Gardai carrying Guns

MEMBER12

Look at that scumbag that killed that Garda up in Donegal, he got 23 years in total but will only serve 7. I have seen Gardai kicked, punched, bitten, and jabbed with needles. When they go to court, they get suspended sentences. It's as if they are congratulated by judges. A Garda is expected to put up with so much **** it is unreal, they get very very little backing from the courts, it is an embarrassment.

Witcher

Jerry McCabe's killers didn't serve 40 years and the fcukers got collected from prison by a serving Sinn Fein TD but given the party can you expect any better?

Potential-Monke

^^^ Too true, and i am hearing it more often these days from members saying that their safety isn't worth it, especially if nothing happens to the person who assaulted the member. Very little to no backing from the courts, and even the chief...

Happened myself, genuinely thought i was going to get kicked to death one night, but backup arrived just in time and i got away relatively uninjured, albeit having to wait 6 months to find out if i contracted anything from the scumbag. What happened him & his friends? Nothing.

Why would someone throw themselves into harms way if they are not protected in the end?

MEMBER12

Yeah members working alone on nights in dangerous areas. Or working alone in very busy city centre areas, I'm tired of waiting for assistance and and the first to arrive are from a different station. Don't get me wrong I'm always glad to get the help but there is just not enough of us. If we are barely able to back each other up how are we to look after others? And then if you are attacked you still stand alone in court.Oh the joy of this job.

Manic Moran

MEMBER12 wrote: »

Yeah members working alone on nights in dangerous areas. Or working alone in very busy city centre areas, I'm tired of waiting for assistance and and the first to arrive are from a different station. Don't get me wrong I'm always glad to get the help but there is just not enough of us. If we are barely able to back each other up how are we to look after others?

Bit of a threadjack, but there was an article I was reading in a US magazine by a police instructor who was pointing out that assistance is usually all around you, but many police never take advantage of them. Remember that in the US, lawmen usually are on their own in a car, and there are often large lag times before a second man comes along due to the distances involved, being without police support is not unusual.

I'll try and find it, it's online, but tt's a simple concept.

Sometimes, but not often, a member of the public will jump in and help in a scrap. Usually other first responders who may be around, such as firemen or ambulancemen will be the last to do so, because the general understanding for private citizens, and the specific training for the others, is 'don't get involved, let the police handle it on their own: They're trained for it.' However, almost all of them would more than willingly increase the numbers on the policeman's side -if- they were asked to. Effectively it's the counter to the Bystander Effect. Especially if given specific instruction such as "Hold this guy's arm down, while I fish the cuffs off my belt"

Further, almost all States have a 'failure to render police assistance law.' If someone fails to render aid when so requested by the police, then they also get arrested, assuming the policeman is still in a fit condition to do so after the altercation is over. Perhaps the equivalent is simple 'failing to obey the lawful instruction of the gardai'

On the police side, almost always the problem is that the police don't think they can ask bystanders for help, if for no other reason that they're afraid of liability issues if the member of the public gets hurt as well. The way the laws are structured, no, the cop doesn't need to worry about that if he's in the performance of his duties. The second thing is that they often don't know that there are laws in place to mandate that members of the public help when requested, and thirdly, the bystanders are no better off with an incapacitated policeman than not. It certainly doesn't do the policeman any good.

So the bottom line, ask for help. If people nearby don't help out, it doesn't exactly leave you any worse off than you were before. If they do, it could save you some heartache. Bottom line, police actions are done for the public good, the public have a bit of an interest in the matter as well.

Granted, the other advantage to asking for help in the US is that the bystanders can be as well-armed as the police. Same rules apply as above, but that was a different article.

NTM

savagecabbages

Where do people think the problem of improper/light sentencing lies?

Is it down to judges simply being lenient, or are the judges getting pressure from somewhere else or what?
I really dont understand it... Seems everyone in the country bar the actual criminal wants proper sentencing, but it doesn't happen??

0325422

savagecabbages wrote: »

Where do people think the problem of improper/light sentencing lies?

Is it down to judges simply being lenient, or are the judges getting pressure from somewhere else or what?
I really dont understand it... Seems everyone in the country bar the actual criminal wants proper sentencing, but it doesn't happen??

It's down to the judges living on a completely different planet.. From what I can see a lot of judges are only interested in continuously adjourning cases to drag them out to make plenty of money for solicitors and barristers..

Double the prison capacity, treble the prison sentences, get rid of TR, get rid of penal warrants and make gougers afraid to come before the courts and show them there are consequences for there actions

Mr Simpson

0325422 wrote: »

It's down to the judges living on a completely different planet.. From what I can see a lot of judges are only interested in continuously adjourning cases to drag them out to make plenty of money for solicitors and barristers..

