Garda shoots dog in Longford

runawaybishop

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Well, no its not "Hollywood crap" at all.

In this situation, i.e. close quarters, it was approprate to fire a shot low and at the legs.

The AGS member was under threat, albeit a limited threat. He was engaging an unarmed civilian. If trained to shoot centre mass in this scenario as described, thats murder.

The situation was clearly not grave enough to warrant a direct targeted centre mass shot. However, low and at the legs was appropriate course of action.

It must be taken into consideration that the impact may have been a ricochet, suggesting that the shot may have been a warning shot. TBC obviously.

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

Is that from first hand knowledge or are you guessing?

Not guessing , but I'm certainly not divulging how I know.

Plumbthedepths

runawaybishop wrote:

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Finally....

Signore Fancy Pants

runawaybishop wrote: »

He didn't shoot at anyone's legs, he shot the dog.

Allegedly.

I was responding to a poster who says "aiming low and at the legs" is not an appropriate response. I gave an example of why it would be appropriate in this situation.

Engaging the dag or not, a ricochet still shot the traveller.

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not guessing , but I'm certainly not divulging how I know.

So you are saying that the guards were called about the situation and they sent one armed detective to sort it out, was it the guy in the van that called the guards to incident?

cameramonkey

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

Allegedly.

I was responding to a poster who says "aiming low and at the legs" is not an appropriate response. I gave an example of why it would be appropriate in this situation.

Engaging the dag or not, a ricochet still shot the traveller.

How do you know he was hit by a ricochet?

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

So you are saying that the guards were called about the situation and they sent one armed detective to sort it out, was it the guy in the van that called the guards to incident?

Is the above what I said? Can't say I remember saying any of the above.

runawaybishop

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Finally....

71 page thread and people are arguing over what happened, weird. It's in all the papers.

Guy replied to ad about fitting engines, van collected and when he went to pick it up had a problem with the quality of work. Slashhook produced, gardai rang, Garda threatened with dog, warning given, dog shot, bullet also hits yer man. All the information is in the papers. Now dogs body has been hidden and Gardas life threatened as well as several clearly false claims made as they circle the wagons.

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Is the above what I said? Can't say I remember saying any of the above.

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Water John

Slight error, it's 'circle the Hiace vans'.

cameramonkey

runawaybishop wrote: »

71 page thread and people are arguing over what happened, weird. It's in all the papers.

Guy replied to ad about fitting engines, van collected and when he went to pick it up had a problem with the quality of work. Slashhook produced, gardai rang, Garda threatened with dog, warning given, dog shot, bullet also hits yer man. All the information is in the papers. Now dogs body has been hidden and Gardas life threatened as well as several clearly false claims made as they circle the wagons.

Did you watch the video?

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

How do you know he was hit by a ricochet?

I don't.

One of these occurred:

1. He fired a warning shot and either directly hit the traveller OR it ricocheted off the ground and inadvertently hit the traveller.

2. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog and into the travellers foot (if it was behind the dog).

3. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog, hit the ground and bounced and into the traveller.

Either way, I believe he aimed at the dog and the traveller was accidentally struck.

Mrsmum

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

seamus

Feisar wrote: »

Now, if the femoral artery had been nicked would that have been murder or death due to misadventure.

Wouldn't be murder. A murder charge requires that you prove the individual intended to kill or cause serious harm to another person. If you shoot an animal and your bullet also hits a person, it's not murder.

Plumbthedepths

Mrsmum wrote:

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

You expect these Travellers to tell the turth? That's nice.

seamus

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

When they watched the video back they realised you can't see the dog, so if they just pretend there was no dog, ching-ching, compo.

You're not exactly dealing with Mastermind champions here.

runawaybishop

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

So they can claim he shot the guy, same reason the video was edited and same reason the family are fabricating a fairy tale - money

Signore Fancy Pants

Mrsmum wrote: »

What is the purpose of them saying there was no dog. Surely in the investigation the guard isn't going to be disbelieved when he says he shot the dog and even without his word alone being good enough, he has the man in the van to back up that he shot a dog. I don't get why this business of disappearing the dog.

Because it lends more weight to the travellers side of the argument.

If there was no dog involved, then the weapon was drawn for the intent to be used against the traveller.

The AGS defence is he was targeting a dog and the traveller was inadvertently struck.

If theres no evidence of a dog, then it looks worse on the AGS member.

Quite simple.

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Does it matter why he was on his own?

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

Think what you want it means nothing to me.

Mrsmum

Yeah but do they not think the guard is going to be believed. And what people are saying on the video makes no sense without a dog. Chancers.

tuxy

They probably think they can use that video in court and no dog seen so case closed in their eyes. $$$$$$

runawaybishop

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah but do they not think the guard is going to be believed. And what people are saying on the video makes no sense without a dog. Chancers.

As seamus said -

seamus wrote: »

You're not exactly dealing with Mastermind champions here.

cameramonkey

runawaybishop wrote: »

Does it matter why he was on his own?

I think if he had proper support he would not have had to draw his weapon.
If this family are so well known why would he be sent there with no one to help him. I think it matters a lot.

