Should the Gardai shoot first, ask questions later?

hawkmoon269

With the recent spate of high profile robberies / kidnappings, many with paramilitary links, it is becoming increasingly clear that the bad guys are, unfortunately, winning. Do we have to wait for another Veronica Guerin before the Gardai are allowed to get tough?

And when I see get tough, I mean GET TOUGH, as in if you're involved in an armed robbery/kidnapping, you should expect fire to be returned with fire.

When is our society going to allow the Gardai the necessary powers to deal with these thugs and scum?

8bi1ctzegfouva

good point.

however when you see the crap the gards get when they shoot people, namely john carthy in abbeylara, you can hardly blame them for being less than trigger happy.

i feel the gardai will get slated whatever they do. if they hadn't shot him and somone had been shot by him they would have gotten the same treatment that they got for shooting him.

i don't feel that regular gardai should be armed, there is no need for it at the moment, however i feel that there should be more armed gardai. we have the E.R.U. and the detectives, but i feel we need A.R.V.s (armed response vehicles) like they do in the u.k. , these units patrol like regular police, without guns, but have the guns in their cars and have to ask permission to arm themselves.

this is a perfect solution(for the time being). as they are out and about so available for urgent calls, but at the same time not strolling around with uzis scaring the **** out of people.

detectives, although armed, are for the most part involved in investigating cases, so are not free to patrol the streets providing immediate armed backup for regular "beat" gardai.

What the gardai need before guns though is proper protection and equipment.

They need body armour, be it stab vests or ballistic protection. they also need better batons, the current wooden ones they have are crap, they need expandable batons, or side handled batons. they also need incapacitant spray, either cs gas or oc spray.
another very handy new item is quick-cuffs. these are handcuffs with a rigid piece in-between. they allow weaker/lighter officers to get the cuff on one hand and then use the rigid handle in the middle as a lever to restrain the arestee.

once the gards have been issued with all these items, then a criminal will think twice before taking on a gard.

anyway, thats my opinion on the subject.

arming all gards: no
arming some: yes
better equipment: yes

Sparks

however when you see the crap the gards get when they shoot people, namely john carthy in abbeylara, you can hardly blame them for being less than trigger happy.

The trouble they wound up in over Abbeylara wasn't to do with the shooting itself - once McCarthy left the house with the shotgun, there wasn't anything else the gardai on the spot could do - but with what led up to it. McCarthy shot at people with his shotgun months before the Abbeylara incident and his firearms licence and shotgun were confiscated as a result. His doctor told the superintendent that McCarthy wasn't stable mentally (thus ruling him ineligible to hold a firearms licence) but his psychologist (who it transpired, didn't know the details of the earlier shooting) said that he was. A psychologist trumps a GP in mental health matters, and as a result, McCarthy got his licence and shotgun back. And as to the way the siege was handled on the day, well, the errors made then are well known by now.
But it got better - the reason you have the Barr tribunal is that there were several investigations beforehand that supposedly fully explained the shooting - but not one of them asked or answered the question of why or how he was shot in the back when he came out of the house by gardai who were reported as being in front of him. And firearms used by gardai weren't properly accounted for on the day.

Basicly, the entire affair was a shambles from months before the day McCarthy was shot to months afterwards; but the actual shooting itself, and the men on the ground who pulled the triggers, had no choice in the matter.

As to the idea of "should we arm the gardai", the answer is a very definite "no". We already arm units of the gardai and frankly, it's hard enough to keep them trained to a high enough standard. Trying to arm Garda Mick out in the Ballinamuck Garda Station with an MP5 submachine gun and keep him trained in it's use and the relevant rules, regulations and law surrounding it's use? Don't be daft. We can't even enforce speed limits in this country, let alone arm a large body of untrained men overnight and try to prevent accidents!