Double the prison capacity, treble the prison sentences, get rid of TR, get rid of penal warrants and make gougers afraid to come before the courts and show them there are consequences for there actions

A great idea in theory, but in practice that costs lots of money, which the state currently does not have. (And just to preempt the inevitable, can we not get into the 'they have money for the bondholders, why not prisons' debate, the money seemingly is just not there for the justice system)

audidiesel

make a deal with the eastern european countries. if they take our prisoners, we pay them 10,000 a year to lock them up for us. the prisoners will actually serve sentences then and the state saves millions each year.

the problem of tr due to overcrowding will be resolved and maybe just maybe the judges will cop on and start actually sentencing people.

but that sounds more like a crazy dream...

Zambia

audidiesel wrote: »

make a deal with the eastern european countries. if they take our prisoners, we pay them 10,000 a year to lock them up for us. the prisoners will actually serve sentences then and the state saves millions each year.

the problem of tr due to overcrowding will be resolved and maybe just maybe the judges will cop on and start actually sentencing people.

but that sounds more like a crazy dream...

I can reccomend some lovely African jails ?

audidiesel

Zambia wrote: »

I can reccomend some lovely African jails ?

id imagine they would have to stay within the eu so as to avoid some human rights issues. if id a choice id ship them to antartica

Zambia

What about an African Prison Ship a few miles of Galway in EU Waters...??

Potential-Monke

Ah then you'd have the human rights activists (or idiots, as i like to call them) giving out that sending them to another country/off shore makes it harder for them to have loved ones visit which goes against some statute, of which prisoners shouldn't be allowed in the first place imo (commit a criminal-law crime bad enough to land you in jail, i believe certain rights should no longer apply for the term of sentence).

.243

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ah then you'd have the human rights activists (or idiots, as i like to call them) giving out that sending them to another country/off shore makes it harder for them to have loved ones visit which goes against some statute, of which prisoners shouldn't be allowed in the first place imo (commit a criminal-law crime bad enough to land you in jail, i believe certain rights should no longer apply for the term of sentence).

they can have a 5 min skype call a week..sorted !!!!!:D

Iwannahurl

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ah then you'd have the human rights activists (or idiots, as i like to call them)

Are you a member of AGS? Is that your attitude in the course of your work?

Turner

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you a member of AGS? Is that your attitude in the course of your work?

Nobody has to divulge what they work at here unless they wish to do so.

Would there be a problem with a Garda having his own opinion of human rights activists?

Are Gardai not allowed have their own opinions?

While on duty and in uniform Gardai do not preach their personal beliefs. They adhere to a professional standards model.

Iwannahurl

Turner wrote: »

Would there be a problem with a Garda having his own opinion of human rights activists?

Are Gardai not allowed have their own opinions?

While on duty and in uniform Gardai do not preach their personal beliefs. They adhere to a professional standards model.

There would be a problem, IMO, if that Garda's opinion was that human rights were somehow only the concern of idiots.

By the same token I'd hate to think that human rights advocates might disparage Gardai as idiots, even if they have their own code of professional standards for the work they do.

Locust

Perhaps a prison colony on Mars could be a future possibility?! Nothing wrong with punishing criminals.

Iwannahurl

I guess then we'd need Martian prison guards and Outer Space Police to run the operation. Would they volunteer or would they be transferred?

savagecabbages

Locust wrote: »

Perhaps a prison colony on Mars could be a future possibility?! Nothing wrong with punishing criminals.

Would probably cost less than the current setup:P
http://www.limerickpost.ie/index.php/navigation-mainmenu-30/local-news/4826-running-cost-of-24-million-annually-at-limerick-prison.html

WITH at an annual outlay of over €65,000 per bed space,

Just think how many average earners full tax takes you'd need to keep one prisoner in a prison.

Iwannahurl

savagecabbages wrote: »

Would probably cost less than the current setup:P
http://www.limerickpost.ie/index.php/navigation-mainmenu-30/local-news/4826-running-cost-of-24-million-annually-at-limerick-prison.html

Just think how many average earners full tax takes you'd need to keep one prisoner in a prison.

Or to pay their custodians' salaries.

19 prison service employees earn over €100k

Cork TD Jonathan O’Brien said: "The Irish Prison Service runs a series of prisons which have been found time and time again to breach the most basic of human rights standards and yet the director-general is paid between €150,000 and €200,000 to run it."

Turner

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There would be a problem, IMO, if that Garda's opinion was that human rights were somehow only the concern of idiots.

Exactly, but this poster is only talking about human rights activists. Not about a persons human rights or their importance.

Generally people who work for a living and pay taxes do not like people who have nothing better to do and who go out of their way to complain, make complaints to get others into bother, and also people who protest.

