Sergeants & Inspectors Call To Keep Uniformed Gardai Unarmed

Sierra Oscar

Im not sure if many of you have been following the Commissioner's plans to introduce a system to arm regional support groups which are comprised of uniformed Gardai) within the Gardai, to tackle gum crime - anyway the annual Conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors is to take place today, where they are expected to call on the Commissioner to abandon the plan. I will post the PR up when it becomes available.

Anyway - thoughts?;)

From RTE News:

Garda Sergeants and Inspectors are calling on the Garda Commissioner to reverse his plans to arm regional support units comprised of uniformed gardaí.

The units form part of the current policing plan, which aims to tackle gun crime and reduce the crime rate by 2% by the end of the year.

However, middle ranking gardaí say they want to ensure the continuance of current policy that uniformed gardaí do not carry firearms.
Advertisement

They also want the Commissioner to ensure that no guns are carried in marked garda cars.

It is to be discussed at the Annual Conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in Co Meath today.

More than 50 motions are to come before the annual conference, but the issue of arming specialist units will be among the first discussed.

Under current proposals, gardaí in specialist units set up for combating gun crime would change out of uniform into plain clothes, arm themselves, and respond whenever an incident arises that calls for an armed response.

Other delegates also want firearms instructors to receive training in the use of less-than-lethal weapons so that they in turn can train others.

They also say that uniformed gardaí wearing stab vests should not have to wear a tie, that pepper spray be issued to deal with violent prisoners and that in the wake of the shooting of Garda Paul Sherlock, suitable ballistic protection should be provided for all Garda motorcyclists.

metman

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Garda Sergeants and Inspectors are calling on the Garda Commissioner to reverse his plans to arm regional support units comprised of uniformed gardaí.

The units form part of the current policing plan, which aims to tackle gun crime and reduce the crime rate by 2% by the end of the year.

However, middle ranking gardaí say they want to ensure the continuance of current policy that uniformed gardaí do not carry firearms.
Advertisement

They also want the Commissioner to ensure that no guns are carried in marked garda cars.

It is to be discussed at the Annual Conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in Co Meath today.

More than 50 motions are to come before the annual conference, but the issue of arming specialist units will be among the first discussed.

Under current proposals, gardaí in specialist units set up for combating gun crime would change out of uniform into plain clothes, arm themselves, and respond whenever an incident arises that calls for an armed response.

This seems ridiculous. What happens if they come across a spontaneous firearms job or need to put a stop in on a vehicle that may contain armed suspects? Sorry can't deploy I've got my epaulettes on.....:rolleyes:

Other delegates also want firearms instructors to receive training in the use of less-than-lethal weapons so that they in turn can train others.

They also say that uniformed gardaí wearing stab vests should not have to wear a tie, that pepper spray be issued to deal with violent prisoners and that in the wake of the shooting of Garda Paul Sherlock, suitable ballistic protection should be provided for all Garda motorcyclists.

Pepper spray; fine issue it already.

No tie; fine big deal.

Ballistic vests for bikes; why only bikes? What about single crewed cars? This doesn't make much sense.

As regards the Sergeants&Inspectors calling for the abandoning of the RSGs, why? It seems the Guards are their own worst enemy in moving things forward in line with other unarmed police services. I imagine a lot of members won't be happy with this.

Sierra Oscar

metman wrote: »

This seems ridiculous. What happens if they come across a spontaneous firearms job or need to put a stop in on a vehicle that may contain armed suspects? Sorry can't deploy I've got my epaulettes on.....:rolleyes:

SO true - basically, if a Garda involved in the regional support group's was passing a Bank and it was being robbed, he/she would have to head back to the station, get permission to use the weapons, get changed into tactical dress, take the weapons out of storage and then head back out the scene.

I think it is fair to say that the robbery would be well over. Im sure it would still be faster than the ERU deploying for certain parts of the country however.

CLADA

AGSI are doing what AGSI do best, they are being part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Their attitude has long been "Theres a problem with that so scrap it".

Surely they have some members at committee level attached to NBCI, SDU, GNDU or ERU who could assist them in submitting certain proposals to get over the "Armed in uniform" issue.

Hope I'm not being too simplistic but why can't they patrol in the tactical gear (it isn't considered uniform) and let them retain the sidearms on their person and let them have the longarms locked in the vehicle safe.

eroo

Metman,I think they just don't want the Commisioner to go ahead with allocating uniform personnel to the Unit's.

cushtac

metman wrote: »

Ballistic vests for bikes; why only bikes? What about single crewed cars? This doesn't make much sense.