Milo

Until there is an independent (and I mean fully independent...none of this GRA or politically controlled s**t!) ombubsman to investigate the gardai in there current circumstances I would seriously object to them having guns and I mean any of them, that includes the ERU!!!!! I mean when we see things like the now infamous "may-day riots" and the over reaction of certain gards on that day, can you imagine the carnage (not to mention the cost to the tax payer in law suits....it'd be army deafness eat your heart out stuff!) if they had cs gas or the like?? The gardai think they are a law unto themselves and until that mentality is stamped out it would be a bad idea imo. We should also understand that the gardai are there to enforce the law not to engage in a war fighting fire with fire. If the government really believes that fire arms are necessary to protect the public then it is the remit of the defence forces.

Also just so I'm not appearing to be negative towards the gards throughout this reply, the gardai are actually well respected around the world due to their lack of the use of guns. They apparently are less threatening enabling them to be better negotiators in crisis situations!!!!

Zombrex

hawkmoon269 wrote:

When is our society going to allow the Gardai the necessary powers to deal with these thugs and scum?

Define "deal with"

You seem to be implying that the Gardai should shoot criminals on the spot, which, as fun as Judge Dredd is, I don't think would work very well in the real world.

MrPudding

Milo wrote:

Until there is an independent (and I mean fully independent...none of this GRA or politically controlled s**t!) ombubsman to investigate the gardai in there current circumstances I would seriously object to them having guns and I mean any of them, that includes the ERU!!!!!

I presume you are joking about this. It would be idiotic.

I do agree that there does need to be a better mechanism for investigating gardai conduct, but to not have any armed police would be stunningly stupid.

As Sparks said, once that door opened and McCarthy came out there was only one way things were going to end.

Armed police are needed, there can be no doubt about that. They need good equipment (not Uzis FFS) and better training. They need to be supported so that when they make that split second decision there will be no doubt as to whether or not they will be supported. Confidence in their superiors and good training will help to ensure that weapons are discharged only when and if they need to be.

MrP

RainyDay

hawkmoon269 wrote:

With the recent spate of high profile robberies / kidnappings, many with paramilitary links, it is becoming increasingly clear that the bad guys are, unfortunately, winning. Do we have to wait for another Veronica Guerin before the Gardai are allowed to get tough?

And when I see get tough, I mean GET TOUGH, as in if you're involved in an armed robbery/kidnapping, you should expect fire to be returned with fire.

When is our society going to allow the Gardai the necessary powers to deal with these thugs and scum?

Has the provision of such increased powers been successful anywhere else in the world at reducing crime, or does it just mean that the criminal get bigger/better guns to counter it?

Zulu

hawkmoon269 wrote:

With the recent spate of high profile robberies / kidnappings, many with paramilitary links, it is becoming increasingly clear that the bad guys are, unfortunately, winning. Do we have to wait for another Veronica Guerin before the Gardai are allowed to get tough?

And when I see get tough, I mean GET TOUGH ... you should expect fire to be returned with fire.

When is our society going to allow the Gardai the necessary powers to deal with these thugs and scum?

Definatly! Look how well that theory has work else where. :rolleyes:
America - fu*k yea!

Sleepy

Increasing the numbers of ERU's, their training and equipment all seem extremely good ideas to me. A guardian of the peace should never need a fully automatic machine gun capable of spitting out numerous bullets per second. Sniper rifles & sidearms should be plenty of fire-power if the right training is provided.

Improvements to their batons? At the end of the day, a baton is a baton so there's no harm in replacing what they have with one's designed to be used as restraints in conjuction to their role as a hitting implement so I'd have no problem with that. Incapacitant sprays I have no problem with once they are proven technology that can be shown to have no long term effects. Why should an officer of the law have to take a slap when someone comes at them? Pepper spray or it's like protects the officer and the only person receiving pain is the person who tried to inflict it.

Essentially, the ordinary cops shouldn't be armed any more than they already are (maybe CS Spray which tbh I'd prefer to be sprayed with than receive a crack over the head with a wooden baton). It is their ability to call on properly trained, properly equiped officers with the necessary firepower to deal with those that use firearms in criminal activities that needs to be increased.

Zulu

MrPudding wrote:

They need good equipment (not Uzis FFS) and better training.

What like high calabre assult rifles? :eek: Sub-machine guns are perfectly fine - there bullets kill people well enough without going through walls killing civilians behind them. The Uzi is a perfectly good weapon for the role they are in - CIVIL DEFENCE.

