Shots fired

Manic Moran

I should have said a soldier outranks a garda.

I'd like to see that one in writing.

Surely if the Gardai are the Civil Power, and soldiers are 'Aids to the Civil Power', would that not by definition mean that the Gardai are in charge except in cases of martial law? 'Aid', after all, means 'help' and indicates subservience.

They are not part of the armed services.

Neither are the Gardai, but they've a few firearms scattered around.

NTM

Wicklowrider

Manic Moran wrote: »

Surely if the Gardai are the Civil Power, and soldiers are 'Aids to the Civil Power', would that not by definition mean that the Gardai are in charge except in cases of martial law? 'Aid', after all, means 'help' and indicates subservience.

ATCP isn't strictly the role the army is deployed in this case - for example a soldier on duty in Portlaoise wouldn't need an order from gardai to act in a given situation but the same soldier may do a different duty in the company of gardai and that duty would be strictly ATCP ( don't want to get too specific for obvious reasons but I get the feeling you know the duties involved)

Manic Moran wrote: »

Neither are the Gardai, but they've a few firearms scattered around.
NTM

Scattered around - I like that description:D I have a feeling this thread isn't doing anything for PDF/Gardai relationships........

Wicklowrider

gbee wrote: »

I should have said a soldier outranks a garda.

Stop digging!:D

Manic Moran

Private (3-Star) to Garda Commissioner. "Feck off, I outrank you. Yer only a Gard"

That will end well.

NTM

gbee

Manic Moran wrote: »

Private (3-Star) to Garda Commissioner. "Feck off, I outrank you. Yer only a Gard" That will end well. NTM

Now, where did I say a soldier outranks a Garda commissioner? Have your laugh, you've an amazing imagination, so I won't spoil your fun.

BrianD

xflyer wrote: »

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.

I'm slightly mystified about these rules being kept secret. I can understandt he situation in a strictly military operation. However as this particular military operation interfaces with the general public surely the rules of engagement should be known and available? Leaving some common sense aside, as a member of the public I should know that if I behave in a certain manner on or in the vicinity of Portlaoise Prison that I will or may be shot at.

gbee

BrianD wrote: »

if I behave in a certain manner on or in the vicinity of Portlaoise Prison that I will or may be shot at.

If you break through a security fence ... oh never mind.

Rawhead

BrianD wrote: »

I'm slightly mystified about these rules being kept secret. I can understandt he situation in a strictly military operation. However as this particular military operation interfaces with the general public surely the rules of engagement should be known and available? Leaving some common sense aside, as a member of the public I should know that if I behave in a certain manner on or in the vicinity of Portlaoise Prison that I will or may be shot at.

I think it's fairly obvious what the rules of engagement would cover. If you approach the prison by any other method than the visitors entrance (don't cut a hole through a fence, drive a JCB through the gate, land a helicopter in the yard) then you are fair game. If you seem to have a problem with this then you
A. Have criminal intentions
B. Are very stupid

Normal law abiding people do not have to worry about how they behave in or around a prison because law abiding members of the public do not hang around prisons.

As to you being slightly mystified, why the hell would you feel that the security arrangements at the country's maximum security prison be made public.

Wicklowrider

BrianD wrote: »

I'm slightly mystified about these rules being kept secret. I can understandt he situation in a strictly military operation. However as this particular military operation interfaces with the general public surely the rules of engagement should be known and available? Leaving some common sense aside, as a member of the public I should know that if I behave in a certain manner on or in the vicinity of Portlaoise Prison that I will or may be shot at.

Hi,

Honestly, public haven't anything to concern them. Think about it - every day 24 hours of the day PDF go about their business.Thousands upon thousands of Cash escorts, prison duties and even riot duty. Even in this case when a criminal act was in progress and it was difficult to gauge how serious it was, the soldier warned the culprits and then fired a warning shot - nobody was in danger provided the warning was observed. There are a series of checks and cross checks in place for all our safety and if a soldier discharges a weapon they are called to account. If they've been "trigger happy" they are facing serious trouble and most probably military prison.

goldie fish

gbee wrote: »

Now, where did I say a soldier outranks a Garda commissioner? Have your laugh, you've an amazing imagination, so I won't spoil your fun.

