20 Year old Irish man,shot dead by US police

vote4pedro

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've been asking around residents of them thar parts, and the local paper has a picture of a Hyundai Elantra with the back window shot out. A car is considered a deadly weapon, and trying to run over a cop (including in reverse) is liable to get you shot. Of course, it could just have been a car in the background which got hit by rounds which missed, but it's a possibility.

Aside from the fact you're making a pretty big assumption that he was trying to run down the police officer, I wouldn't consider shooting a man to death an appropriate response to someone reversing a car at me.

It wasn't me!

He was hypothesising, and wouldn't you use all necessary force, up to and including lethal force, to protect yourself against someone propelling a ton and a half of metal towards you with malicious intent? I would.

vote4pedro

If someone's driving a car at you you're far better off, oh I don't know, getting out of the way, or shooting out the tyres than going for a head shot ffs. Do you really think that if a car is reversing towards you the best course of action is to take your time, steadily aim at the back of the drivers seat head rest and kill the driver. And yet people are saying a non-fatal shot is too hard to pull off??!

What next, police responding to a bar fight should shoot to kill as a pool cue or bottle could fatally wound an officer if struck trying to break it up?

Just to update this thread,

Seven shots is far beyond excessive force,in my opinion



Andrew Hanlon 'shot seven times' by US police

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbideykfkf/


04/07/2008 - 08:02:07
Relatives of an Irishman killed by police in the US state of Oregon viewed the body and said he was shot at least seven times.

Andrew James Hanlon’s brother-in-law said the 20-year-old had two gunshot wounds to his left arm, three wounds to his abdomen, one on his thigh and one in the back of his shoulder.

“It was definitely not grouped in one area,” Nathan Heise told the Statesman Journal.

Viewing the body “offered some closure to the ongoing grieving process, but it was definitely very upsetting to both of us,” said Mr Heise, who is married to Mr Hanlon’s sister Melanie.

News of the shooting in this quiet agricultural town in the heart of Oregon’s Willamette Valley spread quickly in Ireland, where Mr Hanlon’s mother went on the radio yesterday and accused police and prosecutors of holding back information.

“We’re not getting any answers because they’re closing ranks on us,” Dorothea Carroll said in an interview Thursday with RTE Radio One’s Liveline in Dublin.

“As his mam, I’m being kept out of the loop. Nobody’s telling me anything.”

Mr Heise said Ms Carroll is expected to travel to Oregon within the next few days.

“No mother and no family expects to lose a 20-year-old son,” she said. “Nobody expects that. And to lose a son is one thing,” Ms Carroll continued, her voice breaking, “but to lose a child, literally to be blasted away, to be shot to death, I mean my God, it’s a violent end. It’s a violent end.”

Mr Hanlon was shot and killed late Monday evening by Officer Tony Gonzalez, who was responding to a reported burglary in progress.

Mr Heise said Mr Hanlon would come banging on their door at times in the middle of the night, and they would let him in to sleep.

The Heises speculated that Mr Hanlon took a wrong turn Monday night and started banging on doors on a different street, scaring residents.

Someone called police, reporting a burglary, and one or more officers confronted Mr Hanlon, Mr Heise said.

Mr Gonzalez is on administrative leave during the multi-agency investigation, which is routine.

Marion County District Attorney Walt Beglau said no information will be released until the investigation is complete.

However, he added that he has been in touch with the Irish Consulate and is willing to meet Mr Hanlon’s family to explain the investigative process.

Ms Carroll said she had e-mailed the Silverton Police Department and the Marion County District Attorney’s office, but did not get a reply.

“Nobody will speak to me and tell me anything,” she said on the radio programme.

About 70 people protested at the Silverton Police Department on Wednesday.

Ms Carroll, who lives in France, was in Ireland visiting her other son when she received word of Mr Hanlon’s death.

Mr Hanlon had been living with his mother in France and attending art school when he went to visit his sister in Silverton a year ago.

Ms Carroll said her only officials contact from Silverton came from Mayor Ken Hector, who knew Mr Hanlon and was very distressed.

Mr Hanlon had been in Silverton for about a year and had overstayed his six months visitor’s visa.