They need to be supported so that when they make that split second decision there will be no doubt as to whether or not they will be supported.

The gaurds won't get that in a hurry. They need to have a fully independent investigating body. Until then the public are going to continue to see corrupt actions go unpunished and hold the gaurds with a level of contempt.

Sleepy

Zulu wrote:

The Uzi is a perfectly good weapon for the role they are in - CIVIL DEFENCE.

I'd question that tbh. The Uzi is known for it's ability to spray bullets, not for it's accuracy. I'd prefer a more clinical approach, single shots, well aimed with high velocity sniper rifles for cases where a .38 just doesn't cut it.

Zulu

Sleepy wrote:

I'd question that tbh. The Uzi is known for it's ability to spray bullets, not for it's accuracy. I'd prefer a more clinical approach, single shots, well aimed with high velocity sniper rifles for cases where a .38 just doesn't cut it.

Well there supposed to be use at short range in small bursts. The should be fine for that.

The sniper rifle is evidently very useful, but in Ireland, it should be kept in the hands of the army. If a sniper is needed for a siege (how other do we have them infairness?) call in the army. The gaurds shuold be trained it talking the situation down. Snipers appearing esculate a situation and should be reserved as a last resort. (like limerick for example - joke guys...)

Sparks

Sleepy wrote:

Increasing the numbers of ERU's, their training and equipment all seem extremely good ideas to me.

Is there evidence that the ERU is overstretched and just adding men to the unit would solve the problem?
Or that their equipment isn't up to the job?

Sniper rifles & sidearms should be plenty of fire-power if the right training is provided.

I'd imagine (and I'm no expert on this particular application of firearms) that there is a gap between sniper rifles and sidearms that an armed unit would want filled with something along the lines of the MP5 (which pretty much every armed police unit in europe uses).

Incapacitant sprays I have no problem with once they are proven technology that can be shown to have no long term effects. Why should an officer of the law have to take a slap when someone comes at them? Pepper spray or it's like protects the officer and the only person receiving pain is the person who tried to inflict it.

The problem with CS or pepper sprays isn't when they're used against assailants; it's that there's a suspicion that the gardai would just use them indiscriminately with anyone that didn't immediately comply with instructions, especially given the events and outcomes from the may day protests a few years ago. The lack of an effective ombudsman system for the gardai doesn't allay those fears at all.

Zulu wrote:

What like high calabre assult rifles? :eek: Sub-machine guns are perfectly fine - there bullets kill people well enough without going through walls killing civilians behind them. The Uzi is a perfectly good weapon for the role they are in - CIVIL DEFENCE.

Firstly, whether or not a bullet goes through a person has little to do with what kind of gun it was fired from and far more to do with the design of the bullet, how far the person was from the shooter, and so on. Hollowpoint or frangible rounds will in general not create exit wounds, but remain in the body. That's why US police forces almost universally use them.

Secondly, the Uzi, while having an excellent reputation for being a military firearm, isn't really the best in the world for civilian police use, it's just not designed for it. SWAT, GSG9, SO19 and a number of other civilian police forces tend to use the MP5 or an equivalent because they're more suitable for civilian use.

Zulu

Sparks wrote:

Firstly, whether or not a bullet goes through a person has little to do with what kind of gun it was fired from and far more to do with the design of the bullet...

Design and size of bullet has something to .... aww look - you know what my point was.

Secondly, the Uzi, while having an excellent reputation for being ...

Whatever. MP5 - fine. I'm not a gun nut, my point is Sub-machine guns vs heavier fire power.

A Dub in Glasgo

Should the Gardai shoot first, ask questions later?

No

Who do you propose asks the questions?

Victor

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ5ZDFW4-en

The words of Michael Staines, the first Commissioner of a fledgling police force for our newly-independent nation, are worth recalling: "The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers but from their moral authority as servants of the people."

hawkmoon269 wrote:

And when I see get tough, I mean GET TOUGH, as in if you're involved in an armed robbery/kidnapping, you should expect fire to be returned with fire.?