When the Gardai went to Bosnia for the first time, they were issued with the rank marking of a police lieutenant.,....
Soldiers have to salute all gardai over the rank of inspector, and in ATCP, the senior garda on the escort/cp is in charge of the whole detail. The garda calls the shots. The only thing the garda can't do is tell the NCO were to put his troops.
And FINALLY

When on garda/army ops, unless otherwise directed, a soldier must address any member of AGS as SIR.:D

Zambia

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Hi,

Honestly, public haven't anything to concern them. Think about it - every day 24 hours of the day PDF go about their business.Thousands upon thousands of Cash escorts, prison duties and even riot duty.

Yes I never felt threatened because as far as I was concerned they had to obey the same use of force as everyone else defined by Irish Law. If I did not threaten them or anyone else I was fine.

Anyway As far as I can dig up the use of force is defined in the non-fatal offences against the person act. I might have to seek assistance in what sec covers it.

Poccington

goldie fish wrote: »

When the Gardai went to Bosnia for the first time, they were issued with the rank marking of a police lieutenant.,....
Soldiers have to salute all gardai over the rank of inspector, and in ATCP, the senior garda on the escort/cp is in charge of the whole detail. The garda calls the shots. The only thing the garda can't do is tell the NCO were to put his troops.
And FINALLY

When on garda/army ops, unless otherwise directed, a soldier must address any member of AGS as SIR.:D

That may be the case in theory but the single time I've seen a member of the AGS try to throw his weight around was on a Cash and the Sgt on the Cash tore him to shreds.

Irish_Army01

Zambia wrote: »

Yes I never felt threatened because as far as I was concerned they had to obey the same use of force as everyone else defined by Irish Law. If I did not threaten them or anyone else I was fine.

Anyway As far as I can dig up the use of force is defined in the non-fatal offences against the person act. I might have to seek assistance in what sec covers it.

The use of Force is classed as RESTRICTED. Thats all any one here needs to know.

My input into this discussion (which in my opinion has well run its course) is exactly what my esteemed PDF colleague's have said. The Soldier in question was justified. Our degrees of force is not for a public forum.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

The use of Force is classed as RESTRICTED. Thats all any one here needs to know.

+1.

I came back to this discussion with the intent to post exactly this.

It hits the nail on the head in regards to a huge amount of discussion in this forum.

BrianD

Rawhead wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious what the rules of engagement would cover. If you approach the prison by any other method than the visitors entrance (don't cut a hole through a fence, drive a JCB through the gate, land a helicopter in the yard) then you are fair game. If you seem to have a problem with this then you
A. Have criminal intentions
B. Are very stupid

Normal law abiding people do not have to worry about how they behave in or around a prison because law abiding members of the public do not hang around prisons.

As to you being slightly mystified, why the hell would you feel that the security arrangements at the country's maximum security prison be made public.

You're missing the point entirely.

Portlaoise is unique as both a facility and a prison in that it is guarded by soldiers who operate under rules should a member of the public approach or behave in a certain manner - intentionally or intentionally. Other forums are making a big deal about these rules being military secrets and not be disclosed on an Internet forum. I am mystified as to why this is the case. I am a normal law abiding person and there is absolutely no reason why I should not know what the rules of engagement and how they escalate.

Some people state that the soldier operated outside of the rules and is likely to be censured, others state he operated according to the rules. What are they exactly?

Poccington

BrianD wrote: »

You're missing the point entirely.

Portlaoise is unique as both a facility and a prison in that it is guarded by soldiers who operate under rules should a member of the public approach or behave in a certain manner - intentionally or intentionally. Other forums are making a big deal about these rules being military secrets and not be disclosed on an Internet forum. I am mystified as to why this is the case. I am a normal law abiding person and there is absolutely no reason why I should not know what the rules of engagement and how they escalate.

Some people state that the soldier operated outside of the rules and is likely to be censured, others state he operated according to the rules. What are they exactly?

They're restricted, that's what they are. They won't be posted on here.

Irish_Army01

Poccington wrote: »

They're restricted, that's what they are. They won't be posted on here.

maglite

Back seat mod much:rolleyes::rolleyes::p

Can anyone tell me if a warning shot is allowed?

dahamster

maglite wrote: »

Back seat mod much:rolleyes::rolleyes::p

Can anyone tell me if a warning shot is allowed?

See post #67.:)

BrianD

dahamster wrote: »

See post #67.:)

Who cares? I have no idea who he or she is.

Irish_Army01

maglite wrote: »

Back seat mod much:rolleyes::rolleyes::p

Can anyone tell me if a warning shot is allowed?

All I'm saying is...What the general public need to know regarding this incident is what you have read in the papers..