Manic Moran

I wouldn't consider shooting a man to death an appropriate response to someone reversing a car at me.

If you were the person being run over, you might have a different point of view. In any case, what you consider is pretty irrelevant in this case, as it's a well entrenched principle that police in the US can shoot at a driver if he's using his car as a weapon. Two tons of metal beats soft squishy body any time, and police prefer to go home in one piece.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Do you really think that if a car is reversing towards you the best course of action is to take your time, steadily aim at the back of the drivers seat head rest and kill the driver.

No, you aim at centre mass of the driver, start pulling the trigger, and keep pulling it until the threat is over. One-shot accuracy does not apply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubsABVvo9U is a clear example.

What next, police responding to a bar fight should shoot to kill as a pool cue or bottle could fatally wound an officer if struck trying to break it up?

I think the chances of being killed by a bottle in a bar fight are less than that of being killed by a car.

Seven shots is far beyond excessive force,in my opinion

Conjecture. There is no such a thing as 'excessive lethal force.' To my knowledge, there has never been a conviction because someone used seven or eight rounds where one or two would have done the job. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you're shooting someone, you're using deadly force, period. Dead from two bullets is just as dead from a full magazine. The criterion is if deadly force should have been used to begin with, not over 'how dead is dead.' Secondly, as we weren't there, at this time we have no way of knowing what happened after the first two hits. Or four. Or six. There is no set amount of shots someone takes. As I said earlier, once you start pulling the trigger, you keep pulling it as fast as you can accurately do so until the problem goes away. "Shoot to stop." Only then do you check to see if the target is still alive. If so, try and save him. If not, so be it. Now, if you keep shooting after the threat is gone, that's another matter entirely.

NTM

It wasn't me!

vote4pedro wrote: »

If someone's driving a car at you you're far better off, oh I don't know, getting out of the way, or shooting out the tyres than going for a head shot ffs. Do you really think that if a car is reversing towards you the best course of action is to take your time, steadily aim at the back of the drivers seat head rest and kill the driver. And yet people are saying a non-fatal shot is too hard to pull off??!

What next, police responding to a bar fight should shoot to kill as a pool cue or bottle could fatally wound an officer if struck trying to break it up?

First, your job is to protect both yourself and the public. If you just get yourself out of the way, you haven't removed the threat to the public, as this guy has now demonstrated he's resolved to using his car as a weapon.

Second point is that shooting out tyres will not stop a car completely. Shooting the driver or the engine block is the accepted method of stopping a vehicle. If the car is reversing at you, in most cases, engine block is out. Driver it is so. And centre-mass of the driver, not his headrest. You centre and fire as fast as possible while retaining accuracy until the threat is over. In this case, that means until the car stops moving. The phrase "shoot to kill" is alarmist and misrepresentative of what actually happens in these situations. Bullets are, by their nature, pretty damn dangerous. They are also a fantastic way of stopping somebody from doing something, like shooting you or another person. Unfortunately, a side effect of this efficacy is that the person affected by the bullet often dies. Police officers do not shoot to kill. They shoot to end a situation. To aim for hands or feet or earlobes or wherever else someone would rather they were shot is to shoot to complicate, because the last thing I want in my life or in my vicinity is a person who's demonstrated a lack of restraint, and who is now wounded, and therefore unpredictable.

vote4pedro

My God you both sound like Gareth from the Office. Cringey stuff.
Why doesn't every car chase in the US end in the driver being shot dead so?

It wasn't me!

Because most of them don't involve the use of the car as a deadly weapon against the police or an armed member of the public?

This is all conjecture, because we don't know what happened here, but we've moved away from the original subject and are now discussing hypothetical events, which may be somewhat insensitive given that the friends and relatives of the dead man are clearly aware of this thread.

To them, I offer my condolences.

dee_97880

ThE_IVIAcIVIAIV wrote: »

the shame, what an ****in idiot cop i hope he dies.whats the world coming to? and maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time... and didn't rob anybody. and having mental problems is no reason to be shot. and sure the cop wouldn't have known about his probs.... poor family.

