Shots fired

Rawhead

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0310/portlaoise.html

Good job by the soldier on duty. I'd be guessing that they found a couple of large lumps of sh1te beside the phones.

Manic Moran

Soldiers?

I understand the whole ATCP thing for cases when you suddenly need a bunch of lads with guns to drive around or man checkpoints or something, but surely 'prison guard' is a waste of a trained soldier? Why doesn't the Prison Service do that?

NTM

ANXIOUS

Manic Moran wrote: »

Soldiers?

I understand the whole ATCP thing for cases when you suddenly need a bunch of lads with guns to drive around or man checkpoints or something, but surely 'prison guard' is a waste of a trained soldier? Why doesn't the Prison Service do that?

NTM

Its a maximum security prision, Its where all the provos go. They blew a hole in the wall before. I guess the fact that we have an unarmed police force rules out the prison service being armed.

Manic Moran

That's not really true, though, is it? A number of Gardai are authorised, and do, carry weapons. Why not simply designate some IPS personnel as certified to man armed watch in a tower? Not as if they're going out and interacting with the public, is it?

NTM

Zambia

What the hell.

Quite frankly that shot should never have been fired.

I assume that soldiers are trained to fire if under real and impending threat to life(in these duties). I see no reason for loosing of a round here. Unless the burglars where armed and in that case he/she missed.

Open to correction as always

Zambia

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Its a maximum security prision, Its where all the provos go. They blew a hole in the wall before. I guess the fact that we have an unarmed police force rules out the prison service being armed.

Why does that rule out arming the prison service??? Are they hired from a different gene pool than the military?

RMD

Zambia wrote: »

What the hell.

Quite frankly that shot should never have been fired.

I assume that soldiers are trained to fire if under real and impending threat to life(in these duties). I see no reason for loosing of a round here. Unless the burglars where armed and in that case he/she missed.

Open to correction as always

It was a warning shot, I'd prefer to see the soldiers "warn" the fúck out of the scumbags than take a soft option. Nobody was hurt, there was no chance of someone being hurt and the scumbags will think twice before trying it again. I'd consider that an absolute success in every sense.

Captain Chaos

Sadly though this will most likely end his/her career in the Forces for good. I'd pat the chap on the back myself. Don't the DF members need permission from a Garda member before opening fire on unless a life is at stake, for civi duties.

seanmacc

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not really true, though, is it? A number of Gardai are authorised, and do, carry weapons. Why not simply designate some IPS personnel as certified to man armed watch in a tower? Not as if they're going out and interacting with the public, is it?

NTM

It is the cheaper option. The armed Gardaí get more allowances than any other.
Also for security purposes. That way it is much harder to get to the soldiers i.e threats to family ect. and for the soldiers to build up a relationship with prisoners.

muppet01

The soldier was on duty in a watchtower of the adjacent max security prison not the midlands prison,
As the biggest storage facility for major scum in the country it is guarded by the military with authorisation to use force within SOP's.... Well done to the soldier and hope he followed his procedures to the max

Captain Chaos

seanmacc wrote: »

The prison duty is treated like a tour of duty.

Suppose that answers my question about rules of engagement.

Zambia

RMD wrote: »

It was a warning shot, I'd prefer to see the soldiers "warn" the fúck out of the scumbags than take a soft option. Nobody was hurt, there was no chance of someone being hurt and the scumbags will think twice before trying it again. I'd consider that an absolute success in every sense.

Where did that bullet end up?

Steyr

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Sadly though this will most likely end his/her career in the Forces for good.

How so? He/she was doing their job and successfully stopped contraband from entering the Prison, said contraband was located and shows the scum that the DF there wont take any sh1t, well done that Soldier.

Manic Moran

muppet01 wrote: »

The soldier was on duty in a watchtower of the adjacent max security prison not the midlands prison,

Which begs the question. He's presumably instructed to guard everything within the limits of his post. Midlands is presumably not within the limits of his post, there was no threat or attempted breach of his ward, namely Portlaoise Prison. Did he exceed his authority?