The motion is only calling for new armour that can be worn by motorbike riders because everyone else is already wearing it, bikers cannot wear the current general issue vest while in leathers.

tintin

CLADA wrote: »

AGSI are doing what AGSI do best, they are being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Didn't the GRA have a major problem with probationers being given basic driver training on Phase 5?? Exactly the same story here, the rep bodies don't want progress, even when it's for everyone's good...heaven forbid we might actually get a modern force....

cushtac

The GRA has been calling for the introduction of new batons, cuffs, sprays & vests for years, how is that standing in the way of progress?

tintin

The campaign against the Garda Reserve is a prime example...It was plain to see from day one that McDowell was going to push it through...instead of looking for compensation for full time members, the GRA was shortsighted and wasted their time stamping their feet and saying no, instead of working on issues related to the Reserve which could have made a difference...And in the end we got a Reserve in which we had no say in, and the rank and file were made look like spoilt children unwilling to change...

metman

I understand that AGS was set up as an unarmed uniform force. However how far will the powers that be let the situation deteriorate using this an excuse to delay modernisation?

I doubt the general public give two ****s if the Garda have armed uniformed support units in ARVs, same as exists here, to facilitate the majority of uniform policing to be carried out unarmed? And this distinction between 'tactical uniform' and 'uniform' is both an affront to common sense and insulting.

I think this is more to do with fear of change rather than maintaining tradition.

Random

Locking the guns in the boot is a joke of an idea from my point of view (regular Joe Public). What use are the guns locked in the boot?

As for changing your clothes ... ya what? Is there some rule that sales an uniform guard cannot carry a firearm or operate one? Or is it just some thing about the uniform meaning unarmed peace keepers and the red vests or combat gear meaning serious chaps with guns?

lostexpectation

do they think they'll be hijack for the guns and they might be used against them?

Satan Polaroid

random wrote: »

Locking the guns in the boot is a joke of an idea from my point of view (regular Joe Public). What use are the guns locked in the boot?

As for changing your clothes ... ya what? Is there some rule that sales an uniform guard cannot carry a firearm or operate one? Or is it just some thing about the uniform meaning unarmed peace keepers and the red vests or combat gear meaning serious chaps with guns?

It sounds strange I agree, but these type of units have worked very well in other countries (such as in England).

I'm all for it, and think it is an excellent idea. We've got to move on with the times.

Random

Surely moving on with the times would be to have the officiers armed permenantly rather than when they pull over and change and unlock the stuff in the boot?

I can agree maybe to locking up a shotgun or a machine gun or some heavy gun in the boot, but they should surely have a pistol on them all the time? If you're gonna be armed, be armed ..

eroo

Unfortunately,AGS is going through now what the UK went through 15+ years ago regarding ARV's..

CLADA

metman wrote: »

I think this is more to do with fear of change rather than maintaining tradition.

There's a bit more to it than that actually. Policing in this country since the foundation of the state has been undertaken by An Garda Siochana with the consent of the people.

We made the transition from a violent and bloody period of our history into a new state where force of arms would no longer be a tool to maintain law and order.

The majority of Gardai signed up to police in this manner and its possible the majority of the population would prefer it to continue as such.

However, in todays society both the public and the unarmed officer are facing danger from armed criminals, therefore both are entitled to an armed deterrent and an armed response from the police force.

So we have tradition, method and the personal choice of members of the force to consider aligned with public safety and the fight against crime.

There is a genuine belief among Gardai that if certain uniformed members are armed it increases the danger for the unarmed uniform Garda.
The armed criminal will not know which uniformed Gardai are armed and which are not.

This is where the difference between uniform and tactical clothing comes in and despite the strong opinions of my friend from the met, it may very well be a common sense solution to an irish problem.

Uniquely marked vehicles with officers in tactical clothing, with sidearms on them and access to long barrelled weapons in a vehicle safe.

Problem solved, no need for thanks Commissioner:D

Random

CLADA wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that actually. Policing in this country since the foundation of the state has been undertaken by An Garda Siochana with the consent of the people.

We made the transition from a violent and bloody period of our history into a new state where force of arms would no longer be a tool to maintain law and order.

The majority of Gardai signed up to police in this manner and its possible the majority of the population would prefer it to continue as such.

However, in todays society both the public and the unarmed officer are facing danger from armed criminals, therefore both are entitled to an armed deterrent and an armed response from the police force.

So we have tradition, method and the personal choice of members of the force to consider aligned with public safety and the fight against crime.

There is a genuine belief among Gardai that if certain uniformed members are armed it increases the danger for the unarmed uniform Garda.
The armed criminal will not know which uniformed Gardai are armed and which are not.