We live in a town of 7000. EVERYONE knows about EVERYONEs prob. The police new AJ. AJ's death was a decision made by 1 man not by the entire community. If we believed that AJ was a threat to our community there would not have been a protest done by the residents of Silverton.

dee_97880

DesF wrote: »

Hang on.

The sister was on the rayjo this morning.

Apparently the dude was being treated for psychological problems.

Maybe he gave the policeman cause to shoot?

Maybe he gave the policeman cause to shoot? Maybe. Gave the policeman cause to shoot several times? I dont think so. AJ was unarmed so what cause could there have been? I live in Silverton...I knew AJ...I also know the policeman....(I have no criminal history, single working mom)...from my own personal dealings with AJ or Gonzales I would have to say AJ died because the police think they are above the law. Silverton police tend to think they are patroling New York City not a small town of 7000 where we all know everyone. In the past I have said to my friends that I have a hard time teaching my kids respect for police while living in Silverton...I have been here for 7 years and have never experienced the "cockiness" or "better then you" attitude from any other police department. Where I come from police officers think of themselves as "one of us" you can visit with them, joke with them, rely on them, respect them. It was one thing to watch excessive police force on TV..it is an entirely different feeling to live in a town where it is happening. R.I.P AJ. I hope that something good comes of this horrible situation...perhaps Silverton police department will relize they are not above the law.

sam34

just heard on six-one that the cop involbed has been arrrested on suspicion of child sex abuse, a young girl has made an allegation against him

humanji

My spider sense is tingling. It's a little convenient that this would happen just as the townsfolk are out for his blood...

sam34

have to agree the timing is questionable

Manic Moran

dee_97880 wrote: »

Maybe he gave the policeman cause to shoot? Maybe. Gave the policeman cause to shoot several times? I dont think so. AJ was unarmed so what cause could there have been?

Show me a statute which says that 'in this situation you can shoot once, and only once.'

It may have been the case that the use of deadly force was not required, but do not confuse that with thinking that the force was excessive because you do not like the manner in which it was carried out.

NTM

CPT. SURF

I don't know about this one. The police story is starting to sound fairly dodgy to me. I mean they catch armed and dangerous men on the streets of LA and NYC everyday (murderers, drug dealers, rapists, GTA, etc.) I am thinking they were a litlle trigger happy up there in Silverton-the middle of bumf**k nowhere.

Manic Moran

humanji wrote: »

My spider sense is tingling. It's a little convenient that this would happen just as the townsfolk are out for his blood...

Cropped up on an Oregon forum.

"Also it seems convinient that these sex abuse charges appeared just now. "



Yes and no.

In some cases the victim doesn't report the incident since its her (or his) word against that of a fine upstanding officer of the law. However, when said officer gets his name in the media as possibly not so fine and upstanding, the victim may feel that perhaps now their claim may be given more credibility.

This sort of thing has happened before.

NTM

Overheal

CPT. SURF wrote: »

I don't know about this one. The police story is starting to sound fairly dodgy to me. I mean they catch armed and dangerous men on the streets of LA and NYC everyday (murderers, drug dealers, rapists, GTA, etc.) I am thinking they were a litlle trigger happy up there in Silverton-the middle of bumf**k nowhere.

How does that make any sense? Man Im Bored Lets Kill Someone?

If you've never handled a gun you wouldn't realize that its not a complete thrill. In fact the very first thing you will understand with the first few bullets is that you are in fact holding a very lethal weapon. Then you have to consider that firing at paper targets on the police range is a whole lot different to firing at a live person, with an identity. Its not a decision that anyone takes lightly, much less a trained Police Officer.

Its not a question of being anxious to kill someone. How dare you?

Regarding the clip capacity and the 7 bullet-wounds lets just take a look here: I don't know what size clip the officer had but the average is 12+1 bullets. Now I have had the privilege to fire a 9mm Beretta on the gun-range and from a rate of fire perspective, you can empty that clip in about 4-5 seconds (again, probably less, with training); and with enough training (I had not) can get reasonable accuracy at ranges beyond 25 feet: which is about the width of your average 2 lane road. So using a full clip on an armed suspect (as in this case he was, with a vehicle) really begins to sound reasonable.

