George Nkencho shooting *Mod warning Added to OP*

AngeloArgue

AngeloArgue wrote: »

There's a lot of speculation as to whether Nkencho was shot in the back, and if so how many times? Some could argue that shots in the back indicate that he was not presenting as a threat to Gardaí at that time.

Also there may be information as to whether Nkencho was standing or on the ground when the shots were taken. Again, some would question the necessity to shoot a suspect that already fallen to the ground.

AngeloArgue

Gatling wrote: »

The video clearly shows him taking a swipe at the guards so i doubt he was shot from behind with a guard shooting towards his colleagues .

People need to stop making ****e up

It's in the video

From the video a shot is heard as Nkencho is facing towards the door. He then turns and lunges towards the guard as 3 more shots are heard. He becomes obscured and approximately 2 seconds after the previous shot a final shot is heard.

Beltby

AngeloArgue wrote: »

It's in the video

From the video a shot is heard as Nkencho is facing towards the door. He then turns and lunges towards the guard as 3 more shots are heard. He becomes obscured and approximately 2 seconds after the previous shot a final shot is heard.

There would be a time delay because of the distance the video was taken from. Which looked like the far side of a large green.

AngeloArgue

Beltby wrote: »

There would be a time delay because of the distance the video was taken from. Which looked like the far side of a large green.

A time delay due to the distance sound has to travel would then put the shot as happening before it is heard in the video?

sonofenoch

Beltby wrote: »

There would be a time delay because of the distance the video was taken from. Which looked like the far side of a large green.

Grassy knoll is it?...........the plot thickens

SmartinMartin

osarusan wrote: »

Post mortem showed 6 wounds, 5 to the torso, 1 to the arm. From the Irish Times:



There is a video out there which started with him entering his door/facing his door and which appeared to show 5 shots (4 in very quick succession, 1 a second or so later).

From the Irish Times:


So i'm not sure we do know for certain that a shot was fired before that video was recorded, but maybe it is proved definitively in another source.

Both from here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/independent-postmortem-on-george-nkencho-27-to-take-place-on-tuesday-1.4454791

grassylawn wrote: »

Yes it was in The Irish Times the last couple of days that he was shot six times (with bullets), Therefore he had already been shot at the start of the video.

The IT most certainly didn't state that there were 6 shots fired, they reported that he was wounded 6 times, an entirely different scenario. Did it even occur to you that the bullet that struck the arm also pierced the torso?

conorhal

AngeloArgue wrote: »

It's in the video

From the video a shot is heard as Nkencho is facing towards the door. He then turns and lunges towards the guard as 3 more shots are heard. He becomes obscured and approximately 2 seconds after the previous shot a final shot is heard.

You mean the armed man attempting to enter a property occupied by civilians?

Gatling

SmartinMartin wrote: »

Did it even occur to you that the bullet that struck the arm also pierced the torso?

Or could have existed body and entered his arm or fragments and part hit his arm or vice versa

Gatling

AngeloArgue wrote: »

It's in the video

From the video a shot

That video is not clear and the sound is off ,

mynamejeff

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Also there may be information as to whether Nkencho was standing or on the ground when the shots were taken. Again, some would question the necessity to shoot a suspect that already fallen to the ground.

are you suggesting that he was shot on the ground before or after the video evidence ?

if he was on the ground and got up after being shot they should have emptied their guns into him (which they didn't )

or that he was shot again at some stage after the video when he was on the ground ?

or are you just trying to make this something that it is not ?

AngeloArgue

SmartinMartin wrote: »

The IT most certainly didn't state that there were 6 shots fired, they reported that he was wounded 6 times, an entirely different scenario. Did it even occur to you that the bullet that struck the arm also pierced the torso?

That article does reference 6 shots

ToddDameron

AngeloArgue wrote: »

It's in the video

From the video a shot is heard as Nkencho is facing towards the door. He then turns and lunges towards the guard as 3 more shots are heard. He becomes obscured and approximately 2 seconds after the previous shot a final shot is heard.

They are trained to take action when an armed suspect is attempting to enter a building. I'd imagine that means shooting in the back if required.

Sorry I meant to quote the post referencing shooting in the back.

AngeloArgue

AngeloArgue wrote: »

It's in the video

From the video a shot is heard as Nkencho is facing towards the door. He then turns and lunges towards the guard as 3 more shots are heard. He becomes obscured and approximately 2 seconds after the previous shot a final shot is heard.

In the Prime Time interview with the sister she said she was pushed back into the house but she didn’t say who pushed her and the interviewer never asked (investigative journalism, eh?)

Speculation here on my part but could the brother have been going for the sister at the time we saw him facing the door?

AngeloArgue

AngeloArgue wrote: »

That article does reference 6 shots

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/independent-postmortem-on-george-nkencho-27-to-take-place-on-tuesday-1.4454791

"...the postmortem concluded Mr Nkencho was wounded six times. Five of the shots were to the torso and one was to the arm."

"It was unclear if the footage failed to capture all six shots because the sound quality was inconsistent or because the footage only began after a first shot had already been fired."

Directly from the article

ToddDameron

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

In the Prime Time interview with the sister she said she was pushed back into the house but she didn’t say who pushed her and the interviewer never asked (investigative journalism, eh?)

Speculation here on my part but could the brother have been going for the sister at the time we saw him facing the door?

The Gardai's fear would have been a possible hostage situation and had to stop him before he entered the house.

SmartinMartin

AngeloArgue wrote: »

That article does reference 6 shots

But that is not what the postmortem report stated.

AngeloArgue

conorhal wrote: »

You mean the armed man attempting to enter a property occupied by civilians?

Yes

SmartinMartin

AngeloArgue wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/independent-postmortem-on-george-nkencho-27-to-take-place-on-tuesday-1.4454791

"...the postmortem concluded Mr Nkencho was wounded six times. Five of the shots were to the torso and one was to the arm."

