why can't we do it here?

Employing a raft of junior state-counsel to basically take notes and do filing at a cost of €250 per hour for upwards of five years is not the way to go.

The estimated bill for this tribunal would fund a Garda Ombudsman's office for a year.

Sparks

Originally posted by DublinWriter
The enquiry is not, and should not, be about the pros and cons of Firearm Licencing in this country.

And it isn't. The reason licencing came up was because McCarthy had his firearms certificates confiscated when he discharged a shotgun in public and scared his neighbours some years before the Abbeylara shooting. His psychologist had a word with the Garda superintendent, and the certs were reinstated - because "to do otherwise would deeply depress him".

No, that's not a joke. They gave a nutcase back his guns because they didn't want to upset him.

DublinWriter

As much as I agree with you re the gardì letting him renew his firearms licence, I don't agree with calling the guy a 'nutcase'.

That attitute is very telling about how we perceive people with mental health problems in this country.

With all the stigma surrounding depression and other mental health issues here, is it any wonder we have Europe's 2nd highest rate of young male suicides in this country?

Sparks

Originally posted by DublinWriter
As much as I agree with you re the gardì letting him renew his firearms licence, I don't agree with calling the guy a 'nutcase'.

As you wish - the Gardai gave firearms certs back to someone with serious mental health problems on the recommendation of his psychologist, not because the psychologist said he was stable, but because the psychologist said he was unstable and might get worse if he didn't get his shotgun back.

I don't think the terminology affects the central point here, which is nothing to do with McCarthy himself (or mental health, for that matter) and everything to do with the Garda Superintendent involved (who is the sole licencing authority, legally speaking).

dark_knight_ire

I think i speak on behalf of my colleagues in tho force.

The incident at abbeylara was unfortunate, the last thing anyone wanted was for someone to get shot. The fact of the matter (i'm glad so many of you agree on this) is he left the house with a cocked firearm he was told to drop the weapon in which case he then lifted and pointed the barrel at gardai this was the moment where he was shot.

One of the questions asked is why was he shot with the Uzi ( Carthy was hit 3 times in the leg and chest) the fatal shot was through the heart. The Uzi is not that good a weapon for being accurate. Still saying the FBI report says the gardai should have shot sooner and gave him too many chances to hurt gardai.

Simple lesson don't point guns at police lol.

Now on the subject of crazy people getting guns, well i agree they bloody well do and its wrong. If you apply for a gun we must do some checks on you. See here is the problem we do not have access to medical records and i can't say this man is of unsound mind i'm not qualified to do that. If i know a person is crazy i can stop the application on other grounds. But where it was different with Carthy is he had a note from his shrink that that he be allowed hold a firearm, as a garda i can't argue with that.

Sparks

Originally posted by dark_knight_ire
I think i speak on behalf of my colleagues in tho force.

I know that's not something you want to do officially in a public forum, unless your first name's Noel and your last name's Conroy...

The fact of the matter (i'm glad so many of you agree on this) is he left the house with a cocked firearm he was told to drop the weapon in which case he then lifted and pointed the barrel at gardai this was the moment where he was shot.

The thing is, that's the least contraversial section of the whole incident. It was how it got to that stage that causes the problems.

If you apply for a gun we must do some checks on you.

Actually, that's not true.
Or to be more accurate, it's not correct.
An application is made to the local Garda superintendent - and he, and he alone, decides who gets a cert and who doesn't. There's a list of firearms he cannot give a cert for legally, a list of people who aren't allowed apply (criminals mostly), but no legal guidelines on why a valid applicant can have his application denied, and no appeals process except the high court.
But there's no process of checks in law, just whatever the superintendent wants to do - and there are some checks he cannot do, like checking for a gun safe.
(I know, I know, every sane shooter has one, but the Gardai tried to make it compulsory a while back and instead of doing it sensibly, an edict was handed down that required all gun owners to bolt gun safes to structural walls, put bars on windows and steel doors on the room the safe is in - all of which breaks fire codes and costs huge amounts of cash and acts like a sign saying "break in here, I've got guns". The NARGC took them to the High Court and won, and now the superintendent can't deny you a gun licence on the grounds of not having a safe. Which is a negative step in my honest opinion.)

i can't say this man is of unsound mind i'm not qualified to do that. If i know a person is crazy i can stop the application on other grounds.