And from your GTA/LA/NY point of view, its very easy to survive from bullet wounds, and in some cases function depending on the location. I believe there was a documentary on Sky One way back showing an LA gangster and the 20-30 something bullet wounds he had racked up during his young life: a lot of which were from drive-bys were the attacker was trying to kill him, and kill him good.

You don't just have to stop a suspect; you have to stop them fast. And it can take upwards of a few bullets to do that. No Hollywood-Headshots here, friend.

dee_97880

Manic Moran wrote: »

Cropped up on an Oregon forum.



NTM

You can look it up in legal documents its public info. He admitted to it. Funny you mentioned though because I thought the same until he admitted to it. I would rather a cop shoot someone then sexually abuse a kid...if they have to do either.

Overheal

dee_97880 wrote: »

You can look it up in legal documents its public info. He admitted to it. Funny you mentioned though because I thought the same until he admitted to it. I would rather a cop shoot someone then sexually abuse a kid...if they have to do either.

Disturbing. I suppose now people will try and say the Irish kid found out and was driving away to report him :rolleyes: strike me down if its true.

dee_97880

Overheal wrote: »

Disturbing. I suppose now people will try and say the Irish kid found out and was driving away to report him :rolleyes: strike me down if its true.

LMAO!!! Yeah that prob what he doing...

AJ was a nice kid though despite what they are portraying him to be. We knew him. I am a little sad that my teenage daughter most likely knows the girl. Had he not admitted to it I would have thought someone was trying to get him in more trouble...makes me feel like an ass for even thinking it now.

Overheal

not me - im just an observer

dee_97880

B-K-DzR wrote: »

Until (if we ever) we get the full story you can't say one way or another if it's utter rubbish or not. The fact that a shooting hasn't happened in over 20years should tell us that they don't usually go off shooting at everything but again we don't know enough to make that claim.

Of course i feel bad for the guy and his family but this automatically assuming the cops were in the wrong is absurd. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Now if it turns out the cop mishandled the situation then by all means throw the book at him.

Its good to keep an open mind in the situation. I thought you may want to look up officer Gonzales though. He was just arrested (and admitted it) for sex abuse of a young girl. I think he has a track record for wrong choices. I have always thought that maybe he had a reason to shoot AJ but I dont think he had a reason to shoot him multiple times. How fast did he have to pull the trigger for that many bullets to hit him before HE hit the ground...I think it was a bit extreme

dee_97880

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry but this post beggars belief! You have no idea what happened so cannot make any kind of informed judgement on the situation. I've been to the States a good few thimes. I don't love the place like some people do, but its far from the rampantly violent place you;re making it out to be.

As for the story, there's a few things about it that are a bit odd. First there's the psychiatric help thing and second is the fact that they haven't had a deadly shooting in 20 years there. It would suggest to me that maybe the guy had an episode at the wrong time and in the wrong place? I would be reluctant to lay all of the blame at the police officers feet as more often than not the police are decent people trying to do their job. I'd say the officer involved is devastated over whats happened. It will be interesting to see over the next while what actually happened.

My condolences go out to this guys family...

I sure hope he is devestated over the last charges put on him along with killing AJ

dee_97880

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you were the person being run over, you might have a different point of view. In any case, what you consider is pretty irrelevant in this case, as it's a well entrenched principle that police in the US can shoot at a driver if he's using his car as a weapon. Two tons of metal beats soft squishy body any time, and police prefer to go home in one piece.



No, you aim at centre mass of the driver, start pulling the trigger, and keep pulling it until the threat is over. One-shot accuracy does not apply.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yubsABVvo9U is a clear example.



I think the chances of being killed by a bottle in a bar fight are less than that of being killed by a car.



