Man Shot Dead By Gardai During Attempted Robbery

vote4pedro

timmywex wrote: »

Ah, so stop one person with a firearm, and get one conviction rarther than multiple ones! Where would you have stopped them? Every road has houses and people walking, and even stopping the car would be hard! It was much better option to follow and observe, then let them make their move first, then corner them, rather than trying to stop a car with firearms on board, and having a high speed chase through a city with the possibility of shots being fired aswell!!

You seemed to have ignored what I said about them being able to charge these guys for numerous other offences. But sure you're right, what a shame the Gardaí didn't allow yer man to maybe blow a leg off one of the securicor workers, sure then the whole lot of them could have been done on some sort of even more serious conspiracy charge. happy days then!

And please, please, now that I someone is here asking rational, reasoned, polite and sober questions of the Gardai and of this grizly and serious incident, can we avoid someone coming on and crying about it being dragged off topic (it's not) and that it should probably be locked merely because someone is asking some questions and trying to foster a debate about such a serious incident instead of us all trawling through 70 posts of "Well done garda, its the only way them scum will get learned".

Relevant

vote4pedro wrote: »

It's an assumption yes, but considering the Gardaí seemed to know exactly where they would strike (they were lying in wait) and knew the intended target (and so the exact time they would strike) is it too much to suggest being in a position to 'lockdown' the street's exits or be quickly ready to intercept the robbers is too much? Really?

It is not necessarily the case that the information they had was admissable as evidence. In order to "lockdown" the street they would have had to evacuate all the houses, divert cars, get people to leave their workplaces, do you not thing the gang would get suspicious?

vote4pedro wrote: »

If you had have read my post above, possession of a firearm is not necessarily the only crime they committed. Clearly there was conspiracy to commit an armed robbery, the Gardaí must have had the information as to that if they were lying in wait, and an attempt was made if there were 8 blokes with balaclavas and shotguns stopped a half mile away from the securicor van.
yes, there still would be danger involved, but you know what also involves danger to the public? Armed robbery which leads to a guy almost having his head blown off.

The courts operate on a basis that you have to prove the intent. It would be very difficult to prove that the gang intended to rob it even if they were found with balaclavas and a gun

vote4pedro wrote: »

So streching this, is it ok to use members of the public to lure out violent criminals just so they'll go down for lets say, 10 years instead of 5?

As has been already discussed you cannot arrest someone until they commit a crime.

vote4pedro wrote: »

You are right, excuse me, I'm just going by what numerous newspapers are reporting. May I ask why you didn't use that line to rebut all those people above saying that this scumbag was a robber? Surely those people also don't know the full facts as they weren't there :rolleyes:

My point was that you are coming out saying what the gardai (who are trained professionals at this type of incident) should have done, but you are basing it on ideals and speculation.

vote4pedro

Relevant wrote: »

It is not necessarily the case that the information they had was admissable as evidence. In order to "lockdown" the street they would have had to evacuate all the houses, divert cars, get people to leave their workplaces, do you not thing the gang would get suspicious?

I meant park a Garda car at either end to prevent escape by car. Not rocket science. Don't Gardaí even have those 'stingers' available to them which puncture tyres that drive over them?

The courts operate on a basis that you have to prove the intent. It would be very difficult to prove that the gang intended to rob it even if they were found with balaclavas and a gun

No, it wouldn't, especially coupled with whatever Garda surveillance information they had already put together.

As has been already discussed you cannot arrest someone until they commit a crime.

As I have already said, that is wrong: Conspiracy, attempt and complicity are actionable under our criminal law.

Relevant

vote4pedro wrote: »

I meant park a Garda car at either end to prevent escape by car. Not rocket science. Don't Gardaí even have those 'stingers' available to them which puncture tyres that drive over them?

Yes they should do that, in an ideal world. The stinger could also potentially cause the car to lose control and plough into a group of kids on the side of the road

vote4pedro wrote: »

No, it wouldn't, especially coupled with whatever Garda surveillance information they had already put together.


As I have already said, that is wrong: Conspiracy, attempt and complicity are actionable under our criminal law.

There is no point in arguing with you any further on this. I fully accept that under law it is possible to prosecute someone for conspiracy but getting the evidence to back it is not an easy thing to do

vote4pedro

Relevant wrote: »

Yes they should do that, in an ideal world. The stinger could also potentially cause the car to lose control and plough into a group of kids on the side of the road

Grand, if you think that, we'll go for a garda car or two parked at either end of the road so.

There is no point in arguing with you any further on this. I fully accept that under law it is possible to prosecute someone for conspiracy but getting the evidence to back it is not an easy thing to do

So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

Relevant

vote4pedro wrote: »

So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

It isn't about "making the case easier" It is about there being a case to begin with.