Do you really think someone on cocaine (or worse! :eek: ) really cares? If he expects a "tough" response, he's just going to shoot first.

They need body armour, be it stab vests or ballistic protection.

How many gardaí are stabbed every year? Would this money be better spent elsewhere? What it like to walk around in body armour all day? What’s it like for getting in and out of a car? Will this body armour protect the arms, legs head and groin (all likely targets)? Will this body armour create a sense of invulnerability, leading individual gardaí into carrying out actions that are unsafe?

they also need better batons, the current wooden ones they have are crap, they need expandable batons, or side handled batons.

Perhaps. Why?

they also need incapacitant spray, either cs gas or oc spray.

Why? For bank robbers? Drunks? Junkies? Asthma sufferers?

another very handy new item is quick-cuffs. these are handcuffs with a rigid piece in-between. they allow weaker/lighter officers to get the cuff on one hand and then use the rigid handle in the middle as a lever to restrain the arestee.

Perhaps.

I'm not a gun nut,

"I'm not an expert, but I'll insult you anyway" :rolleyes:

I'm not a gun nut, my point is Sub-machine guns vs heavier fire power.

You're not an expert, but you will pick a particular product anyway .....

They design of the Uzi is dated - something along the lines that it suffers from having parts move before the bullet leaves the gun, thereby changing the centre of gravity and aimpoint. Something that doesn't happen with the MP5.

Now the reason sub-machine guns are popular with police forces is because they use the same ammunition as pistols, typically designed for ranges out to 50m. Sniper rifles kill people out to several hundred metres and if you are really good 1,500m. However, if you are really unlucky, you also get Aunt Agatha, sitting at home, having tea.

8bi1ctzegfouva

Victor wrote:

They need body armour, be it stab vests or ballistic protection.

How many gardaí are stabbed every year? Would this money be better spent elsewhere? What it like to walk around in body armour all day? What’s it like for getting in and out of a car? Will this body armour protect the arms, legs head and groin (all likely targets)? Will this body armour create a sense of invulnerability, leading individual gardaí into carrying out actions that are unsafe?

it doesn't matter how many gards are stabbed. in england paramedics wear body armour. its a precaution, like say a condom. 99% of the people you have sex with wont have any diseases, but 1% will, so why not prepare yourself for that 1%.
it will only protect the torso, and the upper torso at that, and yes of course it will impair manoeuvrablity, and will be uncomfortable when worn for extended periods of time, but i would rather be uncomortable, than stabbed.

Victor wrote:

they also need better batons, the current wooden ones they have are crap, they need expandable batons, or side handled batons.

Perhaps. Why?

because they are longer, so allow you to stand further away from the attacker, they are stronger, allowing you to use them to smash car windows, double glazed windows etc ( i recently saw a wooden baton used to break a window of a house during a fire, it was falling to pieces), as they are either metal in the case of expandable batons, or poly-carbonate in the case of side handled batons, they are very hard wearing, needing to be replaced much less often, aslo, like the baton mentioned above, if that had then been used to hit somone, it would most likely have cut them very badly, as there were sharp shards of wood hanging off the baton, and it was generally very rough.

Victor wrote:

they also need incapacitant spray, either cs gas or oc spray.

Why? For bank robbers? Drunks? Junkies? Asthma sufferers?

for anyone who has reason to have it used on them.
be it a 20 stone man with a bottle against 1 female garda, or a group of people attacking somone/another group.
i myself would much rather be sprayed than have a baton cracked over my head.
in england all officers who carry cs/oc gas must be sprayed in the face with it themselves during training, this not only allows them to be prepared for it if they ever get sprayed in the face by mistake, or the wind blows it into their face etc., but also, it means they know how much it stings, and so hopefully won't go around indiscriminately spraying people.

another option for this would of course be Tazers. but these are in most cases single use(the projectile versions), very costly, the public have a very bad opinion of this sort of technology and it can be dangerous to those with heard conditions.

so it seems that an incapacitant spray is the safest, most versatile option.

oscarBravo

Zelda Rapping Puppetry wrote:

[body armour] will only protect the torso, and the upper torso at that, and yes of course it will impair manoeuvrablity, and will be uncomfortable when worn for extended periods of time, but i would rather be uncomortable, than stabbed.