Conjecture. There is no such a thing as 'excessive lethal force.' To my knowledge, there has never been a conviction because someone used seven or eight rounds where one or two would have done the job. This is for a couple of reasons. Firstly, if you're shooting someone, you're using deadly force, period. Dead from two bullets is just as dead from a full magazine. The criterion is if deadly force should have been used to begin with, not over 'how dead is dead.' Secondly, as we weren't there, at this time we have no way of knowing what happened after the first two hits. Or four. Or six. There is no set amount of shots someone takes. As I said earlier, once you start pulling the trigger, you keep pulling it as fast as you can accurately do so until the problem goes away. "Shoot to stop." Only then do you check to see if the target is still alive. If so, try and save him. If not, so be it. Now, if you keep shooting after the threat is gone, that's another matter entirely.

NTM

I live in Silverton..We were up when the police responding to the shooting. I thought it was important to add that AJ wasnt in a car, didnt own a car. I have had coffee with him many times at the coffee shop he used to get on the internet. The car was an innocent bystander AJ got hit several times and the car got in the way. Also please look into Officer Gonzeles he was arrested (admitted to) sex abuse of a young girl. I am afraid me have an ex Marine and Cage Fighter who turned into a cop recently thats not really the type of personality or look that AJ had. I do not think that Cage Fighter Marine types wouldnt like AJ or his group of friends much...much like racist cops do not like all ethnics...

humanji

To be fair, sexually abusing a young girl doesn't automatically make you a trigger happy murderer. Granted, it's not looking like the shooting was accidental, but we still don't have the full story on that.

CPT. SURF

Hey Overheal,

If you've never handled a gun you wouldn't realize that its not a complete thrill.

I have actually despite your coy and cryptic suggestion that I might not have.

In fact the very first thing you will understand with the first few bullets is that you are in fact holding a very lethal weapon.

Oh really! Wow, I did not know that, thanks so much. You know, most people who have picked up a gun know that. Especially a police officer. Does not stop people from using them though, does it?

Its not a question of being anxious to kill someone. How dare you?

How dare I? Because its my opinion of a situation in which I do not know all the facts. News flash; neither do you. That is exactly why I would not ask someone: "How dare you" have a certain opinion about it. That was your third strike.

No Hollywood-Headshots here, friend.

I aint your friend

It wasn't me!

Handbags at dawn?

I'll ref.

Overheal

dont feed the troll

CPT. SURF

What are you talking about troll? I don't even know what that means anyway. Don't respond to what I actually said though. That is because you got pwned

Nailz

I visited America twice in my lifetime, but I'm not going to return if I had a choice. I find America to be a shìt hole, filled with odd and paranoid people. Ran by republicans, very unwelcoming to any other cultures apart from there own, assuming every muslim is a terrorist, and every body who is tanned and has facial hair is one of them aswell. They're very fake, odd and hatefull people.

... IMO.

Dyr

CPT. SURF wrote: »

What are you talking about troll? I don't even know what that means anyway. Don't respond to what I actually said though. That is because you got pwned

So you know what pwned means but dont know what troll means? :pac:
I think you just pwn3d yourself there horse

Overheal

CPT. SURF wrote: »

pwned

The kid's table is

---

> that-a-way.

Does not stop people from using them though, does it?

'Does not' certainly, but it helps many exercise more restraint. But I wouldn't label everyone with a firearm 'trigger-happy' either.

Nailz wrote:

I visited America twice in my lifetime, but I'm not going to return if I had a choice. I find America to be a shìt hole, filled with odd and paranoid people. Ran by republicans, very unwelcoming to any other cultures apart from there own, assuming every muslim is a terrorist, and every body who is tanned and has facial hair is one of them aswell. They're very fake, odd and hatefull people.

Dear lord, which part did you visit? Gotta watch out for The Bible-Belt.

CPT. SURF

But I wouldn't label everyone with a firearm 'trigger-happy' either.

Neither would I. But in this Silverton case, I am leaning that way.

How dare I? The cheek eh?

Overheal

lean away, its fun watching you trip yourself up

CPT. SURF

lean away, its fun watching you trip yourself up

Almost as fun as your ingenious plays on words. I am done with you now that I have limited you to such silliness.

pwned

The Mighty Ken

Truth is that nobody knows the circumstances yet. I'd imagine the (fairly large) inquiry will answer some questions. Until then, let's bite our tongues. :P

dee_97880

humanji wrote: »

To be fair, sexually abusing a young girl doesn't automatically make you a trigger happy murderer. Granted, it's not looking like the shooting was accidental, but we still don't have the full story on that.