NTM

Poccington

Zambia wrote: »

What the hell.

Quite frankly that shot should never have been fired.

I assume that soldiers are trained to fire if under real and impending threat to life(in these duties). I see no reason for loosing of a round here. Unless the burglars where armed and in that case he/she missed.

Open to correction as always

He was justified. I can't go into specifics but speaking from personal experience, he was justified.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Sadly though this will most likely end his/her career in the Forces for good. I'd pat the chap on the back myself. Don't the DF members need permission from a Garda member before opening fire on unless a life is at stake, for civi duties.

A member of the Garda has absolutely zero say in what a member of the DF can do when it comes to firearms.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which begs the question. He's presumably instructed to guard everything within the limits of his post. Midlands is presumably not within the limits of his post, there was no threat or attempted breach of his ward, namely Portlaoise Prison. Did he exceed his authority?

NTM

No, he didn't. I can't go into specifics but the lad was very much on the ball and very much justified.

johngalway

If the story as reported is correct, and if the soldier exceeded his authority, I think the authority given to those soldiers should be immediately extended to what he did. Whoever they were, broke through a fence of a prison!

We're a soft touch nation when it comes to crime.

Fair play to that soldier, am all for giving him a medal. Hope he discharged his weapon in a safe direction all the same, what goes up must come down and all that.

Poccington

Lads, I'd like to remind everyone that posting any kind of info regarding security arrangements within Portlaoise prison is restricted info. That includes the length of time spent there etc.

Zambia

Poccington wrote: »

He was justified. I can't go into specifics but speaking from personal experience, he was justified.

I'm happy with that because from the article it really looks as if he would be in a world of poo.

Cheers

arybvtcw0eolkf

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Sadly though this will most likely end his/her career in the Forces for good.

It won't make a blind bit of difference to the man's career.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'd pat the chap on the back myself. Don't the DF members need permission from a Garda member before opening fire on unless a life is at stake, for civi duties.

I cant ('nor would not) go into the times when we're allowed fire ball ammunition. But Poccington has more or less answered this question. Needless to say, and just to repeat what Pocc has said - we don't need the permission of AGS to shoot at someone.

I'd be surprised if there's a member of the defence forces who could not repeat word or word when we can fire ball ammunition.

Wicklowrider

Manic Moran wrote: »

Soldiers?

I understand the whole ATCP thing for cases when you suddenly need a bunch of lads with guns to drive around or man checkpoints or something, but surely 'prison guard' is a waste of a trained soldier? Why doesn't the Prison Service do that?

NTM

I agree in principle, no reason why a soldier is needed to guard a prison.
BUT a prison officer is paid a lot more than a soldier and I 'd hate to see the bill after the unions had their say about arming them. You can detail a soldier to stand duty for any amount of hours without affecting wage cost but try doing that with a PO and it'll finish off whatever reserves the state has.

On the subject of it affecting the soldier's career, assuming they followed SOP, it won't affect their career. Over the years many soldiers, myself included, have fired shots on native soil without negative ( or positive) effect on their career. Another myth is that you'll be writing reports till the cows come home. I filled in the standard expenditure of ammo slip and spoke to a Garda sergeant for about five minutes.I had a debriefing with my OIC - maybe 10 minutes and that was the end of it. Only problem I had was when I returned to barracks and went to the canteen. All the lads dived under the tables!

Rawhead

The prison service has traditionally recruited a lot of ex service lads. I know there are lads serving in the IPS at the moment who are ex Royal Marines, USMC, 2nd REP FFL not to mention the PDF lads. It would not be a big deal to pick 50 officers out of the service and firearm train them for tower duty and armed escorts.

What would be the big deal is finding 50 lads who would want to carry a firearm in the prison service. We are given batons and then told we will be sacked if we use them, we have brilliant attack dogs but the handlers are told they will be sacked if they release them. The chances are that if you discharged a firearm while being a prison officer then you would end up sharing a cell with the person you fired at.