So would I. Mind you, I'd also rather be comfortable than uncomfortable. On balance of likelihood, I opt not to wear body armour.

Dyr

who says the cops arent operating a shoot first policy already?? they mightnt have shot one of their own a few years back otherwise

Victor

Zelda Rapping Puppetry wrote:

but i would rather be uncomortable, than stabbed.

But you still haven't given any evidence that they are needed. How about (just in case!):

http://www.improb.com/news/2002/may/troy-new-suit.html

they are very hard wearing, needing to be replaced much less often, aslo,

Just how much do you expect to use it? :eek:

like the baton mentioned above, if that had then been used to hit somone, it would most likely have cut them very badly, as there were sharp shards of wood hanging off the baton, and it was generally very rough.

And you are afraid you would cut the fire victims?

so it seems that an incapacitant spray is the safest, most versatile option.

Except for asthma / emphysema victims, etc.

8bi1ctzegfouva

Victor wrote:

but i would rather be uncomortable, than stabbed.

But you still haven't given any evidence that they are needed. How about (just in case!):

http://www.improb.com/news/2002/may/troy-new-suit.html

Yeah thats the ****! We should issue all gards with those.
and they are probably not needed most of the time, but they will be from time to time, and you never know when. its like a seatbelt. you don't need it most of the time, in fact i have never needed it, but i still wear it, just in case something happens one day.

Victor wrote:

they are very hard wearing, needing to be replaced much less often, also,

Just how much do you expect to use it? :eek:

Very little, however, the current ones, if used once or twice to smash something are put out of action, therefore costing the public money to replace them.

Victor wrote:

like the baton mentioned above, if that had then been used to hit somone, it would most likely have cut them very badly, as there were sharp shards of wood hanging off the baton, and it was generally very rough.

And you are afraid you would cut the fire victims?

No, but say if at the start of your shift you attend a fire, and halfway through you are involved in a public order incident and need to use your baton.also, believe me, replacement equipment is not always available when you need it, you might be waiting a few days or more for a new baton.

Victor wrote:

so it seems that an incapacitant spray is the safest, most versatile option.

Except for asthma / emphysema victims, etc.

indeed, but which would you rather? a cracked skull/broken bone, or an asthma attack, i'm not trying to say that an asthma attack is the better option, in fact that is the wrong way to put it. There is more chance of somone getting injured than somone having an asthma attack. there is a 100% possibility of somone having a bone broken, but only X%(if somone knows please let me know) of the population have asthma, so there is less chance of bringing on an asthma attack than breaking a bone.

8bi1ctzegfouva

oscarBravo wrote:

Zelda Rapping Puppetry wrote:

[body armour] will only protect the torso, and the upper torso at that, and yes of course it will impair manoeuvrablity, and will be uncomfortable when worn for extended periods of time, but i would rather be uncomortable, than stabbed.

So would I. Mind you, I'd also rather be comfortable than uncomfortable. On balance of likelihood, I opt not to wear body armour.

Im not sure what the policy is now, but i know that in the past in some forces in england it was optional to wear body armour. I have a info thing upstairs which i will now go and look for which gives guidlines about the wearing of body armour.

Sparks

Zelda Rapping Puppetry wrote:

Very little, however, the current ones, if used once or twice to smash something are put out of action, therefore costing the public money to replace them.

I think I could withstand the extra thirty euro bill to buy a shorter wooden baton for the Garda in question rather than the longer, metal nightstick which can inflict much more serious injuries if simply swung at someone. And don't forget, there is a history of that kind of thing happening, live, on camera, in full public view with total impunity for the gardai involved...

indeed, but which would you rather? a cracked skull/broken bone, or an asthma attack

Do we have to choose? Both can kill you just as dead, y'know...

there is a 100% possibility of somone having a bone broken, but only X%(if somone knows please let me know) of the population have asthma, so there is less chance of bringing on an asthma attack than breaking a bone.