Especially when these people should be out working and minding their own business and getting on with their lives.

Iwannahurl

Turner wrote: »

Exactly, but this poster is only talking about human rights activists. Not about a persons human rights or their importance.

Generally people who work for a living and pay taxes do not like people who have nothing better to do and who go out of their way to complain, make complaints to get others into bother, and also people who protest.

Especially when these people should be out working and minding their own business and getting on with their lives.

Protesting is a human right, I would argue, and the complainers and protestors include the GRA: http://dublinopinion.com/2010/04/29/that-anger-that-we-feel-will-find-its-target/

Human rights are indivisible, and I find it difficult to imagine holding both positions, ie that human rights are inviolable but human rights campaigners are idiots. Then again, maybe some of them are even prize idiots.

Taxpayers, myself among them, would like the police service they pay for to protect and serve all citizens in the community, including "idiots" on occasion.

Witcher

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Protesting is a human right, I would argue, and the complainers and protestors include the GRA: http://dublinopinion.com/2010/04/29/that-anger-that-we-feel-will-find-its-target/

Human rights are indivisible, and I find it difficult to imagine holding both positions, ie that human rights are inviolable but human rights campaigners are idiots. Then again, maybe some of them are even prize idiots.

Taxpayers, myself among them, would like the police service they pay for to protect and serve all citizens in the community, including "idiots" on occasion.

You're reading too much into it ffs, it was just a throwaway comment:rolleyes:

Turner

Yes let's get back on topic...

Iwannahurl

Turner wrote: »

Exactly, but this poster is only talking about human rights activists. Not about a persons human rights or their importance.

Generally people who work for a living and pay taxes do not like people who have nothing better to do and who go out of their way to complain, make complaints to get others into bother, and also people who protest.

Especially when these people should be out working and minding their own business and getting on with their lives.

Blay wrote: »

You're reading too much into it ffs, it was just a throwaway comment:rolleyes:

Fair enough, perhaps it was just a throwaway comment.

steel header

cena wrote: »

Why do the guards not carry guns with at all times. Are we the only country were the law don't carry a gun

Because its easier to just shoot someone than chase them down. The amount of needless police shootings here in NY this year has been alarming. When there are no witnesses around its easier to shoot someone than deal with arrests and paperwork, and yes it happens.

source

steel header wrote: »

cena wrote: »

Why do the guards not carry guns with at all times. Are we the only country were the law don't carry a gun

Because its easier to just shoot someone than chase them down. The amount of needless police shootings here in NY this year has been alarming. When there are no witnesses around its easier to shoot someone than deal with arrests and paperwork, and yes it happens.

Yeah in die hard movies.

pah

steel header wrote: »

Because its easier to just shoot someone than chase them down. The amount of needless police shootings here in NY this year has been alarming. When there are no witnesses around its easier to shoot someone than deal with arrests and paperwork, and yes it happens i have no idea what i'm talking about.

can't wait to get my hands on a piece, bludgeoning these fukkers to death with my ASP is getting to be too much effort. Still - it beats having to do the paperwork, and as we all know there is no paperwork involved in the use of ASPS and firearms. I'll be able to shoot out tyres of cars that don't move out of the way and everything :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Esel

Turner wrote: »

Generally people who work for a living and pay taxes do not like people who have nothing better to do and who go out of their way to complain, make complaints to get others into bother, and also people who protest.

Especially when these people should be out working and minding their own business and getting on with their lives.

Who exactly are these 'people who work for a living and pay taxes', and how do you know what they think? Do you mean Gardaí?

I might dislike people who go out of their way to complain (about what, though?). And what is 'going out of their way'? Making a complaint necessitates taking the time and trouble to do so.

I also might dislike people who make complaints to get others into bother - if those complaints were unfounded. Otherwise, no.

I certainly would not dislike protesters per se, provided they do not break the law in doing so.

steel header

pah wrote: »

can't wait to get my hands on a piece, bludgeoning these fukkers to death with my ASP is getting to be too much effort. Still - it beats having to do the paperwork, and as we all know there is no paperwork involved in the use of ASPS and firearms. I'll be able to shoot out tyres of cars that don't move out of the way and everything :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Really.... there was a 22 year old man shot yesterday morning on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens, NY. He apparently cut of an unmarked police car with 2 detectives inside. The cops caught up with him and pulled him over, got out of their car and shot him once through his window hitting him in the torso. He died shortly after on his way to hospital. He was unarmed and an army reserve about to be deployed. He had no criminal record and never was arrested. Its been blamed on cop road rage according to witnesses at the scene.

Do you seriously believe a cop here in NY wouldn't shoot an unarmed person for running or resisting? Do you know how much the City of NY pays out every year to the families of the victims of police with itchy fingers?

savagecabbages

steel header wrote: »

its easier to shoot someone than deal with arrests and paperwork, and yes it happens.