I also think the PDF lads would be pissed off if we took their allowance for Portlaoise duty.

Teangalad

Fair play to him/her ,those scumbags will think twice and the contraband was seized,result all round....

mikemac

Well done to the soldier

goldie fish

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which begs the question. He's presumably instructed to guard everything within the limits of his post. Midlands is presumably not within the limits of his post, there was no threat or attempted breach of his ward, namely Portlaoise Prison. Did he exceed his authority?

NTM

No.
There is a shared perimeter(Not Opsec). Take a look at it on Google earth.

chicken fingers

Zambia wrote: »

What the hell.

Quite frankly that shot should never have been fired.

I assume that soldiers are trained to fire if under real and impending threat to life(in these duties). I see no reason for loosing of a round here. Unless the burglars where armed and in that case he/she missed.

Open to correction as always

Youre living in la la land tbh.

The guys BROKE THROUGH a security permiter fence in a high security prison.
They were verbally warned by an armed guard in a tower... They didnt stop so he fired *warning* shots.
Completely justified, and in any other country he would also probably have been justified to shoot to kill or capture.

xflyer

The soldier was justified in firing the shot. He certainly didn't exceed his authority. Even the news report makes that obvious, seven men breaking the perimeter fence and approaching the prison at night. He may have been guarding Portlaoise but Midlands is also government property. I would probably be censored by the mod if I explained it in more detail. But he did his duty. If they'd been breaking into a bank beside the prison he couldn't have fired. He could shout at them though.

As for arming prison officers, NTM, wicklowrider has it right. Remember back here in the auld sod, guns are scary dangerous things which only people with highly specialised training should be allowed to touch.:rolleyes: There would be a big queue of prison officers willing to be armed not least because it would attract a nice premium on top of their pay.

It's easier to use the army.

Edit: Oh wait! Aren't banks government property now?

Rawhead

xflyer wrote: »

As for arming prison officers, NTM, wicklowrider has it right. Remember back here in the auld sod, guns are scary dangerous things which only people with highly specialised training should be allowed to touch.:rolleyes: There would be a big queue of prison officers willing to be armed not least because it would attract a nice premium on top of their pay.

It's easier to use the army.

Edit: Oh wait! Aren't banks government property now?

As a serving PO I would be the first to agree that by the time the unions and management got through approving a plan for arming us it would be so screwed up that it would be unworkable, outrageously expensive and useless.

The reality is that we have a defence force in a neutral country that has no combat commitments and is for all intents and purposes a garrison army. They are not overstretched by any sense of the imagination and the lads get a few euro extra in their duty allowance for serving in Portlaoise. If and when we are fighting a war on two fronts then by all means we can release the army for more important duty's.

Zambia

chicken fingers wrote: »

Youre living in la la land tbh.

The guys BROKE THROUGH a security permiter fence in a high security prison.
They were verbally warned by an armed guard in a tower... They didnt stop so he fired *warning* shots.
Completely justified, and in any other country he would also probably have been justified to shoot to kill or capture.

You watch to much tv...

Poccington

Rawhead wrote: »

The prison service has traditionally recruited a lot of ex service lads. I know there are lads serving in the IPS at the moment who are ex Royal Marines, USMC, 2nd REP FFL not to mention the PDF lads. It would not be a big deal to pick 50 officers out of the service and firearm train them for tower duty and armed escorts.

What would be the big deal is finding 50 lads who would want to carry a firearm in the prison service. We are given batons and then told we will be sacked if we use them, we have brilliant attack dogs but the handlers are told they will be sacked if they release them. The chances are that if you discharged a firearm while being a prison officer then you would end up sharing a cell with the person you fired at.

I also think the PDF lads would be pissed off if we took their allowance for Portlaoise duty.

You're welcome to it. I hate the place :P

coach23

Zambia wrote: »

You watch to much tv...

hows that?

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not really true, though, is it? A number of Gardai are authorised, and do, carry weapons. Why not simply designate some IPS personnel as certified to man armed watch in a tower? Not as if they're going out and interacting with the public, is it?