"It was unclear if the footage failed to capture all six shots because the sound quality was inconsistent or because the footage only began after a first shot had already been fired."

Directly from the article

That is the reporter doing exactly what you are doing, making an assumption.

Gatling

mynamejeff wrote: »

or are you just trying to make this something that it is not ?

Of course they are clearly making it up

osarusan

SmartinMartin wrote: »

The IT most certainly didn't state that there were 6 shots fired, they reported that he was wounded 6 times, an entirely different scenario. Did it even occur to you that the bullet that struck the arm also pierced the torso?

IT does say six shots. Whether they have guessed that six wounds means six shots (even though it's possible that 2 wounds might have come from 1 bullet), or whether they know from Garda evidence that six shots were fired, they did mention six shots.

conorhal

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Yes

Which would be grounds to open fire. The ARU cannot allow an armed suspect to enter the property and potentially harm civilians. It would constitute a total loss of control of the situation that presented a clear danger to the public.

SmartinMartin

As you've already guessed, that's the reporter translating 6 wounds into 6 shots.

ToddDameron

For anyone who is interested - at 39.15 on Prime Time (available on Rte Player) it is stated that Garda training dictates that they stop a suspect from entering a building. This means that lunging towards Gardai or civilians isn't the only justifiable reason for opening fire, attempting to enter a building is another one.

AngeloArgue

mynamejeff wrote: »

are you suggesting that he was shot on the ground before or after the video evidence ?

No, I have not heard or seen evidence of that. But I would imagine if that turns out to have been the case then it will be used in a claim of unjustified or unreasonable use of deadly force.

mynamejeff wrote: »

if he was on the ground and got up after being shot they should have emptied their guns into him (which they didn't )

Before the seen video footage? There's no evidence of that. We'll have to await witness statements

mynamejeff wrote: »

or that he was shot again at some stage after the video when he was on the ground ?

I don't think he was shot after the video ended. At the time of the final shot the figure believed to be Nkencho is hard to make out, I guess he is still standing

mynamejeff wrote: »

or are you just trying to make this something that it is not ?

No I'm not. But I'm sure others will. Why? Do I have to pick a side to comment on this case?

AngeloArgue

SmartinMartin wrote: »

But that is not what the postmortem report stated.

5 shots into the torso and 1 shot into the arm

5 +1 = 6

frozenfrozen

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Do I have to pick a side to comment on this case?

if that was you commenting on the case I'm intrigued to see what you asking questions would look like

AngeloArgue

conorhal wrote: »

Which would be grounds to open fire. The ARU cannot allow an armed suspect to enter the property and potentially harm civilians. It would constitute a total loss of control of the situation that presented a clear danger to the public.

That may be so. But I'm sure his family and many others would say that he would not have hurt them and would of surrendered.

The question as to whether it is justifiable and proportionate to use lethal force against somebody who poses a deadly threat against others is an interesting one. I was comparing it to another police scenario of car chases which have been told to stand down from a dangerous pursuit. Yet the drivers of the fleeing car could still be considered as posing a deadly threat to the public.

I'm sure there's lots more such scenarios of balancing risk and threat in policing situations.

Some would say why trade taking a life for the possibility that another life may be taken?

AngeloArgue

AngeloArgue wrote: »

That may be so. But I'm sure his family and many others would say that he would not have hurt him and would of surrendered.

The question as to whether it is justifiable and proportionate to use lethal force against somebody who poses a deadly threat against others is an interesting one. I was comparing it to another police scenario of car chases which have been told to stand down from a dangerous pursuit. Yet the drivers of the fleeing car could still be considered as posing a deadly threat to the public.

I'm sure there's lots more such scenarios of balancing risk and threat in policing situations.

Some would say why trade taking a life for the possibility that another life may be taken?

Isn't that what they did?
Assessed risk/threat.
Made the decision to obviate the threat and risk to themselves and others having exhausted alternative mitigation.


"The question as to whether it is justifiable and proportionate to use lethal force against somebody who poses a deadly threat against others is an interesting one"
How can it not be? Allow them perpetrate the deadly attack? Then intervene?

10 times out of 10 if there is a deadly threat to innocent life, it behoves the police , as protectors of the public, to eliminate the threat as quickly as they can.

Cops ease off on chases, if their chasing is aggravating the risk to public safety, with low probability of catching them AFAIK

AngeloArgue

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Isn't that what they did?
Assessed risk/threat.
Made the decision to obviate the threat and risk to themselves and others having exhausted alternative mitigation.


"The question as to whether it is justifiable and proportionate to use lethal force against somebody who poses a deadly threat against others is an interesting one"
How can it not be? Allow them perpetrate the deadly attack? Then intervene?

10 times out of 10 if there is a deadly threat to innocent life, it behoves the police , as protectors of the public, to eliminate the threat as quickly as they can.

Cops ease off on chases, if their chasing is aggravating the risk to public safety, with low probability of catching them AFAIK

Yes, I tend to agree. I'm just speculating on a differing viewpoint.

He was posing a deadly threat by having the means (the knife) and his behaviour (the assault and refusal to cooperate or surrender). That deadly threat was contained until he arrived at that front door, then it extended to whoever were the occupants.

As I said before I'm sure those occupants, and many others, would believe that he would not have hurt them if he was allowed to enter and would of subsequently surrendered.

Strumms

ToddDameron wrote: »

The Gardai's fear would have been a possible hostage situation and had to stop him before he entered the house.

That’s what I’m thinking. If a bloke with a knife on a spree of violence and unpredictability was headed towards a family dwelling after assaulting the public and Gardai, where on his torso the bullet enters and exists is the last of my concerns.