I'm guessing there is much more paperwork involved if you shoot someone instead of arresting them??

SunDog

Beat Garda to be armed I think would be a bad idea. As the Gardai can, as with all persons with a place of officially provided power have a minority that this goes to their heads. Should the Gardai simply have a baton to deal with, people off their head on the likes of ketamine etc one on one the garda will not prevail. I have met many garda that abuse this power and is "not seen" by fellow colleagues. I do however agree they should be better equipped withe utilities of none terminal force. spray, tasser, better armour. Agreed that the ERU should be better trained but also mental state should be frequently assest and we'll monitored.
Men and women of great strength can always be found, but how do you cut the chaff..

source

I have some questions for those dead against arming Gardai.

Have you ever been involved in frontline policing?

Have you ever raced a scene where shots were fired, when the only things you have to protect yourself was body armour provided by the cheapest bidder and a metal alloy baton?

I have done these things. And I can tell you it is a scary moment when that call comes through on the radio.

Gardai don't however run from these calls, Gardai run towards these calls, in an effort to protect the lives of the innocent people that are affected by gun toting idiots.

Gardai don't want guns so the can indiscriminately shoot people. They don't want them to look cool. They don't want them to look like hard asses. Gardai just want to be provided with equipment in line with best international practice. Equipment which will help them stay safer on the streets, and hopefully help them get home at the end of their tour to see their loved ones.

The argument that criminals will arm themselves if Gardai are armed is a flawed one, as criminals currently have more firepower than Gardai do. Criminals in this country have access to handguns, rocket launchers, grenades, assault rifles, sub machine guns, pipe bombs........ Yet Gardai go out every day to face these criminals with a small can of pepper spray, a 16in baton, and a poor quality protective vest. It is a ridiculous situation that Gardai find themselves in.

One final point, @ steel header, You have no idea what you're talking about. The paperwork involved with shooting a person far outweighs the paperwork involved with taking a person to court.

Are you aware that when a Garda uses his baton, he has to fill out numerous reports and forms to say why he felt it necessary to use his baton? Same goes for pepper spray. The extra paperwork that using force heaps on members is ridiculous, as is your assertion that the two police in NYC shot a man to avoid paperwork.

I have read about 5 or 6 articles, on the story you talked about in your post, and have found the reports to differ widely. The issue I have is that the story that differs from paper to paper is that of the people in the car. The police story is the same throughout the articles.

Firstly, as you didn't point out, the driver failed to stop for police and led them on a chase despite his girlfriend telling him to stop. Secondly when he did stop, he was told not to move but instead he reached for something under his seat, which turned out to be a drill. Police then shot as for all they knew he was reaching for a gun.

The story from the passengers, ranges from the off duty officer in the back waving her id out the window before the shooting, to being woken up from sleeping on the back seat by the shots.

The officer who shot him has never before discharged his weapon outside of a range. I wouldn't think that is the kind of person who would indiscriminately shoot a person to avoid paperwork.

I am not going to comment further on this case as it is going way off topic. I only commented on it, as I felt you have left out a number of important facts in order to have the case fit your ideas on arming Gardai.

SunDog

Thankfully most of these weapons in criminal hands are rarely used and the majority that are are used against opposing factions/gangs etc. I agree the "frontline police" do need armed responsive units capable of quick deployment through out the country. I however do not agree that all Gardai should be armed routinely, trained in arms possibly and tactics definitely.
"hopefully help them get home at the end of their tour to see their loved ones".
Being on "tour" and policing a civilian state in peace time are two different entities. A high alert aggressive mental adopted by military would not and should not be tolerated towards ones fellow country men.
I do agree that too much time is given to bureaucracy and endless paperwork rendering their efforts to the community frustratingly muted.

Zambia

SunDog wrote: »

Thankfully most of these weapons in criminal hands are rarely used and the majority that are are used against opposing factions/gangs etc. I agree the "frontline police" do need armed responsive units capable of quick deployment through out the country. I however do not agree that all Gardai should be armed routinely, trained in arms possibly and tactics definitely.
"hopefully help them get home at the end of their tour to see their loved ones".

Do you not see the utter contradiction in your post.

You agree Frontline police need a armed response capable of quick deployment. You think the Frontline troops should not be armed.

The armed response units are employed from the same frontline police.

pah

Having reread a lot of this thread the main opinions seem to go like this,

- Armed beat members will let the power go to their heads and shoot people for parking on double yellow lines.
Ridiculous

- they only want guns to be badass and intimidate criminals.
Wrong

- i wouldn't feel safe if a guard arrived to my traffic collision with a gun on his hip
Is this a joke?