That's a rather worrying attitude - if you aren't qualified to know, how do you know?

But where it was different with Carthy is he had a note from his shrink that that he be allowed hold a firearm, as a garda i can't argue with that.

Actually, the note said he should have the cert - there is no authority vested in psychologists to grant or deny the issuing of firearms licences. The one and only person allowed to issue a licence is (under the Firearms Act) the local Superintendent. So the responsibility is his and his alone for that decision.

BUMP!

Typical - some sick man gets upset and walks out with a shotgun and the garda shoot him with an uzi. You can argue what you like but there is something wrong here...

Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

MrPudding

Originally posted by BUMP!
Typical - some sick man gets upset and walks out with a shotgun and the garda shoot him with an uzi. You can argue what you like but there is something wrong here...

Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

This is not “when good pets go bad!!” This was someone with a firearm raising it and pointing it at the guards. A sick man is equally as able to shoot someone as a healthy one. Now don’t get me wrong, I am very sorry that someone is dead, but, it is unreasonable to expect them to respond with any less than potentially lethal force.

I make no comment on the events leading up to the shooting but the guards have an obligation to protect themselves and others. To try to injure/disarm or tranquillise a person with a firearm is too dangerous. If a guard had tried to shoot him in the shoulder and he had managed to get a shot off and kill someone that guard would have been hung out to dry.

In the movies disarming people makes great viewing, in real life it is unnecessarily dangerous. Again, I am very sorry that someone had to die but, IMO, that tends to be the safest option in most if not all of cases like this.

MrP

Meh

Originally posted by BUMP!
Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

Tranquiliser guns don't work instantaneously like they do in the movies. It takes a minute or two for them to disable the person -- plenty of time for them to fire several shots anyway.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by BUMP!
Typical - some sick man gets upset and walks out with a shotgun and the garda shoot him with an uzi. You can argue what you like but there is something wrong here...

Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

That is daft pie in the sky talk were not talking about a rational man here he was mentally unstable. He walks out the door with a gun and gets from his front door to the gate of the house and proceeds to walk away the gaurds had no option. The reality is he should have never been allowed out his front door with a gun or manage to get to the gate the gardai should actually be under investigation for not shooting sooner. Many cases have happened where people have been killed by wounded people using guns unfortunately the gaurds had no option. The only thing wrong is the events leading up to the incident which should be investigated.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by BUMP!
Typical - some sick man gets upset and walks out with a shotgun and the garda shoot him with an uzi. You can argue what you like but there is something wrong here...

Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

I think at the time it was a sound judgement call by the ERU.

A mentally unstable person walks out and points a shotgun at you. What would you do?

A tranquiliser gun wouldn't have been any good in that situation - it takes a couple of minutes for the drug to take effect, plus the dart mightn't penetrate clothing when used on a person.

I think the real failing here was that the situation was allowed to get to this stage in the first place.

The garda failed to contact McCarthy's solictor after he made numerous requests. They also knew he was a heavy smoker and had run out of cigs - I think he even asked for cigs at some point. He was allowed to remain in the house for hours when it was known he was becoming increasingly agitated.

I'd lay blame with the negotiator or the member of AGS in general charge of the situation. The ERU acted accordingly in the situation.

Sparks

Originally posted by BUMP!
Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

Take it from someone who has experience with firearms:
1) They're dangerous and will kill if misused;
2) You can't tell from twenty feet away if they're loaded or not;
3) Only Hollywood stars can disarm an armed attacker by shooting them in the arm or shoulder;
4) If someone's already shot at you several times, the odds are that they'll do it again.

The minute McCarthy walked out the door with the shotgun, the script was written. The Tribunal's purpose is not to crucify the Garda that pulled the trigger - it's to find out what caused that situation to develop in the first place. So, why did a mentally unstable man, whose shotgun was confiscated, have his shotgun returned to him? Why wasn't his psychologist escorted to Abbeylara during the stand-off? Why was the negotiation handled so poorly? And most importantly, how do we stop this ever happening again?

(And that last one is why Barr is worth the money, BTW).

BUMP!

Got ye talkin anyway!! Seriously though - from what I understand of the incident they had plenty of time to clear the scene, they didn't need to surround the place with flashing lights to make things worse, and maybe if the area was clear of bystanders who could get shot and they weren't using a bloody machine gun they COULD have hit him in the shoulder, torso, legs... anywhere that isn't necessarily a kill shot. Not a very difficult shot with a proper rifle. Fair enough - if that fails do what you have to immediately. I'm not arguing that anyone had to put their lives on the line - just get someone with half a brain and just a little awareness to run the show...