This is where the difference between uniform and tactical clothing comes in and despite the strong opinions of my friend from the met, it may very well be a common sense solution to an irish problem.

Uniquely marked vehicles with officers in tactical clothing, with sidearms on them and access to long barrelled weapons in a vehicle safe.

Problem solved, no need for thanks Commissioner:D

So basically we're saying that criminals have morals and are less likely to shoot a uniformed officier if he can be sure that he's not armed?

CLADA

random wrote: »

So basically we're saying that criminals have morals and are less likely to shoot a uniformed officier if he can be sure that he's not armed?

This is what I said:

There is a genuine belief among Gardai that if certain uniformed members are armed it increases the danger for the unarmed uniform Garda.
The armed criminal will not know which uniformed Gardai are armed and which are not.

This is what I meant:

Nothing to do with morals, boils down to what the armed criminal sees as a threat to his health and freedom.

Eru

This is exactly what I said ages ago, a good idea wasted by stupidity. Theres no reason why they cant simple have a different uniform anyway and carry the firearms.

Why couldnt task force simple be armed? they dont take calls as it is and are supposed to be for serious calls.

metman

CLADA wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that actually. Policing in this country since the foundation of the state has been undertaken by An Garda Siochana with the consent of the people.

We made the transition from a violent and bloody period of our history into a new state where force of arms would no longer be a tool to maintain law and order.

The majority of Gardai signed up to police in this manner and its possible the majority of the population would prefer it to continue as such.

However, in todays society both the public and the unarmed officer are facing danger from armed criminals, therefore both are entitled to an armed deterrent and an armed response from the police force.

So we have tradition, method and the personal choice of members of the force to consider aligned with public safety and the fight against crime.

I entirely agree with you. Having served in the Defence Forces I am aware of the history behind the foundation of the Gardai and the sensitivities surrounding the carrying of firearms by policemen in the State. However, as you rightly say, times have changed and the protective services of AGS must move with them.

a genuine belief among Gardai that if certain uniformed members are armed it increases the danger for the unarmed uniform Garda.
The armed criminal will not know which uniformed Gardai are armed and which are not.

This is where the difference between uniform and tactical clothing comes in and despite the strong opinions of my friend from the met, it may very well be a common sense solution to an irish problem.

Your point above is the old argument that if the police arm, the criminals will be forced to arm and be more likely to use arms against police. For the scum that shot Garda Sherlock, do you think this was even a consideration? I don't think the criminals that carry firearms give a monkeys if the Guards that get in their way are armed or not. They days of police officers being a no-no as targets are history, regardless of whether they're armed or not.

And as regards the tactical clothing, I'm still not persuaded by your point! A uniform is still a uniform be it tactical or beat. What AGSI is talking about is somantics.

And this isn't just an Irish problem. Its how the UK wound up with ARVs (routinely armed in some parts of the UK, weapons locked away in others). Its an inevitable bridging step between an unarmed and armed police service.

lostexpectation

i watch the bit on the news, it didn't clear it up, which uniformed gardai would be getting guns under this new plan?

why don't mid level police wear uniforms?

this whole thing about the right to silence and courts sounds so whiny, nobody expects criminnals to co-operate, the AGSI just sound ridiculous.

CLADA

lostexpectation wrote: »

i watch the bit on the news, it didn't clear it up, which uniformed gardai would be getting guns under this new plan?

why don't mid level police wear uniforms?

this whole thing about the right to silence and courts sounds so whiny, nobody expects criminnals to co-operate, the AGSI just sound ridiculous.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55423072#post55423072

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55424929#post55424929


Why don't you troll somewhere else?

TheNog

lostexpectation wrote: »

i watch the bit on the news, it didn't clear it up, which uniformed gardai would be getting guns under this new plan?

The ARV would consist of normal uniformed gardai who would wear the regular uniform for duty and change into tactical gear when needed for armed response.

lostexpectation wrote: »

why don't mid level police wear uniforms?

They do when on duty.

lostexpectation wrote: »

this whole thing about the right to silence and courts sounds so whiny, nobody expects criminnals to co-operate, the AGSI just sound ridiculous.

The right to silence is enshrined in the constitution and there is nothing the gardai can do about that. We do not make the law, we enforce it only. If a criminal takes the right to silence at an interview and the evidence is strong enough then inferences can be drawn in court as to guilt.

TheNog

CLADA wrote: »

You're welcome, I'm big into crossborder co-operation.

were you at the meeting in Meath last year?