- Members want to be properly equipped to deal with potential gun crime.
True

- The main reason is for safety -of members and of the public.
Absolutely

In a nutshell

People generally have the wrong idea about this.

SunDog

"Do you not see the utter contradiction in your post."
No.

"You agree Frontline police need a armed response capable of quick deployment."
Yes.

"You think the Frontline troops should not be armed. "
No & This statement makes no sense.

"The armed response units are employed from the same frontline police."
Yes. This dose not mean all police be armed.

I think its mental the Gardai are not armed.


Have you seen some of the weapons taken off criminals? A lot of the weapons are assault rifles such as AK's and AR-15's.

But the Guards do a bust armed with a stab vest and an Asp. Fair play to them, I wouldn't do it.

source

SunDog wrote: »

Being on "tour" and policing a civilian state in peace time are two different entities. A high alert aggressive mental adopted by military would not and should not be tolerated towards ones fellow country men.
I do agree that too much time is given to bureaucracy and endless paperwork rendering their efforts to the community frustratingly muted.

Police officers the world over call the shifts they work, tours of duty. It's got nothing to do with adopting an aggressive military mentality.

It's a part of the jobs lexicon. All large organisations develop their own form of language, which to means nothing (or something very different) to outsiders. Yes some of the policing vocabulary is taken from the military, most of it is taken from legislation, and the rest is local slang.

In Limerick a meal break is called "the grub", in Dublin it's called "Refs" or "refreshments". A drunk driver is a 49, a Garda is a mule or polisman, and there are others like long numbers, compol and pulse. Oh and yes shifts are called tours.

Most of what I've said above will be foreign to some members of this board, and to others the meanings of the words will be as clear as day.

So lets not try to make out like I'm advocating aggressive tactics, just because you don't know the lingo.

monument

MEMBER12 wrote: »

Yeah members working alone on nights in dangerous areas. Or working alone in very busy city centre areas, I'm tired of waiting for assistance and and the first to arrive are from a different station. Don't get me wrong I'm always glad to get the help but there is just not enough of us. If we are barely able to back each other up how are we to look after others? And then if you are attacked you still stand alone in court.Oh the joy of this job.

Basically there's issues with back up response times and the numbers of officers on the ground (because of cutbacks or for what ever other reason) and rather than fix those problems you want to add on the costs of equipment and on-going training for the full force to be armed?

That's mad Ted!

480905 wrote: »

A tuppence... Give any person willing to risk their lives in the line of duty the best possible means to defend themselves. Let the politicians walk the streets in their shoes before they decide on a matter that has life or death consequences.

A tuppence... Give any person willing to risk their lives in as they go about their daily life the best possible means to defend themselves.

I have risked my life before and will likely do so again -- can I have a gun too?

audidiesel wrote: »

realise that its probably getting to the stage where it may start to be a necessity.

What exactly do you mean by it's "probably getting to the stage" -- can you back that statement up with crime stats showing massive rises in crimes where guns would be useful to beat cops?

audidiesel wrote: »

the regional support units are absolutely fantastic and one of the best things the job has done. but with the very high training and equipment costs they have, we simply wont have enough of them throughout the country.

I would guess that it would cost less to bring in extra support units and have more ERU on standby than it would cost arming and training ever member of the force.

audidiesel wrote: »

im not going to try and dissuade anyone here about gardai carrying guns or not. thats not my job. but i would counter that by saying that the gardai should probably be allowed make the ultimate decision themselves. after all its us that are the ones putting our lives on the line.

I have great respect for anybody working as a police officer, but with all due respect, any police officer is there to enforce the law using the means acceptable to government and the people. Such a massive change in our policing is a political matter.

audidiesel wrote: »

i do feel we should have the right to choose ourselves and not put our lives in danger simply to satisfy someone elses ideology

Does that go for anybody or just police officers?

MEMBER12 wrote: »

Armed units always turn up, it can just take awhile, leaving the unarmed member without any support till then.

Same argument can be used to say "allow members of the public to be armed."

Turner wrote: »

Exactly, but this poster is only talking about human rights activists. Not about a persons human rights or their importance.

Generally people who work for a living and pay taxes do not like people who have nothing better to do and who go out of their way to complain, make complaints to get others into bother, and also people who protest.

Especially when these people should be out working and minding their own business and getting on with their lives.

Actually there can be often public and legal support for such people -- such as those who attacked US army aircraft or contracted at Shannon.

Equally are loads of people were very annoyed with those who looked for the right of women to vote or those who stil look for equal rights of people with different skin colour or sexual preference.

source wrote: »

The argument that criminals will arm themselves if Gardai are armed is a flawed one, as criminals currently have more firepower than Gardai do. Criminals in this country have access to handguns, rocket launchers, grenades, assault rifles, sub machine guns, pipe bombs........ Yet Gardai go out every day to face these criminals with a small can of pepper spray, a 16in baton, and a poor quality protective vest. It is a ridiculous situation that Gardai find themselves in.