Sparks

Originally posted by BUMP!
maybe if the area was clear of bystanders who could get shot and they weren't using a bloody machine gun they COULD have hit him in the shoulder, torso, legs... anywhere that isn't necessarily a kill shot. Not a very difficult shot with a proper rifle.

Bump, I've been target shooting for ten years. I've got a lot of prizes in the cabinet, including a gold from the national championships. I can hit a target the size of a two-euro coin fifty metres away about 95% of the time. And I know that you can't do the hollywood shot-to-the-shoulder trick unless it's on a sound stage and in the script.

DublinWriter

Originally posted by BUMP!
Got ye talkin anyway!! Seriously though - from what I understand of the incident they had plenty of time to clear the scene, they didn't need to surround the place with flashing lights to make things worse, and maybe if the area was clear of bystanders who could get shot and they weren't using a bloody machine gun they COULD have hit him in the shoulder, torso, legs... anywhere that isn't necessarily a kill shot. Not a very difficult shot with a proper rifle. Fair enough - if that fails do what you have to immediately. I'm not arguing that anyone had to put their lives on the line - just get someone with half a brain and just a little awareness to run the show...

From the way you're talking, you'd think the guy was riddled with machine gun fire.

As far as I'm aware, the Uzi's used were set to semi-automatic mode, which means you have to depress the trigger to discharge a single round, as opposed to in fully-automatic mode, where you hold the trigger down and it just keeps firing.

If the ERU had the Uzi's set to fully automatic then he would have had in the region of 10 to 20 bullets in him, as opposed to just three.

Going for a shoulder or leg shot mightn't work because the person coming at you would be more than likely be so pumped up on adreneline that they wouldn't feel any pain.

Hitting a moving target with a rifle is very difficult, and trying to hit just a leg or arm is even more so.

Rifles would be even more dangerous in that type of seige situation because a) most have an effective range of about a mile and b) if you miss, you'd have to ask the person to hang on a minute while you load another round.

When someone comes at you with a loaded shotgun, it really is game over.

As I said before, I think the ERU behaved correctly given the circumstances, it was the overall garda management of the seige, break down of communications and negotiations that were to blame.

seamus

Originally posted by BUMP!
Got ye talkin anyway!! Seriously though - from what I understand of the incident they had plenty of time to clear the scene, they didn't need to surround the place with flashing lights to make things worse, and maybe if the area was clear of bystanders who could get shot and they weren't using a bloody machine gun they COULD have hit him in the shoulder, torso, legs... anywhere that isn't necessarily a kill shot. Not a very difficult shot with a proper rifle. Fair enough - if that fails do what you have to immediately. I'm not arguing that anyone had to put their lives on the line - just get someone with half a brain and just a little awareness to run the show...

As others say, you're forgetting the main issue here - this was a mentalliy unhinged man, holding a shotgun, pointed at Gardai. A shoulder, torso, or leg shot *may* have taken him down, but it's also very likely that it wouldn't, and he would get a shot off anyway, potentially killing someone else. There was no alternative.

BUMP!

Again being rather sketchy on a few details I may be wrong but from what I understand they had plenty of time to clear the area so that if he got a shot off he wouldn't have hit anyone, there was plenty of cover for the gardai to hide behind, and there were plenty of gardai. Waht I am saying is that they should have had 2 people to take the shot - one to at least attempt to wing him and another to take the kill shot immediately if it did not have the desired effect.
From what I gather the plan was a simple if he comes out again shoot him dead (my doughnut's gonna get cold!) kind of affair! I can see where al that special training they get at templemore comes through...

Phil_321

Originally posted by BUMP!

Waht I am saying is that they should have had 2 people to take the shot - one to at least attempt to wing him and another to take the kill shot immediately if it did not have the desired effect.

You should forward that idea to the FBI and SWAT, I'm sure they'll be kicking themselves that they'd never thought of it.

From what I gather the plan was a simple if he comes out again shoot him dead (my doughnut's gonna get cold!) kind of affair! I can see where al that special training they get at templemore comes through...