If you needed to know our TTP's or SOPs, they to would have been published... I as an NCO in the Defence forces have a duty of care to the Organisation I am employed in, and see no need to further this discussion.

deise go deo

BrianD wrote: »

I am a normal law abiding person and there is absolutely no reason why I should not know what the rules of engagement and how they escalate.

I dont see any reason why a Normal law abiding person would have any need for the information. If you ever have a reason to be around Portlaoise Prison, dont act the tool and you will be grand.

The Info is Restricted for a reason, the main reason being that idiots like those who tried to get mobiles into Portlaoise dont know what to expect.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm not a military guy but it makes perfect sense for rules of engagement to be secret.

If the rules were public I would know if I was a criminal how far I could take things before the DF would engage me. The DF would then be a lot less effective for this.

BrianD

Ibrahim Rough Syringe wrote: »

I'm not a military guy but it makes perfect sense for rules of engagement to be secret.

If the rules were public I would know if I was a criminal how far I could take things before the DF would engage me. The DF would then be a lot less effective for this.

So it would be OK if we didn't have any written laws and the cop could nab according to a secret law book?

The rules of engagement involve the public and therefore should be known to the public. Because they are publicly known doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

Irish_Army01

BrianD wrote: »

So it would be OK if we didn't have any written laws and the cop could nab according to a secret law book?

The rules of engagement involve the public and therefore should be known to the public. Because they are publicly known doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

You are either a do-gooder or a journo...:rolleyes:

BTW, The Guard's have ROE's too and you won't get them either!

No Military publish their ROE's..And ours won't be either..

Rawhead

BrianD wrote: »

So it would be OK if we didn't have any written laws and the cop could nab according to a secret law book?

The rules of engagement involve the public and therefore should be known to the public. Because they are publicly known doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

You won't be told anything here. March down to your nearest army base and demand to be told their rules of engagement, tell them it's your right.

On your way home stop by the national mint and ask for the security codes. (don't forget to post them here for all your mates)

e04bf0c8

As a long time follower but first time poster on the Military forum I would just like to throw in my 2 cents. Firstly I am not a member of either the military or AGS. From what I can see it boils down to something very simple:

Should you ever come into contact with an official armed unit (military or AGS) whether it be on the street or in a particular facility, don't act the maggot and follow any instructions given. Once we do this everyone will get home safe and well regardless of what the ROE are or are not.

211002

e04bf0c8 wrote: »

As a long time follower but first time poster on the Military forum I would just like to throw in my 2 cents. Firstly I am not a member of either the military or AGS. From what I can see it boils down to something very simple:

Should you ever come into contact with an official armed unit (military or AGS) whether it be on the street or in a particular facility, don't act the maggot and follow any instructions given. Once we do this everyone will get home safe and well regardless of what the ROE are or are not.

Precisely. Armed soldier in observation post orders you to stop, especially in the Portlaoise complex, you stop rather quickly!

Manic Moran

Because they are publicly known doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

Yes, it does.

The ROEs provide a very hard and fast set of criteria by which a soldier may act, they are usually fairly inflexible barring instances of clearly perceived immediate threat to life. If the general public know what they are, the opposition can tailor their actions specifically to the point that they know that the soldiers cannot act, thus reducing the overall effect of the uncertainty. "If I do this, will I get shot? Is it worth taking the risk?" vs "I can do this and know I won't get shot"

NTM

Morpheus

BrianD wrote: »

Because they are publicly known doesn't diminish their effectiveness.

:rolleyes:

And you are qualified to know this because?????

Wicklowrider

Hi BrianD

This is a free country (partly because some of us keep it that way ) so I support your right to question anything you want. You aren't going to get answers to some of your questions here for reasons already explained.
If you aren't satisfied with that then my suggestion is you approach your local politician or contact the army press office. Once again I'd reassure you that the public are in no danger from the PDF - you don't find trouble unless you actively look for it. Even then the response is legal, measured and proportionate. Can you point me to a SINGLE incident where a law abiding civilian has been shot at by PDF despite the daily interaction between armed soldiers and public?
thanks.

BigDuffman

The fact that they are not known is what makes them so effective. A gun is scary. Knowing the ROEs would effectively mean that people could play the whole "not touching cant get angry" game.

If the ROEs stated any man wearing a pink hat on a tuesday cannot be shot (which they very well might ) what type of head attire might you think a scumbag may don?

BrianD

BigDuffman wrote: »

The fact that they are not known is what makes them so effective. A gun is scary. Knowing the ROEs would effectively mean that people could play the whole "not touching cant get angry" game.

If the ROEs stated any man wearing a pink hat on a tuesday cannot be shot (which they very well might ) what type of head attire might you think a scumbag may don?