Mrsmum

Actually they probably will get compo unless every t is crossed and i dotted, any technical detail wrong here and they are in the money.

2011

Melodeon wrote: »

Ah, but I was thinking of this:
.375 Holland & Holland Magnum energy = 5,880 J (typical)

That is not a pistol round, it is designed for shooting large game (or dags).
But I guess you knew that

Plumbthedepths

tuxy wrote:

They probably think they can use that video in court and no dog seen so case closed in their eyes. $$$$$$

An edited video will be deemed as inadmissible by a judge.

tuxy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

An edited video will be deemed as inadmissible by a judge.

Of course but I'm trying to think what the hamster running on the wheel in their head might come up with.

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

I think if he had proper support he would not have had to draw his weapon.
If this family are so well known why would he be sent there with no one to help him. I think it matters a lot.

Yeah, and if I had two flutes I'd never leave the house.

A call was made, he was sent. Him being in his own or not is irrelevant. The only people responsible for this are the criminals involved

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

I asked why the guard was on his own, you said lack of resources but you cant really back up your claim, i would say you don't know and are making it up.

This is a stupid post.

You asked a specific question. A poster gave you a logical, well known and valid example of why the AGS member could have been on his own.

Its not called "making it up", its a deduction or an assessment which is arrived at by historical, logical or contextual information.

It appears you will not accept an answer unless it gives the breakdown of AGS members who were either in the station or in the vicinity, what their current tasking was and why they decided to let that particular AGS member arrive on scene.

Is seems likely that you want to believe the AGS member was helping out a "mate" outside of his capacity as an AGS member while retaining the ability to use a weapon.

Why do YOU think he was first on scene?

Water John

One line may be that this Guard would be, well acquainted with whom he was dealing with, first name terms and felt he could sort out and defuse the situation,
but it went sour.

cameramonkey

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

I don't.

One of these occurred:

1. He fired a warning shot and either directly hit the traveller OR it ricocheted off the ground and inadvertently hit the traveller.

2. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog and into the travellers foot (if it was behind the dog).

3. He aimed at the dog, hit the dog, the round travelled through the dog, hit the ground and bounced and into the traveller.

Either way, I believe he aimed at the dog and the traveller was accidentally struck.

Or he panicked, pulled his weapon, fired an unaimed shot, hit a dog maybe, hit a human maybe or both. who knows, we seem only to have the video to make up our mind.

Plumbthedepths

tuxy wrote:

Of course but I'm trying to think what the hamster running on the wheel in their head might come up with.

The hamster is dead.....

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

Or he panicked, pulled his weapon, fired an unaimed shot, hit a dog maybe, hit a human maybe or both. who knows, we seem only to have the video to make up our mind.

We have the video and what was stated in the video.

There is no evidence to suggest he panicked...none at all.

He held his weapon firmly, to his right side and rear away from any potential disarming.

He gave an audible verbal warning before discharging his weapon.

He fired a single shot.

No evidence of panicking, it was quite controlled actually.

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

Or he panicked, pulled his weapon, fired an unaimed shot, hit a dog maybe, hit a human maybe or both. who knows, we seem only to have the video to make up our mind.

We also have the guard advising Stokes to get his dag to let him go or he will shot it. That is a clear warning which Stokes in his wisdom ignored. The shot was not unaimed as the dog released his tie after the shot. Well aimed in my opinion.

Melodeon

2011 wrote: »

That is not a pistol round, it is designed for shooting large game. But I guess you knew that

Indeed!

I was just building on the originator of this thread withing the thread's statement of 'fact' that a 9mm round would penetrate a concrete block and continue with lethal effect.
Given that they only specified the diameter of the bullet and said nothing about the size of the case behind it, I was supposing that perhaps they were talking about something other than the common pistol round, 9×19mm Parabellum.

On the other hand, there's always a possibility, however remote, that they don't know what they're talking about.

cameramonkey

Señor Santa Pants wrote: »

This is a stupid post.

You asked a specific question. A poster gave you a logical, well known and valid example of why the AGS member could have been on his own.

Its not called "making it up", its a deduction or an assessment which is arrived at by historical, logical or contextual information.

It appears you will not accept an answer unless it gives the breakdown of AGS members who were either in the station or in the vicinity, what their current tasking was and why they decided to let that particular AGS member arrive on scene.

Is seems likely that you want to believe the AGS member was helping out a "mate" outside of his capacity as an AGS member while retaining the ability to use a weapon.

Why do YOU think he was first on scene?

You seem to assume that there was a call put in to the guards about the situation, maybe there was , have you seen a report of that. Maybe there was a shortage of guards on the day, I dont know or maybe he was out helping a mate and the situation got out of control.


I have said that I find it strange that a guard if called would go out on his own without support to a family who were known to be violent and aggressive.


I don't know what happened but people are believing what the guards and what papers are saying, they don't always tell the truth.

emptyhouse2222

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The hamster is dead.....