You're listing off all the weapons the criminals have access to but only the basic ones AGS have access to. The force has access to assault rifles, sub machine guns, hand guns, flash bangs, sniper rifles, tasers, flashbangs, etc and support from the army who have even more guns if needed.

How many times has a member been confronted by a rocket launcher or a grenade?

The defence forces seem to deal with pipe bombs quite well and what that has to do with arming everybody on the force is a mystery given hand guns don't work very well against IEDs.

Also any need for a larger can of pepper spray or better baton or better quality protective vest or more widly available tasers seem like they maybe should be a priority over getting guns.

source wrote: »

I am not going to comment further on this case as it is going way off topic. I only commented on it, as I felt you have left out a number of important facts in order to have the case fit your ideas on arming Gardai.

It's not off topic, it's at the core of how, when, and who is armed and how they are allowed to use force or how they abuse the force they get.

Zambia wrote: »

Do you not see the utter contradiction in your post.

You agree Frontline police need a armed response capable of quick deployment. You think the Frontline troops should not be armed.

The armed response units are employed from the same frontline police.

There's no contradiction.

The key difference is the armed response units are more highly trained and equipped.

Zambia

monument wrote: »

There's no contradiction.

The key difference is the armed response units are more highly trained and equipped.

If the RSU is attending to one task where does that leave the other operational units?

pah

Im sure you will be told there are not enough incidents occuring that may require an armed response in two places in one district at the same time :rolleyes:

monument

Zambia wrote: »

monument wrote: »

There's no contradiction.

The key difference is the armed response units are more highly trained and equipped.

If the RSU is attending to one task where does that leave the other operational units?

You train and keep enough people to reasonably cover possible demand.

pah wrote: »

Im sure you will be told there are not enough incidents occuring that may require an armed response in two places in one district at the same time :rolleyes:

No :rolleyes:

limklad

war_child wrote: »

I have to say with all honesty i dread the idea of all guards being armed ....most cant deal with the small amount of beat power they have and on occasion cant resist from givin someone a good kickin just coz they didnt get laid lastnight ...arming guards is NOT an option ...and i would strongly protest against this if it ever arose in Ireland ..

After the Civil war in this Country, Yes Ireland had a civil War, The Gardai predecessor the RIC and Irish Republican Police, Dublin Metropolitan Police had arms. Many RIC barracks had plenty of Guns to kill or injury anybody. That where Michael Collins and Co got most of their guns in the war of independence.

http://www.policehistory.com/issues.html
CIVIC GUARDS

The Irish War of Independence from 1919 was ended by a truce on 11 July 1921 and talks between the British and Irish Republication delegation culminated in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which was signed on 6 December 1921 and ratified by Dail Eireann on 7 January 1922. Agreement was also reached in January 1922 by the British and the newly formed Provisional Government to disband the Royal Irish Constabulary, and on Thursday 9 February 1922 a meeting was held at the Gresham Hotel, Dublin to establish a police force to replace the RIC. The Civic Guard was so formed on 22 February 1922 and renamed the Garda Síochána on 8 August 1923. The Civic Guards were initially armed and trained at the Royal Dublin Society Showgrounds, Ballsbridge, Dublin and transferred from there to Kildare Military Barracks on 25 April 1922. Following a mutiny in Kildare the first commissioner, Michael Staines, T.D. tendered his resignation on 18 August and he was succeeded as by General Eoin O'Duffy on 10 September. Dublin Castle and nearby Ship Street Barracks was taken over by the Civic Guards on 17 August 1922. It was here that 19 year old Charles Eastwood, Civic Guard 1017 was accidentally shot dead by a colleague, Leo Herde, Civic Guard 1498 on 20 September. It was decided that the Civic Guards would henceforth be an unarmed police force. On 28 October 1922, the Civil War claimed the first life of a Garda when Garda Henry Phelan was shot dead in Mullinahone, Co. Tipperary when he was mistaken for his brother, a former member of the RIC. In the same month the Gardai moved to Collinstown, Co. Dublin and then to the Phoenix Park RIC Depot which was vacated on 17 December 1922.

Michael Staines TD 1922
The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.

Me personally, I would not respect a guard if he or she has a gun. A gun is used to overpower innocent people and cause serious harm. Now they are certain situations I allow arms in response to restore peace. i.e Terrorist or criminal gangs are shooting at them or the public, then that is the only on certain occasions, I will allow certain very Highly train members to have arms when the threat to public safety arrives and arms put away on peaceful times, otherwise they become in contempt to the people or Ireland to which they are meant to serve.