ART6

Vote4pedro you have put forward reasoned arguments but I would contest them. I am not in the AGS, have no police or military experience, am not a lawyer or court official, and was not there. I can only go by the news reports and by giving some thought to an issue outside of my experience. Obviously the Gardai had intelligence that the raid was planned, but would that intelligence stand up in court? Is it provable evidence? I might have gained intelligence in my local pub that my neighbor was planning the rob my house, but if I go to the Gardai and tell them that, will they arrest him? Will they stop him in the street and arrest him if he has a jemmy in his car and is near my house? Will a court sentence him if they do?

There is another issue here too. As in war, intelligence is all very well, as is a carefully planned strategy, but both must take into account the fact that the opposition can also think, plan, and react to changing circumstances. All the good guys can do is to choose a plan and be prepared to adapt it as circumstances change. I don't doubt that the Gardai plan was to handcuff the lot of them before they could complete the crime (why would they not? It would be a hell of a lot safer than a shootout), but that didn't happen because of how the crooks reacted. I cannot see how that situation could have been dealt with in any way other that the way it was.

vote4pedro

It isn't about "making the case easier" It is about there being a case to begin with.

Garda sources that give exact time, date and whereabouts of attempted robbery, presumably the people involved too + intercepting those people near the scene of the crime + intercepting them with weapons and other paraphenalia, all at the exact time the tip-off says the crime will go down.

You're actually going to tell me there's no case at all to be answered re: conspiracy or attempt to commit armed robbery

Relevant

vote4pedro wrote: »

Garda sources that give exact time, date and whereabouts of attempted robbery, presumably the people involved too + intercepting those people near the scene of the crime + intercepting them with weapons and other paraphenalia, all at the exact time the tip-off says the crime will go down.

You're actually going to tell me there's no case at all to be answered re: conspiracy or attempt to commit armed robbery

The source of the information might have been some bloke in a pub. While the information is good enough to act on it is not necessarily sufficient for the courts. Also getting people to testify against these lads isn't always easy

Mutz

vote4pedro wrote: »

Grand, if you think that, we'll go for a garda car or two parked at either end of the road so.





So to make the Gardaí's case a little easier, and to avoid them disclosing their sources, it's better to allow an innocent man to have a gun pointed to his head so you can shoot dead one and do the rest for a more serious charge?

Vote4pedro, in the real world, things never go according to plan and if the criminals don't want to be caught, they'll try everything and go through anyone to escape.

If the Guards had blocked the road as you say, we could be dealing with two or more dead or seriously injured Gardai as a result of being rammed or shot at. The result would more or less be the same, proportionate use of force would have been used regardless.

Yes, I agree that a member of the public was put at risk but sure wouldn't the said member of the public still be at risk had the Gardai not been present?

Good to see that the Guards have some stones these days to tackle. And as for the Courts treating these gangs seriously and giving proper sentences, thats the biggest laugh I've heard in a while!

My two cents.

tricky D

Vote4pedro, you make assumptions which are incorrect according to eyewitnesses' accounts.

The Gardai were not lying in wait for them as unexpected events disrupted the plans of both the Gardai and the raiders. They were following other members of the gang and assumed the raid would be on a scheduled cash drop-off. Two National Surveillance Unit members were going to the shop to warn people and take necessary measures to protect the public when a second Securicor van arrived unscheduled (due to randomising movements/routines) and this one was raided. This caught both the Gardai and the radiers unexpectedly so nothing went exactly to plan for either 'side' and negates your assertion that the Gardai wilfully endangered the security guard's life. The NSU had little time to react and normally would leave such an interception to the other more specialised units (open to correction on the assumption that ERU or others would be the preferred interceptors). However on their arrival they saw a shotgun being held to the head of the guard. They shouted their warning, raider turned to shoot Gardai and got killed and the other one was shot. The NSU didn't have the luxury of having enough time to figure out if the other raider was armed. Public/Gardai in danger, warning, proportional force = lawful killing.

Source - Sunday Tribune account based on 5 witnesses.

AlekSmart

But you're right, "people like me" might actually ask these sort of questions instead of yahoo-ing that some bloke in a Garda bib managed to shoot someone dead.

And please, please, now that I someone is here asking rational, reasoned, polite and sober questions of the Gardai and of this grizly and serious incident, can we avoid someone coming on and crying about it being dragged off topic (it's not) and that it should probably be locked merely because someone is asking some questions and trying to foster a debate about such a serious incident instead of us all trawling through 70 posts of "Well done garda, its the only way them scum will get learned".

Looking forward to your thoughts on the above And please don't be as ridiculous as to use terms like 'people like you' again.

It`s difficult to read Pedro`s posts and not pause to wonder if there will ever be a world of such perfection that he will be happy in.

I note and share his discomfort with the "People like You" retort,yet I am also uncomfortable with his own use of the term "Some Bloke in a Garda Bib" as applied to the Garda who shot the two perpetrators.