NTM

Nah, if we arm our guards, we'd want them to be actively out backing up officers in danger insterad of helping babysit provos.

Soldiers are free and able to do the job, just as they are to escort bank vans. Let them do it.

Wicklowrider

Zambia wrote: »

Where did that bullet end up?

One flew over the cuckoo's nest ( sorry, only makes sense to lads who've done the duty, couldn't resist it)

chicken fingers

Zambia wrote: »

You watch to much tv...

Great contribution.
From my other posts here on boards, you may see that I am (and have been for several years) a security contractor working for a military organisation. I havent watched TV in 10 years and I live my life mostly on duty in conflict zones. (a mod can probably verify where I am posting from, that will speak for itself if they can indeed see)

I see people shoot at other people on a weekly basis, that is life for me.
Nothing I said was "walter mitty" in any way, but you are living in a bubble if you think no shots should have been fired.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Zambia wrote: »

What the hell.

Quite frankly that shot should never have been fired.

I assume that soldiers are trained to fire if under real and impending threat to life(in these duties). I see no reason for loosing of a round here. Unless the burglars where armed and in that case he/she missed.

Open to correction as always

To quote you;

You watch to much tv...

Or to put it in army terms - your talking when you should be listening (and reading between the lines).

Read between the lines on whats been said here by serving and ex members - we know when we're justified in discharging a weapon, there's nothing left to chance.. We obviously can not list here when and under what circumstances we can discharge our weapons.

You can bet your life the soldier knew he was justified in discharging his weapon.

Local-womanizer

chicken fingers wrote: »

.(a mod can probably verify where I am posting from, that will speak for itself if they can indeed see)

Mordor is a pretty dangerous place alright!

On a serious note,good job by the solider in question,hopefully this will make future attempts to smuggle into the prison a little more difficult.

BrianD

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not really true, though, is it? A number of Gardai are authorised, and do, carry weapons. Why not simply designate some IPS personnel as certified to man armed watch in a tower? Not as if they're going out and interacting with the public, is it?

NTM

Why not? We need those Gardai on the street. A military detail fits the bill perfectly.

BrianD

chicken fingers wrote: »

Great contribution.
From my other posts here on boards, you may see that I am (and have been for several years) a security contractor working for a military organisation. I havent watched TV in 10 years and I live my life mostly on duty in conflict zones. (a mod can probably verify where I am posting from, that will speak for itself if they can indeed see)

I see people shoot at other people on a weekly basis, that is life for me.
Nothing I said was "walter mitty" in any way, but you are living in a bubble if you think no shots should have been fired.

Is the correct established term for you not a mercenary? Calling yourself a 'security contractor' is like calling a window cleaner a 'Transparent Wall Maintenance Engineer'.

Back on topic, the soldier didn't exceed his authority and it was a warning shot. The phones were probably wrapped in padding so he would have no idea what objects were being thrown in the direction of the walls.

Not the first time that shots have been fired at Midlands.

Zambia

Nolan Putrid Shoplifter wrote: »

To quote you;



Or to put it in army terms - your talking when you should be listening (and reading between the lines).

Read between the lines on whats been said here by serving and ex members - we know when we're justified in discharging a weapon, there's nothing left to chance.. We obviously can not list here when and under what circumstances we can discharge our weapons.

You can bet your life the soldier knew he was justified in discharging his weapon.

I have already stated there is more to this story than the press has released so I am happy enough it was justified if you guys say it was. I back anything 100% without the facts you have them I dont However.

Zambia

chicken fingers wrote: »

Youre living in la la land tbh.

The guys BROKE THROUGH a security permiter fence in a high security prison.
They were verbally warned by an armed guard in a tower... They didnt stop so he fired *warning* shots.
Completely justified, and in any other country he would also probably have been justified to shoot to kill or capture.

1: Using Caps to state they broke through a security fence does not make it a capital offence.