It would not surprise me if they had arms some of them would have shot peaceful protesters over time. Thankfully in the early days of our State origins they saw the light and force the Civic Guards to patrol without Arms in a hostile environment after the Irish civil war when weapons where plentiful as spuds and did under tough times restored the peace for the good of all.

There is a long history especially in America and other nations where trigger happy Peace officers serious injure innocence people or kill innocence people. Have threatened with arms provided by the state force their arms on the people they are meant to serve for very minor offences. They bring the force of Peace officers into disrepute.

Garda Síochána na hÉireann is usually rendered as the "Guard of the Peace of Ireland" or the "Guardians of the Peace (of Ireland)".

The first Garda Síochána Code was published in 1928 covering every possible regulation which were very strictly enforced. Formal and informal station inspections by senior officers were carried out very frequently and often feared.

It was unfortunate that the Gardai did not keep the high standards set out in the early days, that now we have the Garda ombudsman due to the indiscipline of members or the gardai and their superiors in failing to keep those high standards. The repeated court cases against gardai and Courts Cases fall due to Garda indiscipline or poor knowledge of the Law. It is justification for not allowing gardai to be armed with dangerous weapons and I put Tasers in that category. I have videos and news reports of certain Gardai lose their temperament and beat the hell out of individuals with batons and breaching their duty to keep the peace.

I would recommend anyone learn from our own history
http://www.policehistory.com/issues.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0318/garda.html

Mr Feeney has also strongly criticised the Garda Ombudsman Commission's attempt to change the legislation to allow gardaí investigate minor complaints against gardaí.

However, a spokesman for the Commission said this evening that while it has to investigate all allegations of potential criminality against gardaí, it often becomes apparent very quickly that if the offence is of a minor nature, it does not require the full mechanism of an independent investigation.

He demean minor offences of the gardai which allow indiscipline to Prospers and allowing gardai to arm endangers themselves further and arms gangs will shot sooner rather than later in which gardai can get themselves ready for a confrontation properly and with proper backup in a safer environment for the public.

If I was the Commissioner of the Gardai or Minister of Justice and put into law or the Irish Constitution:
I would force every member of the Gardai to repeat the words in Irish or English every time they come on duty.

"I as a member of the Garda Síochána is under oath, on the authority of the people of Ireland to keep the peace and to serve them for the common good and to uphold and protect their rights and safety. We the gardai are their servants"

Michael Staines TD 1922
The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.

This quote by Michael Staines above is still relevant today as it was less than a 90 years ago.

Witcher

People obviously think Gardai are going to turn into murderers if they get their hands on a firearm..while I have my concerns over arming the guards which I explained a few pages ago..it's not because I think the Gardai will abuse the power. I think a part of the problem here is that people in Ireland just aren't used to firearms..most have probably never even seen one in reality and TV shows have given them an irrational fear of them, someone said to me a while ago..'What if the guard was walking down the road and the gun just went off?':pac: People clearly think firearms just go off on their own.

Potential-Monke

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you a member of AGS? Is that your attitude in the course of your work?

It was a throwaway comment, and one which i don't bring to work with me. They just rile me up when they get off harder sentences and get all these "perks" when they should be learning a lesson. I'm not completely against human rights activists, but i believe that they should concentrate their efforts on more worthwhile endeavors, rather than sticking up for the criminal who possibly raped someone.

On topic, i think people who believe that Gardai would turn into gun toting maniacs if they were armed are not thinking it through fully. There is a rigorous training course to become an armed member as it is, and it would be even more rigorous should the need to arm all members arise. The circumstances in which you can utilise a firearm currently are very strict and are not open to interpretation. There's no maybes, or ifs, it's black and white. And member who doesn't stick to this strict set of guidelines risks their job and possibly a criminal conviction, and with the Ombudsman it would make members less inclined to utilise a firearm unless they were 150% sure it was warranted.

0325422

limklad wrote: »

war_child wrote: »

I have to say with all honesty i dread the idea of all guards being armed ....most cant deal with the small amount of beat power they have and on occasion cant resist from givin someone a good kickin just coz they didnt get laid lastnight ...arming guards is NOT an option ...and i would strongly protest against this if it ever arose in Ireland ..