What a ridiculous statement to make. Public knowledge of the rules does not in any way reduce their effectiveness.

The laws of the land are publicly known.

It wasn't me!

BrianD wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement to make. Public knowledge of the rules does not in any way reduce their effectiveness.

The laws of the land are publicly known.

And yet, the Gardai aren't publishing their set of circumstances governing the use of force either, nor are any other armed organisations, because in their opinion, some scrote knowing where the line lies between their opening fire and holding it has a negative effect on their ability to perform their duties.

BrianD

It wasn't me! wrote: »

And yet, the Gardai aren't publishing their set of circumstances governing the use of force either, nor are any other armed organisations, because in their opinion, some scrote knowing where the line lies between their opening fire and holding it has a negative effect on their ability to perform their duties.

It might help them if them had re Abbeylara.

In any case they are possibly faced with a multiplicity of scenarios.

The DF have a fixed position with a public interface.

Raging_Ninja

BrianD wrote: »

It might help them if them had re Abbeylara.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Carthy was mentally unstable, armed with a shotgun and advancing on members of the Gardaí, many of whom were unarmed. He was told to drop the shotgun, but he ignored the warnings. Common sense would tell what the end result would be.

gbee

BrianD wrote: »

It might help them if them had re Abbeylara.

Ten shots fired as AGS, hitting a car and narrowly missing two members. Two shots in the leg failed to slow him down ...

Jackson shot Carthy twice in the upper left leg with his Sig pistol. When Jackson fired he saw the cloth of his trouser leg flicker with the first impact and was not sure if he missed with the second. Carthy had indeed been hit but both bullets had caused flesh wounds and he continued to advance on the outer cordon.
Eugene McCabe fired two shots with his Uzi submachine gun. Both bullets hit Carthy in the lower back.

It wasn't me!

BrianD wrote: »

It might help them if them had re Abbeylara.

In any case they are possibly faced with a multiplicity of scenarios.

The DF have a fixed position with a public interface.

If you think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened at Abbeylara.

constantg

BrianD wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement to make. Public knowledge of the rules does not in any way reduce their effectiveness.

The laws of the land are publicly known.

The Laws of the Land are indeed publicly known. Rules of Engagement concerning legimate use of force by the legitimate armed service of the people of this country are no published. They are restricted to members of the service that use them (myself included) to safeguard my life, your life and the lives of those we're tasked to defend.

If you're so curious, why not enlist and find out? Apart from that, bugger off; its on a need to know basis and seeing as you're not on the list you dont really need to know. You want to, but wanting isnt the same as needing.


Also Zambia, dude seriously stop digging. I was on guard for St Patricks Day. I was out with my rifle and ammunition and I was cracking jokes and the like, but I was alert, I was with it, I was scanning the crowds for threats. I was constantly aware of where I was and what I was protecting and doing. I was aware of my ROE. I was aware of thousands of kiddies and grown up civillians around me and i was freaking TERRIFIED that a situation might arise that I might have to actually use deadly force.

Soldiers are human too. The guy who fired probably had a bad dose of the shakes even though he'd done everything right. Probably to the letter of the law and the regs. I pray to god every time i pick up live rounds on guard duty that I dont EVER EVER have to use them against another human being. It isnt like the movies. Or games. People stay down and bleed to death screaming in agony and p*ssing themselves and die really really badly mate.

None of us [soldiers] wants to end someone's life. we have rules which we follow. We have a job to do. And as I understand it (I've never been inside the Prison) there's a 10-15 foot high fence around most of that prison right??


IMHO soldier X was right to fire. Clear warning given by an armed soldier on active service at a maximum security facility to large group of non-soldiers who scaled a high fence and tried to interfere with his/her post???


And people here are trying to say this warning shot was unjustified?

Zambia

I stopped digging 7 days ago ...

constantg

havent been following the thread, mate of mine said people were calling for publication of ROE guidelines. Thought ye were still being silly or something.

gbee

constantg wrote: »

havent been following the thread, mate of mine said people were calling for publication of ROE guidelines. .

Were they wearing balaclavas and burning British Flags?

Zambia

Yeah that was not me, I wanted to know the law that allowed them.

BigDuffman

BrianD wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement to make. Public knowledge of the rules does not in any way reduce their effectiveness.

The laws of the land are publicly known.

Where exactly are these ROE publicly known? My example was ludicrous to emphasize a point. Knowing the ROE are restricted info. As knowing them may jepordize security. Fairly black and white IMO.