True. If I didnt live in silverton and actaully know both involved I may feel different. The fact that I knew AJ and the officer makes me have my own opinion I suppose. Also with all the other police shootings and excessive force lately it seems like it is getting to be a trend. I do believe that the media has portrayed AJ to be something he was not..built up the story...and I feel they did the same for officer Gonazeles. I was not good friends with either party but have seen them both and talked to them both. As for the sexaul abuse.....that makes him a WHOLE DIFFERENT type of person.

whiskeyman

The officer has been cleared of wrongdoing:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhqlkfaumhkf/

Will be interesting to see the details and evidence that cleared him.

An Oregon grand jury has cleared a police officer who shot dead an unarmed Irishman during a confrontation.

Officer Tony Gonzalez fired at Andrew Hanlon seven times and hit him five times. The family of the 20-year-old victim said Mr Hanlon was mentally ill.

A statement from the Portland district attorney’s office said Officer Gonzalez shot Mr Hanlon while retreating. A witness told authorities that Mr Hanlon had been trying to strike the officer while ignoring commands to stop.

Thirteen witnesses – four police and nine civilians – gave evidence to the grand jury, said deputy district attorneys Matthew Kemmy and Douglas Hanson. Officer Gonzalez was not among them, but a video of his interview with detectives was shown.

Steve Crew, a lawyer representing Mr Hanlon’s family, told The Oregonian newspaper that last night’s ruling was “disappointing and a bit of a surprise for the family”.

Officer Gonzalez, 35, is in jail on unrelated charges after a woman and her daughter accused him of sexually abusing the underage girl several times.

BKtje

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0725/hanlona.html

Apparently he ran at the officer who thought he had a glass bottle as he stumbled into a recyling bin or something. This all happened after he terroised some people in their home. The guy obviously had a mental problem from the rte story and if it happened as claimed then i too can't see any wroing doing from the officer.

seamus

From what I've heard, it sounds like Hanlon was off his head on something. His family and friends described him as having some slight mental problems - from descriptions, it just seemed to be a form of anxiety and depression.

His actions as described to the Grand Jury sound like the actions of a complete raving schizophrenic, or a drunk.

That said, while the shooting may have been "lawful" in the US, it doesn't sound at all like the officer made the right choice. Surely a man with armed and unarmed combat training, as well as self-defence training (as he no doubt has), is well capable of defending himself or incapacitating an attacker.

Shooting should be the last line of defence, not the first.

I'm also curious - he thought Hanlon had a broken bottle. But then he subsequently talked to Hanlon while trying to get him to get on the ground. Surely he had ample time to verify that Hanlon didn't have a broken bottle in his hand?

whiskeyman

seamus wrote: »

That said, while the shooting may have been "lawful" in the US, it doesn't sound at all like the officer made the right choice. Surely a man with armed and unarmed combat training, as well as self-defence training (as he no doubt has), is well capable of defending himself or incapacitating an attacker.
.

By 'lawful' and the fact he was cleared - isn't this only the case because he was a police officer?

If Gonzalez was just a normal citizen out for a walk, with a legally held pistol, and then same scenario occured, would this be 'lawful' use, or could he be charged with manslaughter?

seamus

whiskeyman wrote: »

By 'lawful' and the fact he was cleared - isn't this only the case because he was a police officer?

Not necessarily. It's possible for one person to lawfully kill another, if they feel their life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger, for example.

The US would be a good deal less hysteric about it than we would, so a citizen shooting someone who is coming at them with a knife would probably be applauded for protecting himself. In this country, they'd be jailed for manslaughter (use of disproportionate force).

In America, they don't actually have manslaughter afaik, just varying degrees of murder.

Overheal

Manslaughter, yes, we haves it. I too would like to see the information concerning his case though.

Steve

seamus wrote: »

That said, while the shooting may have been "lawful" in the US, it doesn't sound at all like the officer made the right choice. Surely a man with armed and unarmed combat training, as well as self-defence training (as he no doubt has), is well capable of defending himself or incapacitating an attacker.