Perhaps there are other issues with the notion of law enforcement which has allowed Pedro to focus on this one sad,grisly and senseless incident as if it had been some form of Fringe Festival production staged for public appreciation ?

I have little doubt but "That Bloke in a Garda Bib" had to draw very deeply upon whatever training and experience he possessed during the few seconds he had to make the judgement call as to whether to use lethal force or not.

I would suggest that that "Bloke in the Garda Bib" was granted very little leeway and in fact had the call made for him by the actions of the deceased and his accomplices

Attempting to dehumanise Authority Figures such as Police Officers is of course a long standing and well practiced tactic of many differing social elements who for whatever reasons do not accept the prevailing social or administrative mores.

However,in this particular case It appears to be used on a very personal level against a Garda,who is now and always has been,fully accountable for his actions.
Im quite sure Pedro will have full opportunity to second-guess and criticise the actions of that "Bloke in the Garda Bib" when the results of the Garda Ombudsmans investigation is complete.

I`m hopeful that if the results of such Investigation merit it,Pedro might just have in in him to acknowledge that,and perhaps offer an apology or even a consideration to another human being who found himself placed in a virtually impossible position that day.

In the meantime Pedro and any other individuals who harbour misgivings about the conduct of the Garda operation also have the Garda Ombudsmans Office as an independent body which WILL consider and act upon sustainable accusations of the type which Pedro so strongly believes in.

For my part I`m satisfied that it was a successful operation which concluded with minimal but still regrettable loss of life.
I believe that were it not for the Garda action there could well have been a far worse outcome.

It should also be borne in mind that the intelligence value from the foiling of the raid will yield substantial amounts of information.
Documents,mobile phones and other paraphernailia carried by the raiders could well be used to compromise a vast amount of associated criminal activity before it ever reaches the stage of Fridays event.

I hope that Pedro does not see anything in my opinion which represents a Yahoo reaction ?

Zambia

I would be of the opinion you wait to get as much evidence as possible as when you get the chance to arrest someone for such crimes you want to take them off the street for as long as possible.

Lets say you believe that you have a group in a car armed and ready for a raid. You jump the gun stop the car have the offenders dragged out only to find some balaclavas and a sawn off hurley in a sack, No offence there. You now cant go back to watching as the offenders know they are blown they lie low your budget restraint gets the surveilance unit watchers re-assigned and in a few months the offenders are back in business.

God knows when you get the chance again so when you want to arrest someone you make bloody sure there is no doubt when you show your hand.

I should piont out I'm not a Garda but I reckon that's how I would want them to work.

arybvtcw0eolkf

tricky D wrote: »

The NSU didn't have the luxury of having enough time to figure out if the other raider was armed. Public/Gardai in danger, warning, proportional force = lawful killing.

.

Is it even neccessry that a person to be armed for a guard to shoot them?.

Zambia

In all cases I believe there simply has to be a real and immediate threat to life, there is no provision to state they must be armed.

It it would just be harder to justify the shoot under review. Its a bit like the theory for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Firstly, well done to the AGS and the units involved, they did what had to be done. I feel a strange sense of pride that my state is standing up for itself and not allowing itself to be bullied.

I fully believe that these organised criminal gangs represent a very real threat to the state. That is, a threat to our country and a threat to every law abiding citizen in this state.

As an aside I was travelling in a bus through Hyde Road in Limerick (area associated with the Dundon/Mc Carthy gang) and I saw a pretty large piece of graffiti on the wall that said:

"ERU are rats"

I laughed. If they hate the ERU and their colleagues so much, then AGS must be doing a good job!

A lot of good work done and a lot left to do.

tricky D

Warren Proud Medalist wrote: »

Is it even neccessry that a person to be armed for a guard to shoot them?.

Dunno exactly, but I reckon reasonable suspicion, obscurred view and/or perceived immediate threat would be in play.

ART6

A friend just emailed this to me. Not connected to this incident, but it does show how people in other countries see such things?

A guy in Polk County, Florida, got pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He "executed" the deputy who stopped him, shooting him eight times including once behind his right ear. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.

The killer was found hiding in a wooded area with his guns. SWAT team officers opened fire on him and hit him 68 times. Naturally the media went nuts and asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinal "Because that's all the ammunition we had!"



I am not suggesting that we should operate like that in Ireland, but I have to admit it does seem an effective way of removing a killer from the gene pool without getting into hysterics about his human rights.:)

utick

ART6 wrote: »

A friend just emailed this to me. Not connected to this incident, but it does show how people in other countries see such things?

A guy in Polk County, Florida, got pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He "executed" the deputy who stopped him, shooting him eight times including once behind his right ear. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.

The killer was found hiding in a wooded area with his guns. SWAT team officers opened fire on him and hit him 68 times. Naturally the media went nuts and asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinal "Because that's all the ammunition we had!"