That's the actual problem. It's been found in the US that this image of CS spray being "safe to use" has lead to it being used more often, often in situations where it was wholly inappropriate and where swinging a nightstick wouldn't have been accepted even by the police in question.

8bi1ctzegfouva

ok i found it,
this is a little flier thing that was/is issued with body armour given to Police Officers in a certain Police Force in England.
Front Page:

Instructions

A. The vest is RESISTANT to .357 magnum and 9mm bullets (typical powerful handgun ammunition), nothing bigger - shotguns depend on size of the shot.

B. The vest is resisten to knife blads up to a force of 42 joules of energy (a very strong man, high on drugs or drink, would be unlikely to reach this level).

C. For the first few weeks the new vest will be stiff. However, it will eventually mould to your body shape and become more comfortable.

D. The outer cover can be removed for washing. The white cover is best for under shirt wear.

E. When replacing the inserts GREAT CARE should be used to ENSURE they face the CORRECT way. This is marked on the inserts. If placed in the wrong way they DO NOT WORK.

F. Keep your vest in its holder. Store it flat or hanging. Look after it, wear it and it will look after you. Other than when being worn the armour should be kept out of direct sunlight, away from domestic chemicals, detergents etc.

G. Try to keep the vest dry. If it gets wet, remove the inserts, wipe them down and dry the cover separately.

H. Should your armour be exposed to soaking, trauma by attack or accident, exposure to chemical contamination or similar, you should have your armour checked by the manufacturers via HQ at XXXXXXX. There may be a need to issue a replacement.

C,F and H are good points.

C - It will be uncomforable at first, but then become more comfortable basically.

F -

wear it and it will look after you

Fairly self explanitory.

H -

trauma by ... accident

I forgot this one before, if you were in a car crash, or hit by a car wearing body armour would protect your internal organs more so than if you weren't. Although stab vests as such are not really designed to protect from blunt trauma, they do so to a certain extent. I don't think I have to remind people of the two Gards killed on the Stillorgan dual carriage way a while back when there car was rammed side on.

---

Back Page:

Guidelines

1. The force has shown a duty of care to you by buying this vest - you are actively encouraged to wear it on all public contact duty.

2. The vest will also offer a level of protection in road accidents, assaults and falls.

3. The vest will offer no protection whatever if it is NOT worn and left in your locker.

4. The vest will NOT make you invincible. It merely gives you a few seconds in the event of an attack, to either disengage or defeat the attacker, using methods that you will have (or will shortly be) trained for. The attack needs to be stopped or repulsed once the vest has done its job of buying time.

5. Visible body armour may give an assailant a message to attack others parts of the body. It is therefore best worn covertly, i.e. under an anorak, pullover or shirt.
Under shirt wear may be more difficult for some than others - physique plays a part in this.
However, the Chief Constable has indicated that officers can wear the vest overtly, particularly when in shirt sleeve order, using the blue cover with the Force crest thereon.

6. DO NOT TEST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR ARMOUR BY STABBING OR SHOOTING.

7. If you are NOT wearing the vest when it has been advised that you should and you are injured in a way that the vest may have reduced or prevented, there could be adverse implications on the ammount of compensation/damages/benefit you may be entitled to as a result. This could be compared to people in road accidents not wearing seat belts.

2,4,5,6 and 7 are interesting.

Point 2 Backs up my comment above about road traffic accidents.

4 is a good point too.

The vest will NOT make you invincible. It merely gives you a few seconds in the event of an attack,

Those few seconds could be the difference between life or death in a serious attack.

5 is an interesting point too. I agree with it to a degree. Ok sure, it might make the attacker stab you somewhere else, but I think that maybe, if somone sees you wearing overt body armour and having a visible baton(the Gardai have batons hidden in a special pocket in their trousers!!) and cs gas etc., they will think twice about taking you on, as they know you are prepared to retaliate and defend yourself.

You have to laugh at point 6.

And 7 more or less says Don't wear it at your own risk.

---

By the way, all the spelling/grammar/punctuation mistakes are not my mistakes, that's how the actual flier is written.

