Gardai shooting to kill?

Trotter

pete wrote:

I don't know if they did or not. But there's three shots fired by police, two corpses - one unarmed - and i'd like an independent inquiry to verify the circumstances.

Id like one too , just to vindicate the Gardai in question.

The unarmed fella is seemingly on CCTV rushing at the ERU with his hand going into his pocket. In terms of the rules and laws the ERU work under, they were entitled to shoot.

pete wrote:

In any event the comment wasn't directed at the police - I meant the people who don't seem to want to ask any questions about the circumstances because hey - they were only scumbags.

Lets make it clear.. they were human beings, and a dead human being is a bad bad thing. But they were scumbags.. my definition of a scumbag in this case being a b*st*rd that puts innocent lives at risk by threatening them with a shotgun.

the_syco

I wonder did the ERU know that [font=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif] Colm Griffin was leading the robbery? If so, and knowing that he was "robbing to order" for the IRA, was it because of that, that the police shoot to kill?

source
[/font][/font]

Trotter

Sparks wrote:

Has it occured to anyone that an independent, tough, objective inquiry into the shooting is in the best interests of the Gardai in general and the ERU in particular?

Yep it would be, once its truly independent and not weighed for or against the Gardai, just an evaluation of the facts, with the result being whether they acted within or against the law.

Sparks wrote:

Think about it - such an inquiry directly causes the evaluation of the procedures used in any incident where a firearm has to be discharged, so there's no chance of the ERU going "erra, sure we know what went wrong, we don't have to worry too much". The more review such procedures get, the more refined they become, the better the training gets, and the safer the job of the ERU becomes. Remember, an ideal ERU deployment results in no shots fired - the idea is to present the criminal with overwhelming force, ie., he turns round to find four or five submachine guns and shotguns pointed at his head so he doesn't even think of trying to resist.

Thats what happened.. they "turns round to find four or five submachine guns and shotguns pointed at his head".. and DIDNT give up. He pointed the weapon back instead of dropping it. Between when he pointed the loaded gun at the Gardai and when they fired.. what else did you want them to do?? The last thing you do before shooting a Garda dead is aim your gun at him is it not?

Sparks wrote:

If the ERU have to fire, they've failed to reach this ideal for one reason or another, and that means that they were at more risk than they had to be -

If they have to fire it means the guy didnt put his gun down. Saying that by firing.. they've somehow messed up is wrong. If it comes to the stage where they fire, it means the thugs were arrogant and thick enough to point a gun at an armed Garda!

Sparks wrote:

In the wider picture, such an inquiry is in the best interests of the Gardai in general, because it would finally get rid of the image perceived by the public of the corrupt garda.

Do you mean a corrupt garda.. or corrupt garda investigations?.. Because I cant see what was corrupt about the Lusk situation. I do think an external investigation would be good for the reasons you set out though.

Trotter

the_syco wrote:

I wonder did the ERU know that [font=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][font=Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif] Colm Griffin was leading the robbery? If so, and knowing that he was "robbing to order" for the IRA, was it because of that, that the police shoot to kill?

source
[/font][/font]

I think whether he was linked to the IRA or not , they shot him because he pointed the gun at the ERU. They didnt shoot to kill, they shot at the central mass, just as they're trained.

Nobody has mentioned yet that the ERU were the first to give CPR to both robbers. If they were as content as some posters make them out to be to have killed them, would they have done this? Both were dead at the scene, the ERU managed to revive one but he died in hospital.

angeldelight

Sparks wrote:

accusing the inquiry of secondguessing the SO19 officers with the benefit of hindsight and a stress-free evaluation isn't valid.

Umm I didn't... I pointed out that the officers at the time don't have as long as we do to think about it. Didn't accuse anybody of anything! As to whether an independent investigation should be held or not, I think it should be as it's the only way people will believe that the gardai acted in the correct way (if in fact they did) because the majority of people are just presuming they didn't anyway. And yes I'd like it to be uncovered if they didn't act correctly too. Still no accusations apart from the fact you didn't read my post properly before quoting it

Esel

angeldelight wrote:

... There was a story of police in the UK a while ago who shot a person who was brandishing a chair leg wrapped up in a plastic bag and it looked like a gun. They were found, after an investigation to have acted reasonably. They don't have the weeks we do to think about it all

AFAIR, the victim was an innocent Irishman who was carrying a chair leg which he had just repaired. It was wrapped in plastic. Someone in the pub he was drinking in called the cops and said he was Irish and was carrying a gun. On leaving the pub, he was challenged, then shot dead. Don't remember anything about him 'brandishing' anything. If he hadn't been Irish, you probably would have heard a lot more about it.

Sparks

Trotter wrote:

Thats what happened.. they "turns round to find four or five submachine guns and shotguns pointed at his head".. and DIDNT give up.