Long live the hamster

Mad_maxx

cameramonkey wrote: »

I think if he had proper support he would not have had to draw his weapon.
If this family are so well known why would he be sent there with no one to help him. I think it matters a lot.

Anytime a large unit of AGS show up to deal with travellers, pavee point are on with matt Cooper accusing them of heavy handedness

runawaybishop

cameramonkey wrote: »

You seem to assume that there was a call put in to the guards about the situation, maybe there was , have you seen a report of that. Maybe there was a shortage of guards on the day, I dont know or maybe he was out helping a mate and the situation got out of control.


I have said that I find it strange that a guard if called would go out on his own without support to a family who were known to be violent and aggressive.


I don't know what happened but people are believing what the guards and what papers are saying, they don't always tell the truth.

It is understood that the armed garda sergeant arrived at the scene after a member of the public called Granard garda station claiming that he was unable to get his van back after it had been repaired by associates of Mr Stokes.

The caller had driven to Co Longford from the Newmarket area of Co Cork to retrieve the vehicle, but when he arrived in Bolie a confrontation broke out and gardaí were called to the scene.


Stop messing about, it's entirely clear what happened here.

cameramonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

We also have the guard advising Stokes to get his dag to let him go or he will shot it. That is a clear warning which Stokes in his wisdom ignored. The shot was not unaimed as the dog released his tie after the shot. Well aimed in my opinion.

Are you saying that the dag(dog) had the guard by the tie?

Mad_maxx

runawaybishop wrote: »

It is understood that the armed garda sergeant arrived at the scene after a member of the public called Granard garda station claiming that he was unable to get his van back after it had been repaired by associates of Mr Stokes.

The caller had driven to Co Longford from the Newmarket area of Co Cork to retrieve the vehicle, but when he arrived in Bolie a confrontation broke out and gardaí were called to the scene.


Stop messing about, it's entirely clear what happened here.

Sounds like the customer was a tinker as well, who travels from Cork to Longford for van repair?

tuxy

cameramonkey wrote: »

Are you saying that the dag(dog) had the guard by the tie?

Since the Garda clearly said "Get him to let go of me" in the video that's exactly what I'm saying anyway.

tuxy

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Sounds like the customer was a tinker as well, who travels from Cork to Longford for van repair?

http://www.caseyfencing.ie/
That's the company, travellers don't use legit websites for a business as it attracts the tax man.
It was a legit businessman who was foolish enough to take a chance with travellers probably because of the low price offered.
Under €2k was the price quoted in the papers, very cheap for an engine swap.

cameramonkey

runawaybishop wrote: »

It is understood that the armed garda sergeant arrived at the scene after a member of the public called Granard garda station claiming that he was unable to get his van back after it had been repaired by associates of Mr Stokes.

The caller had driven to Co Longford from the Newmarket area of Co Cork to retrieve the vehicle, but when he arrived in Bolie a confrontation broke out and gardaí were called to the scene.


Stop messing about, it's entirely clear what happened here.

It is understood by who that a member of the public called the guards?


Listen I dont believe a word of what some travellers say but when an armed guard shots someone then there needs to be some evidence as to what happened.


It may have happened as you say but I think we should not jump to conclusions until we see some proof.

Plumbthedepths

cameramonkey wrote:

Are you saying that the dag(dog) had the guard by the tie?

Pretty obvious it wasn't Stokes but a character called Toby who had the guard by the tie, whom earlier Stokes commanded to watch him. Of course Mrs Speilberg decided not to give Toby any screen time, strange since he was also a gunshot victim according to all available reports and no I don't believe Stokes and his clan when he says there was no dag.

Signore Fancy Pants

cameramonkey wrote: »

You seem to assume that there was a call put in to the guards about the situation, maybe there was , have you seen a report of that. Maybe there was a shortage of guards on the day, I dont know or maybe he was out helping a mate and the situation got out of control.


I have said that I find it strange that a guard if called would go out on his own without support to a family who were known to be violent and aggressive.


I don't know what happened but people are believing what the guards and what papers are saying, they don't always tell the truth.

I agree, we don't know.

Why ask a specific question if you have no intent to accept the answer, especially when all the information available to most of us, is open source?

You are using the fact thay we don't know, to support your theory.

Also, it wouldnt be strange for a sole AGS member to be first on scene ahead of back up, not strange at all.

Have you factored in that the travellers were on first name basis with the AGS member?

Would you not accept that a logical response (if a call to the station occurred) would be to send an AGS member who is familiar with the travellers in question to de-escalate the situation before it needed multiple AGS members?

Going from what is available in the media, this seemed to be a personal dispute that escalated once the travellers produced a weapon.

cameramonkey

tuxy wrote: »

Since the Garda clearly said "Get him to let go of me" in the video that's exactly what I'm saying anyway.

Should be dog DNA evidence on his tie so. Case wrapped up.

LollipopJimmy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yeah, and if I had two flutes I'd never leave the house.

Why would you not leave the house?

tuxy

cameramonkey wrote: »

Should be dog DNA evidence on his tie so. Case wrapped up.

How will you know which dog the DNA is from if the dead dog is hidden?