When a (mental) guy is carrying a loaded shotgun and refuses to put it down you don't dick around. You take him out. You don't try every concievable option before doing so.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BUMP!
Again being rather sketchy on a few details I may be wrong

That's the most accurate thing you've said so far.

Waht I am saying is that they should have had 2 people to take the shot - one to at least attempt to wing him and another to take the kill shot immediately if it did not have the desired effect.

Didn't they shoot him in the legs before the kill shot?

From what I gather the plan was a simple if he comes out again shoot him dead (my doughnut's gonna get cold!) kind of affair! I can see where al that special training they get at templemore comes through...

You should write to the tribunal - they obviously need your input.

l3rian

its a waste of money

from the above case, we can all see that theres a problem with the issueing of firearms to retards, so fix that problem by making it harder for retards to get firearms

whats needed is a new legal system that can make these decisions faster

Sparks

Originally posted by l3rian
its a waste of money
from the above case, we can all see that theres a problem with the issueing of firearms to retards, so fix that problem by making it harder for retards to get firearms

Except that McCarthy wasn't retarded.
He was clinically depressed - a condition that affects one in ten Irish citizens, according to McCarthy's psychologist.

whats needed is a new legal system that can make these decisions faster

No. What's needed is a legal system that takes the time to deliberate and not make a snap judgement. Making a snap judgement after Hungerford directly contributed to Dunblane. I'd prefer to see us learn from that mistake.

Besides, if you want to save money, you start with the big bills, not the little ones. And in Tribunal terms, Barr is tiny.

Phil_321

Originally posted by l3rian
from the above case, we can all see that theres a problem with the issueing of firearms to retards, so fix that problem by making it harder for retards to get firearms

lol:D

BUMP!

People obviously seem to think the man deserved a bullet through the heart. The man was suffering from depression - could happen to anybody. So tell me then, what if it was a friend/family member of yours? Would you still think that the man should have been shot dead as a first course of action?

Anyway, you can say that I'm wrong in my viewpoint (do everything possible not to kill) but at the end of the day thats what this inquest is all about is't it? If a similar situation ever happen to you or a freind of yours, and it could ("1 in 10" isn't it??), then you might only be too glad that the money was wasted on this so at least in the future they might be able to stop it happening or maybe come up with some decent (standard) procedures and training for dealing with such a situation....

But hey, if youd rather spend E50 million on an E-voting system that could never work then fair 'nuff...

Sparks

Originally posted by BUMP!
People obviously seem to think the man deserved a bullet through the heart.

Actually, that's the opposite to what everyone thinks. What they're saying is that once he walked out the door with a shotgun, the gardai had no other choice but to shoot him. The tribunal's purpose is not to question whether or not the gardai were correct in shooting him once he'd left the house, the purpose is to question the events leading up to that point and whether or not they could have been handled better.

dark_knight_ire

Originally posted by BUMP!
Typical - some sick man gets upset and walks out with a shotgun and the garda shoot him with an uzi. You can argue what you like but there is something wrong here...

Naturally, not being there, and only remembering some sketchy reports, I'm no expert but I fail to see how killing him (and this WAS a kill shot) was the only option available.... Anyone know how to call a vet and get a tranquiliser gun? (Not as cool as shooting someone in the back I bet!!)

There is no other way of doing it. Tranquiliser is not a safe, i dart per gun to much and you will kill him to little and he will not go down and will fire and if you miss thats it game over. On the day it does not matter if a person is sick in the head or not when a gun is pointed a garda is authorised to use lethal force.

As for the issuing or guns go, Carthy's doctor is to blame for saying he should be allowed hold a gun. I'm no doctor i don't argue besides if i authorise someone to hold a gun and then something comes to light before the superintendent rubber stamps it he can refuse it but if we stop someones application on the ground of unsound mind and a doctor says the person is sane, well then the state is liable to be sued.

If you ask me there should be no guns in this country apart from the police and army

dark_knight_ire

Originally posted by Phil_321
You should forward that idea to the FBI and SWAT, I'm sure they'll be kicking themselves that they'd never thought of it.



When a (mental) guy is carrying a loaded shotgun and refuses to put it down you don't dick around. You take him out. You don't try every concievable option before doing so.

This is true you dont have time to think you can't place a shot. The Gardai on the day done their job and are highly trained. Its unfortunate that not everyone knows that and can be bitter still i think thats a thing within all irish people.