Sierra Oscar

The commissioner is to press ahead with the reforms - http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0319/asgi.html?rss

roadruner

How do the crime rates in other countries of similar population size (with fully armed police) measure up to Ireland’s crime rate?
Are their rates of crime smaller the same or bigger?

lostexpectation

oh right you might be able to change jacket but not the what the marked car looks like where you taking the guns from.

Eru

roadruner wrote: »

How do the crime rates in other countries of similar population size (with fully armed police) measure up to Ireland’s crime rate?
Are their rates of crime smaller the same or bigger?

In many regards Ireland still has a low crime rate per head of population but we are experiences one of the biggest percentage increases in the past decade. Particularily in violent crimes.

As for guns, again the world picture does not support the theory that armed police equals armed criminals as many nations have armed police but less gun crime. The US you must remember is a nation that has guns included in their constitution and has, in my opinion, a warped opinion towards weapons. The theory being that a legally held firearm used to commit a crime is no longer a legally held firearm. therefore no legally held firearms are used to commit crimes

Then you have nations that are extremely violent gun wise, Brazil and S Africa has a very high murder and gun related crime rate but again, guns are a part of culture in these countries. In parts of S Africa you have a security gate at the door to the bank where you must surrender your gun until your leaving!

There are also many countries with armed police but less gun crime, Malta and Japan have very low violent crime rates.

The Isle of man (Or is it Jersey?)also allows gun ownership but has unarmed police.

So the question isnt are the police armed but whats the attitude to guns in the country? On that basis I dont see the Irish nation arming up if the police do or even simple because they want to and as a result I dont think arming the Gardai would have the doom and gloom result that people talk about. Afterall a criminal commits 'armed robbery' using a gun not vulgur language and unarmed Gardai have been shot so really it would be more a case of the police catching up with the criminals.

CLADA wrote: »

There's a bit more to it than that actually. Policing in this country since the foundation of the state has been undertaken by An Garda Siochana with the consent of the people.

But the famous quote also included the right and ability of AGS to arm should the need arise. 3 times in our history has a commissioner looked to arm the force.

CLADA wrote: »

There is a genuine belief among Gardai that if certain uniformed members are armed it increases the danger for the unarmed uniform Garda.
The armed criminal will not know which uniformed Gardai are armed and which are not.

There is also a lot of members that dont wear their vests because they have never been stabbed before. I also believe that a criminal not knowing if we are armed or not makes us less the easy target and would make them think twice about pulling a gun on us as we may well pull one ourselves and shoot him.

CLADA wrote: »

Uniquely marked vehicles with officers in tactical clothing, with sidearms on them and access to long barrelled weapons in a vehicle safe.

Problem solved, no need for thanks Commissioner:D

That was the original and may I add logical choice, this current idea cannot work effectively and its only PC / PR bull that has us at this junction.

You may also note that no one has actually asked the uniform members what THEY want.

DublinWriter

metman wrote: »

Having served in the Defence Forces I am aware of the history behind the foundation of the Gardai and the sensitivities surrounding the carrying of firearms by policemen in the State.

Then you should be aware that the Guards were initially armed in the first two years of their foundation.

It was only after the Kildare mutiny of 1922 and the accidental shooting of one guard by another that it was decided that regular rank-and-file members would not be issued with side-arms by default.

The notion that the Guards were initially formed with the ethos of being an unarmed force is bunk.

metman

DublinWriter wrote: »

Then you should be aware that the Guards were initially armed in the first two years of their foundation. It was only after the Kildare mutiny of 1922.....

I'm a policeman, not a historian

The point is that regardless of how An Garda Siochana initially formed it is a force that has an ethos of unarmed policing. That is the central issue surrounding arming of uniformed personnel.

Thanks for the history lesson nonetheless.

eroo

DublinWriter wrote: »

Then you should be aware that the Guards were initially armed in the first two years of their foundation.

It was only after the Kildare mutiny of 1922 and the accidental shooting of one guard by another that it was decided that regular rank-and-file members would not be issued with side-arms by default.

The notion that the Guards were initially formed with the ethos of being an unarmed force is bunk.

Your thinking of the Civic Guard.GS was never armed AFAIK!:)

DublinWriter

eroo wrote: »

Your thinking of the Civic Guard.GS was never armed AFAIK!:)

Same beast, do your historical homework.

eroo

DublinWriter wrote: »

The notion that the Guards were initially formed with the ethos of being an unarmed force is bunk

Not really.Collins and other members of Provisional Govt criticised the Civic Guard and it's predecessor,the Republican Police,as being ineffective and that they did not command much respect because they were armed,much like the RIC.However AGS was respected by the people because for the first time in decades,an Irish police force was unarmed..At the beginning they were armed,but only through necessity,not because it was intended to keep them armed.Due to the Civil War in progress at the time,any police force had to be armed.But this was changed once the activities of the anti-Treatyites subsided to pockets of resistance in the north-west and south-west.AGS was then able to police unarmed and even more so when the anti-Treaty IRA called the ceasefire.