2: Verbally warning someone you are going to shoot them does not allow you to loose of rounds at them or shoot them. The guard was in a tower tell me who he was justified in defending by utilising deadly force? Were the offenders armed well enough to shoot him out of his tower?

3: The use of force in most western country's is reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

I will happily admit I have it wrong however you are going to have to show me an Irish law that says that you can shoot people for breaking into prison. Unless I am very much mistaken no one including army personnel have a authority to use deadly force unless in response to a equal threat.

The rules of engagement in conflict zones are not the same as Ireland I am sure but this incident happened in Ireland at peace.

I do apologise for my earlier TV glib remark it was uncalled for.

RMD

Zambia wrote: »

1: Using Caps to state they broke through a security fence does not make it a capital offence.

2: Verbally warning someone you are going to shoot them does not allow you to loose of rounds at them or shoot them. The guard was in a tower tell me who he was justified in defending by utilising deadly force? Were the offenders armed well enough to shoot him out of his tower?

3: The use of force in most western country's is reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

I will happily admit I have it wrong however you are going to have to show me an Irish law that says that you can shoot people for breaking into prison. Unless I am very much mistaken no one including army personnel have a authority to use deadly force unless in response to a equal threat.

The rules of engagement in conflict zones are not the same as Ireland I am sure but this incident happened in Ireland at peace.

I do apologise for my earlier TV glib remark it was uncalled for.

They broke into a prison and ignored a verbal warning to stop, kept on towards the inner wall with a package in hand. What do you want done? For all the soldier knew there could have been life-threatening items in the package, this is after all the maximum security prison for the country. He then fired a warning shot, not hitting the intruders or anyone else. That was by far the best solution to the problem posed. If the package did contain dangerous items it'd be his fault for any resulting injuries / deaths as he didn't prevent an intrusion.

chicken fingers

Zambia wrote: »

1: Using Caps to state they broke through a security fence does not make it a capital offence.

They call this the strawman defence of substituting a subject in discussion. "hey you used caps youre a crazy, and WRONG internet person!" Capitals are used in a crude manner to express tone online. Its the best I could do to convey an incredulous, shocked tone.

Zambia wrote:

2: Verbally warning someone you are going to shoot them does not allow you to loose of rounds at them or shoot them. The guard was in a tower tell me who he was justified in defending by utilising deadly force? Were the offenders armed well enough to shoot him out of his tower?

Who said he loosed rounds at them?
Who said he shot them?
Guns are not deadly force when you fire a "warning shot", its

Zambia wrote:

3: The use of force in most western country's is reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

Exactly. His force was completely proportionate IMO. The army lads and ex-service folk know what they are talking about.

Zambia wrote:

I will happily admit I have it wrong however you are going to have to show me an Irish law that says that you can shoot people for breaking into prison. Unless I am very much mistaken no one including army personnel have a authority to use deadly force unless in response to a equal threat.

The rules of engagement in conflict zones are not the same as Ireland I am sure but this incident happened in Ireland at peace.

I do apologise for my earlier TV glib remark it was uncalled for.

Thanks no worries guns get people heated I know its one of those things.

Manic Moran

Guns are not deadly force when you fire a "warning shot", its

Actually, they are, even when death is not the intended result. Once discharged, the round has sufficient force in it to be quite lethal, which is why even warning shots should not be fired unless it's a situation which could allow for the use of direct lethal action. The whole point of a warning shot, after all, is to point out that the next one will be lethal. That said, 'threat to life' is not the only circumstance for shooting at people.

NTM

Zambia

chicken fingers wrote: »

Thanks no worries guns get people heated I know its one of those things.

Come on where is my Irish law that says this is proportionate? Where can you fire at people because they are commiting burglary its not a offence punishable by summary execution? Unless they are a threat to the soldier or someone else?

@RMD The pionts in your post are not in the article,I cant say what the soldier saw, so I cant debate that. In all cases if you use force it has to be on what you know not what you dont know. In this circumstance if the soldier did not use his weapon what could he do ? Did he have a radio could he have called other units/guards? You see where I am coming from is the use of lethal force is to the exculusion of all other options.