I am not suggesting that we should operate like that in Ireland, but I have to admit it does seem an effective way of removing a killer from the gene pool without getting into hysterics about his human rights.:)

a lot of gun nuts around here, you can shoot burglers too, also recently someone told me if two people break into your home and you shoot one dead and the other one lives, if the police catch the survivor he can be charged with his acomplices murder.

hk

The above situation in the states is, i believe, that if somebody is killed during the commission of a crime, all persons involved in that crime are responsible for murder regardless of whether they actually pulled the trigger, ie if during a bank robbery one member of a gang kills a person then all memebrs of the gang participating in the robbery can be charged with murder. Similarly the above situation is that a person was committing a robbery which resulted in a person being killed, regardless of whether it was their accomplace or not.

WillieCocker

I feel this a job very well done by the Gardai and all involved and i hope it will make serious criminals realise they are not dealing with Garda O'Shea anymore, and they will be fired upon if they don't drop their weapons and "Proper Order" too.

brayblue24

WillieCocker wrote: »

it will make serious criminals realise they are not dealing with Garda O'Shea anymore.

??

Sully

brayblue24 wrote: »

??

I think he meant not any awl guard.. Not one in particular!

Manic Moran

Don't believe everything you hear!!

True, but in this case, he's quite correct on both counts.

It's called Felony Murder, and it can apply to any death, including that of an accomplice. Basically, if the person would have lived had the criminal act never been carried out, culpability can apply to those who carried out the criminal act, regardless of if it was the intent to harm anyone or not.

I am unsure if a similar law exists in Ireland or not.

NTM

the locust

ART6 wrote: »

A friend just emailed this to me. Not connected to this incident, but it does show how people in other countries see such things?

A guy in Polk County, Florida, got pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He "executed" the deputy who stopped him, shooting him eight times including once behind his right ear. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state wide manhunt ensued.

The killer was found hiding in a wooded area with his guns. SWAT team officers opened fire on him and hit him 68 times. Naturally the media went nuts and asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinal "Because that's all the ammunition we had!"



I am not suggesting that we should operate like that in Ireland, but I have to admit it does seem an effective way of removing a killer from the gene pool without getting into hysterics about his human rights.:)

Non related but made me think of the the Iranian embassy seige in london in the 80's. One terrorist pulled out a grenade as they were evacating hostages from the building and the several SAS soldiers shot him dead on the spot. The coroner gave up counting bullets in the corpse after 78!! Initially it sounds excessive.

I suppose armed police aren't much different in the sense that, when you draw your weapon you don't have time to have a group huddle and say 'ok you shoot this guy and i'll shoot the other guy' no - everyone shoots - you just react and rely on training and do what unfortunately needs to be done.

Zambia

Ah hear you cant draw comparisons to the SAS. If you do something bad enough to get them involved you should know you are screwed.

wiki wrote:

After the assault ended, the last surviving gunman, Fowzi Nejad, posed as a hostage and was escorted outside the embassy. There he was quickly identified as a gunman by a real hostage.[1] One SAS soldier was allegedly about to take him back into the building to be shot. The soldier was prevented from doing so when it was pointed out that the world's media were watching.

There was some controversy over some of the killings, especially Shai and Makki. They were guarding the Iranian hostages, and towards the end of the raid the hostages persuaded the men to surrender. Hostages witnessed them throw down their weapons and sit on the floor with their hands on their heads. Weapons being thrown out of a window and a white flag were seen by video cameras outside.
Dadgar, a hostage at the time (confirmed by two other hostages) said (of the SAS):
"They then took the two terrorists, pushed them against the wall and shot them. They wanted to finish their story. That was their job." ...[they might have] "had something in their pockets but certainly had no weapons in their hands at the time."
At a coroner's inquest the SAS were cleared of unlawful conduct by a jury. One of the soldiers said that he thought Makki was going for a gun, and another said he thought Shai had a grenade and shot him in the back of the neck.
Margaret Thatcher and her husband Denis paid a visit to the SAS at Regent's Park barracks after the incident to thank them. "Tom", one of the SAS soldiers present, said of a later meeting with Denis Thatcher:
"He had a big grin on his face and said, 'You let one of the bastards live.' We failed in that respect."

the locust

I wouldn't compare the SAS and the gardai either! As i said 'non related', ART6's post just made me think of that story... I was comparing it with being an armed police person... in the sense that you have to be prepared to aim and pull the trigger when you confront the bad guys

Zambia

Ah sorry about that I missed that vital bit...

There is this thing in gun handling where if 16 blokes have their guns drawn and one fires the rest will possibly all fire as well.

So an 8 man swat team would have fired about 8 shots each , from a fully auto weapon that's not so bad.

If it was texas I would believe it was from a single officer with a 6 shot 357 reloading:)

Shield

Thread has run its course.

Closed.