Shield

Guys what the hell? Can we please keep this on topic, and in the 21st century?

eroo

Just providing background to the overall argument for uniformed Gardai armed or unarmed!

remmurts

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

...for guns, again the world picture does not support the theory that armed police equals armed criminals as many nations have armed police but less gun crime. The US you must remember is a nation that has guns included in their constitution and has, in my opinion, a warped opinion towards weapons. The theory being that a legally held firearm used to commit a crime is no longer a legally held firearm. therefore no legally held firearms are used to commit crimes ...

Hate to hijack...but that's not true at all. Usually, commiting a crime while using a gun will add to the charge and sentence, eg a robbery will become an aggravated robbery.

I'm not sure where you heard the "gun involved in a crime is no longer legal" thing.

Eru

remmurts wrote: »

Hate to hijack...but that's not true at all. Usually, commiting a crime while using a gun will add to the charge and sentence, eg a robbery will become an aggravated robbery.

Completely and utterly 100% incorrect. Aggravated burglary and robbery are similar offences but BOTH require violence. Robbery is stealing from a person using violence, burglary is tresspassing and stealing. Its aggravated when you use violence within burglary. Theres no such thing as aggravated robbery in Irish law as robbery itself includes violence so how can it be aggravated? it only appears in papers who either use to as an emphasis or usually make the mistake of using 'robbery' in place of 'burglary'. It appeared in the Criminal Justice (theft and fraud offences) Bill but not in the resulting act.

Using a weapon in a crime is a separate crime but does not change the original crime. Robbery is still robbery but if a gun is used results in a second charge of possesion of an firearm in the course of a crime. Again the term armed robbery is not a legal one but a common usage one for clarification purposes.

remmurts wrote: »

I'm not sure where you heard the "gun involved in a crime is no longer legal" thing.

From dozens and dozens of American police officers either in personal conversations or on websites for police which I am a member such as officer.com or LEO.com, etc. Why? I dont agree with it but thats what was put to me when we discussed gun ownership.

remmurts

I think you've jumped the gun on me there Karlito (no pun intended)...

I was referring to US law and how it might pertain to a crime committed with a firearm and your comment about it being no longer a legal gun, etc.

Just to clarify...(of course, remember, 50 States, 50 different sets of laws, although mostly similar)

Robbery...threat of violence, Aggravated Robbery...violence/weapon used...the severity of the violence or the type of weapon used will determine the amount of "aggravation" (so to speak).

This "aggravation" has no bearing on the legality of the gun. If the gun was legally held, it will be held for evidence and confiscated. If it was illegally held (as most weapons involved in the commission of a crime are) it will also be held for evidence and confiscated, and perhaps some weapons charges will be introduced.

Again, I'm still unclear as to your point about the "legal Vs illegal" guns. Are you implying that a legal gun used in a crime is now an illegal gun and that the stats are skewed so they show that no legal weapons were involved in crime?

Eru

remmurts wrote: »

I think you've jumped the gun on me there Karlito (no pun intended)...

I was referring to US law and how it might pertain to a crime committed with a firearm and your comment about it being no longer a legal gun, etc.

Just to clarify...(of course, remember, 50 States, 50 different sets of laws, although mostly similar)

Robbery...threat of violence, Aggravated Robbery...violence/weapon used...the severity of the violence or the type of weapon used will determine the amount of "aggravation" (so to speak).

This "aggravation" has no bearing on the legality of the gun. If the gun was legally held, it will be held for evidence and confiscated. If it was illegally held (as most weapons involved in the commission of a crime are) it will also be held for evidence and confiscated, and perhaps some weapons charges will be introduced.

Again, I'm still unclear as to your point about the "legal Vs illegal" guns. Are you implying that a legal gun used in a crime is now an illegal gun and that the stats are skewed so they show that no legal weapons were involved in crime?

I cant comment on another continents laws so I wont do so. My point about legal is what I have been told by US police. Their opinion being that once a legally held gun is used to commit crime it ceases to be legally held and has crossed over to being illegal. Typically this comment is brought in during a discussion on gun laws and control. My opinion being that allowing people to own guns makes it easier for guns to be used to commit crime, but thats for another day.