After the Civil war in this Country, Yes Ireland had a civil War, The Gardai predecessor the RIC and Irish Republican Police, Dublin Metropolitan Police had arms. Many RIC barracks had plenty of Guns to kill or injury anybody. That where Michael Collins and Co got most of their guns in the war of independence.

http://www.policehistory.com/issues.html
CIVIC GUARDS

The Irish War of Independence from 1919 was ended by a truce on 11 July 1921 and talks between the British and Irish Republication delegation culminated in the Anglo-Irish Treaty which was signed on 6 December 1921 and ratified by Dail Eireann on 7 January 1922. Agreement was also reached in January 1922 by the British and the newly formed Provisional Government to disband the Royal Irish Constabulary, and on Thursday 9 February 1922 a meeting was held at the Gresham Hotel, Dublin to establish a police force to replace the RIC. The Civic Guard was so formed on 22 February 1922 and renamed the Garda Síochána on 8 August 1923. The Civic Guards were initially armed and trained at the Royal Dublin Society Showgrounds, Ballsbridge, Dublin and transferred from there to Kildare Military Barracks on 25 April 1922. Following a mutiny in Kildare the first commissioner, Michael Staines, T.D. tendered his resignation on 18 August and he was succeeded as by General Eoin O'Duffy on 10 September. Dublin Castle and nearby Ship Street Barracks was taken over by the Civic Guards on 17 August 1922. It was here that 19 year old Charles Eastwood, Civic Guard 1017 was accidentally shot dead by a colleague, Leo Herde, Civic Guard 1498 on 20 September. It was decided that the Civic Guards would henceforth be an unarmed police force. On 28 October 1922, the Civil War claimed the first life of a Garda when Garda Henry Phelan was shot dead in Mullinahone, Co. Tipperary when he was mistaken for his brother, a former member of the RIC. In the same month the Gardai moved to Collinstown, Co. Dublin and then to the Phoenix Park RIC Depot which was vacated on 17 December 1922.

Michael Staines TD 1922
The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.

Me personally, I would not respect a guard if he or she has a gun. A gun is used to overpower innocent people and cause serious harm. Now they are certain situations I allow arms in response to restore peace. i.e Terrorist or criminal gangs are shooting at them or the public, then that is the only on certain occasions, I will allow certain very Highly train members to have arms when the threat to public safety arrives and arms put away on peaceful times, otherwise they become in contempt to the people or Ireland to which they are meant to serve.

It would not surprise me if they had arms some of them would have shot peaceful protesters over time. Thankfully in the early days of our State origins they saw the light and force the Civic Guards to patrol without Arms in a hostile environment after the Irish civil war when weapons where plentiful as spuds and did under tough times restored the peace for the good al all.

There is a long history especially in America and other nations where trigger happy Peace officers serious injure innocence people or kill innocence people. Have threatened with arms provided by the state force their arms on the people they are meant to serve for very minor offences. They bring the force of Peace officers into disrepute.

Garda Síochána na hÉireann is usually rendered as the "Guard of the Peace of Ireland" or the "Guardians of the Peace (of Ireland)".

The first Garda Síochána Code was published in 1928 covering every possible regulation which were very strictly enforced. Formal and informal station inspections by senior officers were carried out very frequently and often feared.

It was unfortunate that the Gardai did not keep the high standards set out in the early days, that now we have the Garda ombudsman due to the indiscipline of members or the gardai and their superiors in failing to keep those high standards. The repeated court cases against gardai and Courts Cases fall due to Garda indiscipline or poor knowledge of the Law. It is justification for not allowing gardai to be disarmed.

I would recommend anyone learn from our own history
http://www.policehistory.com/issues.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0318/garda.html

Mr Feeney has also strongly criticised the Garda Ombudsman Commission's attempt to change the legislation to allow gardaí investigate minor complaints against gardaí.

However, a spokesman for the Commission said this evening that while it has to investigate all allegations of potential criminality against gardaí, it often becomes apparent very quickly that if the offence is of a minor nature, it does not require the full mechanism of an independent investigation.

He demean minor offences of the gardai which allow indiscipline to Prospers and allowing gardai to arm endangers themselves further and arms gangs will shot sooner rather than later in which gardai can get themselves ready for a confrontation properly and with proper backup in a safer environment for the public.

If I was the Commissioner of the Gardai or Minister of Justice and put into law or the Irish Constitution:
I would force every member of the Gardai to repeat the words in Irish or English every time they come on duty.

"I as a member of the Garda Síochána is under oath, on the authority of the people of Ireland to keep the peace and to serve them for the common good and to uphold and protect their rights and safety. We the gardai are their servants"

Michael Staines TD 1922
The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people.

This quote by Michael Staines above is still relevant today as it was less than a 90 years ago.

Another "are you here under oath" merchant.. Excellent

Zambia

monument wrote: »

You train and keep enough people to reasonably cover possible demand.

Ok so if a member encounters a threat that requires a firearm what is an acceptable response time to you?

bravestar

Zambia wrote: »

Ok so if a member encounters a threat that requires a firearm what is an acceptable response time to you?

The only acceptable response time is, the time it takes to draw and get a sight picture.