Here is the article

A soldier on duty at Portlaoise Prison fired a warning shot tonight after a number of men tried to smuggle phones into the Midlands Prison.
At around 7pm a number of men broke through a perimeter fence and made their way towards the walls around the Midlands Prison.
A soldier on duty in one of the watchtowers at the adjoining Portlaoise pPrison saw the men and called on them to stop and identify themselves.
It appears that his verbal warnings were ignored.
The Defence Forces say the soldier fired a warning shot in response.
The men fled the scene and in a follow up search seven phones were recovered in a package which prison sources believe were destined to be thrown into the Midlands prison.
Gardaí, the Prison Service and the Military Police are now investigating the incident.

By this article and this article alone that shot was not warranted. Poccington has stated there is other circumstances not made known that do justify the shot. I am happy enough to leave it there.

BrianD

Zambia wrote: »

Come on where is my Irish law that says this is proportionate? Where can you fire at people because they are commiting burglary its not a offence punishable by summary execution? Unless they are a threat to the soldier or someone else?

@RMD The pionts in your post are not in the article,I cant say what the soldier saw, so I cant debate that. In all cases if you use force it has to be on what you know not what you dont know. In this circumstance if the soldier did not use his weapon what could he do ? Did he have a radio could he have called other units/guards? You see where I am coming from is the use of lethal force is to the exculusion of all other options.

Here is the article

By this article and this article alone that shot was not warranted. Poccington has stated there is other circumstances not made known that do justify the shot. I am happy enough to leave it there.

The fact that they were mobile phones was only known after the event.

The fact that Portlaoise prison is secured by armed members of the Defence Forces is well known. There are there and armed for a reason. The irony is that that the phone throwers weren't ignorant ordinary members of the public but would have been well aware of this fact.

Those soldiers would have rules of engagement which I suspect would not include ringing a friend or asking the audience about what they should . Don't forget that a soldier has no power of arrest anyway. The reason why is there are armed guards.

In regard to proportionate force, you only have to look at what happened to that chap in Mayo. Civilian with gun shoots fleeing would be burglar in the back, kills him and gets away with it. The precedent has been set. A warning shot is hardly disproportionate force and if a prison break was underway use of armed force could hardly be considered unreasonable.

However, the reports say Midlands Prison was the target of the phone throwers which is not the prison that the DF guard. If so, this person may have landed themselves in some hot water.

xflyer

I'm not sure why this is still being argued. Several contributors who are or were members of the defence forces have pointed out the soldier concerned was correct in his actions going by rules that apply. Those rules pretty much cover that scenario. It would be easy if these rules could be posted here. But they can't, simple as that.

Zambia

I am all for accepting that chances are there is a factor that made the use of force here reasonable that is not made known. However saying the soldier was justified because of some army operating procedures makes no sense to me?

Do army operating instructions override Irish law?

Raging_Ninja

Zambia wrote: »

I am all for accepting that chances are there is a factor that made the use of force here reasonable that is not made known. However saying the soldier was justified because of some army operating procedures makes no sense to me?

Do army operating instructions override Irish law?

The rules of engagement are the law. They have to be, as the DF has to act within the law.

gbee

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why doesn't the Prison Service do that?
NTM

They are not part of the armed services.

gbee

Zambia wrote: »

Do army operating instructions override Irish law?

Sort of. A soldier is superior to a Garda for instance. The army operate under their own rules, any unauthorised body approaching a secure location being guarded by an armed unit, risk being challenged and having arms discharged, and even shot at if action of intrusion continues.

Cast one's mind back to Spike Island when it was a prison and the the warden called for help during a riot. He denied the army access to his facility as he did not want army procedures to be unleashed on his charges.

arybvtcw0eolkf

gbee wrote: »

A soldier is superior to a Garda

Take that Emergency Services Forum

gbee

Nolan Putrid Shoplifter wrote: »

Take that Emergency Services Forum

I should have said a soldier outranks a garda.