Shooting should be the last line of defence, not the first.

I'd agree in principle, however, the officer was responding to a call about a crazed lunatic trying to break down a womans door claiming that he had a sword and howling at the moon....
Of course the officer is going to approach the situation with his weapon drawn.

"Officer Gonzalez said he ordered Mr Hanlon to show his hands and get down on the ground. After repeating the command, Mr Hanlon appeared ready to comply.
Instead, he allegedly leaped at the officer, kicking and screaming.
The officer then shot Mr Hanlon."

To me it doesn't look like he had much opportunity to holster his weapon and revert to a non leathal defence - e.g. mace or nightstick.

If it happened as described, I don't think the officer had much choice in how he was to defend himself. He certainly couldn't risk a hand to hand struggle in case his weapon was compromised and the guy started shooting randomly at the 13 witnesses who were there.

bugler

When you arm your police, this is what is going to happen (and I'm not stating on opinion on whether armed police are good or bad).

You can bet that Gardai face situations like this every night of the week. They don't have guns, they have to deal with it the old fashioned way.

In America, if you attack or threaten a police officer, you are likely to be shot.

Daithi McGee

There was nothing mentioned bar he ran into the bottle bank? He alledgedly tried to knock down a door too (The burglary aspect) and was throwing himself against it so hard that he left blood and skin tissue on the door. He was being pretty mental by the sounds of it. Allegedly the guy knew martial arts and was doing said actions/stuff while being very aggressive towards the officer. He went for the the officer, who then shot him once but the kid still came at the officer. That was the evidence by eye witnesses from what I gather. Can't remember what I was listening to this morning. Think it might have been Newstalk. Sad events by all accounts.

seamus

SteveC wrote: »

To me it doesn't look like he had much opportunity to holster his weapon and revert to a non leathal defence - e.g. mace or nightstick.

If it happened as described, I don't think the officer had much choice in how he was to defend himself. He certainly couldn't risk a hand to hand struggle in case his weapon was compromised and the guy started shooting randomly at the 13 witnesses who were there.

Without having seen it first-hand, it is a tough one to call, as it all depends on what kind of timeframe the events took place in.

He went for the the officer, who then shot him once but the kid still came at the officer.

Indeed, he shot him five times in total. Eyewitnesses said that he didn't even react to being shot, which would probably be fairly terrifying for the officer. This is also what leads me most strongly to believe that he was probably completely off his head on something.

drunkmonkey

There's no excuse for murder, he was unarmed, the cop was an x cage fighter, if anybody could have controlled the situation without lethal force it was that cop....

If it was a garda this would never have happend, America really needs to have a good long hard look in the mirror....

Voilence breeds voilence, the sooner they realise this the better....

CtrlSource

seamus wrote: »

Shooting should be the last line of defence, not the first.

Exactly.

bugler wrote: »

When you arm your police, this is what is going to happen (and I'm not stating on opinion on whether armed police are good or bad).

You can bet that Gardai face situations like this every night of the week. They don't have guns, they have to deal with it the old fashioned way.

While i don't think we have enough info about exactly what happened to second guess the officer, i do agree with bugler - when you arm the police, this sort of thing will obviously be the result.

It's a tragedy that this guy lost his life. It's very very sad for his family. He should have been incapacitated without being shot. The only circumstance where shooting to kill is acceptable is when the target is armed.

The Grand Jury hearing and verdict announcement seem a bit hasty too

Steve

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, he shot him five times in total. Eyewitnesses said that he didn't even react to being shot, which would probably be fairly terrifying for the officer. This is also what leads me most strongly to believe that he was probably completely off his head on something.

I would agree.

CtrlSource wrote: »

He should have been incapacitated without being shot. The only circumstance where shooting to kill is acceptable is when the target is armed.

1. If what seamus said is true and shooting him the first time did not incapacitate him, what would you suggest he do? Call him names?

2. Shooting to kill? If an officer has made the decision to shoot, he aims for centre body mass as it is the most effective way of stopping an attacker. This has the unfortunate side effect of hitting a major organ and therefore being lethal. Shooting to wound is only in the movies.