---

So it seems they basically are saying, we are giving you this armour, we suggest you wear it, if you don't it's up to you, but don't come crying back to us if you get stabbed and weren't wearing it.

Bucephalus

hawkmoon269 wrote:

With the recent spate of high profile robberies / kidnappings, many with paramilitary links, it is becoming increasingly clear that the bad guys are, unfortunately, winning. Do we have to wait for another Veronica Guerin before the Gardai are allowed to get tough?

And when I see get tough, I mean GET TOUGH, as in if you're involved in an armed robbery/kidnapping, you should expect fire to be returned with fire.

When is our society going to allow the Gardai the necessary powers to deal with these thugs and scum?

It sounds like you're advocating a Dirty Harry - or, worse yet, Magnum Force approach to policing!

Kingsize

did it not emerge that the criminals in the guerin case were aided by a "corrupt" garda somewhere along the way???

also re: abbeylara gardai were right to shoot but i woudve thought trained marksmen could act more professionaly to incapacitate the gunman.
personally i'd be more afraid of gards with guns than i am of crims who are known to the gards but still manage to aquire high pwered weapons & kill each other in broad daylight.

8bi1ctzegfouva

Kingsize wrote:

did it not emerge that the criminals in the guerin case were aided by a "corrupt" garda somewhere along the way???

i think i read something about that too.

oscarBravo

Kingsize wrote:

also re: abbeylara gardai were right to shoot but i woudve thought trained marksmen could act more professionaly to incapacitate the gunman.

Have you asked any trained marksmen about that?

Kingsize wrote:

personally i'd be more afraid of gards with guns than i am of crims who are known to the gards but still manage to aquire high pwered weapons & kill each other in broad daylight.

I'm not sure what to make of that remark. I'll assume that the suggestion about being more afraid of armed police than of armed criminals is irony, which means your issue is with the fact that criminals who are known the the police are able to commit crimes.

What do you suggest, internment of known criminals?

Zelda Rapping Puppetry wrote:

i think i read something about that too.

I have a book that says fairies are real.

MrPudding

Victor wrote:

You're not an expert, but you will pick a particular product anyway .....

They design of the Uzi is dated - something along the lines that it suffers from having parts move before the bullet leaves the gun, thereby changing the centre of gravity and aimpoint. Something that doesn't happen with the MP5.

This was the point I was making. The Uzi is fine for suppression but really crap for nice accurate shooting. Like Victor mentioned, it fires from an open bolt. This means the heaviest component of the weapon moves forward 5 odd centimeters after you have pulled the trigger. This can have a huge effect on aiming.

The MP5 on the other hand only fires from an open bolt when on full auto, and only after the first burst. Single shot and 3 round burst ( 5 & 7 round burst in some variants)f iring happens from a closed bolt. This, plus the fact that it is very well built in the first place make it a very very accurate weapon. Exactly what you want a copper using in a situation where there may be innocents in close proximity to the bad guys.

Ideally you don't want to be shooting people at all but I think most people will agree that sometimes there is no choice.

MrP

MrPudding

Kingsize wrote:

also re: abbeylara gardai were right to shoot but i woudve thought trained marksmen could act more professionaly to incapacitate the gunman.

I think this has been discussed before. It is too dangerous, and difficult, to try to incapacitate someone. When the decision is taken to shoot someone it is because there is a danger to the marksmen themselves or to innocent people.

The only option is to shoot to kill. Imagine if the "incapacitated" bad guy managed to get a shot off and an innocent bystander got hit, the marksman would be hung out to dry.

The key is to try to stop a situation getting to the point where the decision to fire has to be taken. However, once the decision to fire has been made it should be to kill not incapacitate.

MrP

Sparks

Kingsize wrote:

abbeylara gardai were right to shoot but i woudve thought trained marksmen could act more professionaly to incapacitate the gunman.

Nope. Armed police are trained to aim for the centre of mass. Shooting moving people in the shoulder to disarm them is strictly in the realm of Hollywood. The general rule is that you don't shoot at someone unless you have to; and if you have to shoot, you shoot to kill. Shoot to wound and you can miss, and hit a bystander.