But is that what happened? Or to be more specific, when he turned round, how many ERU officers were there with weapons pointed at him? If it was just one, with the others coming in the door, he may have thought he had a chance and tried to shoot; had there been six guys there, all within ten feet of him and aiming at his head, it might have been a different story. But this is why the ERU needs for there to be an inquiry - so that they get an independent evaluation of the action for future training.

Saying that by firing.. they've somehow messed up is wrong.

Saying they haven't achieved an ideal outcome isn't saying that it's their fault - it may well have been outside their control. However, an independent enquiry would be needed to give them that kind of assessment.

Do you mean a corrupt garda.. or corrupt garda investigations?

The former.

Because I cant see what was corrupt about the Lusk situation.

Noone said there was anything corrupt about Lusk, it was a comment on the Gardai force in general, not the ERU or a particular officer. Remember, the main story in the news on the morning of the Lusk shooting was of a chap from Donegal who'd been imprisoned for 23 months on perjured testimony from a garda, and who'd been innocent of the charges put against him...

Sparks

angeldelight wrote:

I pointed out that the officers at the time don't have as long as we do to think about it.

Indirectly, that's implying that subsequent enquiries aren't fair for the officers.

However, the fact that they don't have much time to think during such operations is another specific reason why the officers themselves need such an enquiry - you don't have time to innovate new procedures during an arrest, so you need to know that those you have trained with are the best available. You've got to get it right before the operation. You don't know that unless your training has been tested and properly evaluated, and without the evaluation from an independent enquiry into actual operations, well, you're putting yourself in danger unnecessarily, aren't you?

murphaph

esel wrote:

AFAIR, the victim was an innocent Irishman who was carrying a chair leg which he had just repaired. It was wrapped in plastic. Someone in the pub he was drinking in called the cops and said he was Irish and was carrying a gun. On leaving the pub, he was challenged, then shot dead. Don't remember anything about him 'brandishing' anything. If he hadn't been Irish, you probably would have heard a lot more about it.

But these scumbags were armed robberies in the midst of an armed robbery! Comparing what the police did to that innocent man is pointless. By the way, this post wasn't aimed at you esel, just the whole isuue of bringing it into this discussion (whoever did that) is a little disturbing to me. I'm all for accountable Gardai etc. but AFAIC if you head out to commit an armed robbery and wind up dead at the hands of Gardai then tough. I and 98% of the law abiding decent people will be happy enough with that. I've no problem per-se with an inquiry as I'm confident the Gardai acted correctly (I heard a 12 second stand off before a shot was fired, though this might not be correct) in shooting the 2 scum.

pork99

Trotter wrote:

Lets make it clear.. they were human beings, and a dead human being is a bad bad thing. But they were scumbags.. my definition of a scumbag in this case being a b*st*rd that puts innocent lives at risk by threatening them with a shotgun.

They're very brave when holding 15 year old girls at knife-point - not so smart when up against someone who can shoot back

Not as cool as scarface now are you?

JewellyBird

I have a question for the people who have posted on this thread with the idea that Amnesty and RTE shouldn't question the actions of the Gardai - why not? Why shouldn't the Gardai have to be held to account for shooting people? In what sense does it indicate hatred of the Gardai that they should have to be fully accountable to those they serve?

This kowtowing to authority is ridiculous. The world is not divided into righteous Forces of the State (even referred to as G-Men on this thread. G-Men.) versus 'scumbags'.

Actually, I have two more questions:

1.Do you think that the Gardai should be an unaccountable tool of the state for repression?

2.If the penalty for armed robbery is execution without trial, what sanction is there for any more serious crime?

Or do the tabloids not investigate these questions when pontificating about scum?

Rew

As has been said already there is an investigation as standard in to any shooting so they are accountable, the way Amnesty are carrying on its as if there shot and thats it.

It was not an execution, one guy pointed a loaded gun at what he knew to be an armed Garda and the other guy ran toward him depite warnings. Its all on video so there can be no covering up of the facts. The Gardai have shot dead 8 people in 15 years its hardly state sponsered slaughter.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

1.Do you think that the Gardai should be an unaccountable tool of the state for repression?

No. Bring on the enquiry and vindicate this poor Garda.

JewellyBird wrote:

2.If the penalty for armed robbery is execution without trial, what sanction is there for any more serious crime?

That was the 'penalty' for pointing a firearm at an armed Garda. Seems a reasonable 'penalty' to me.

We've had enough of scum like this running around terrorising decent people. Conroy 'warned' armed robbers today that the Gardai would do everything in their powers to protect innocent life. It seems he means business and I for one think it's long overdue.

JewellyBird

If the Garda's actions were correct then an independent inquiry would vinidicate it, which is right and proper.

However, the tenor of the discussion on this thread has been more towards the opinion that being some ill-defined 'scum' is reason enough to merit being shot. That the 'scum' thing is specifically pointing a gun at a Garda is only mentioned by you.

What do you think 'serious business' will mean? And what are the implications for you if due process is removed?

Trotter

JewellyBird wrote:

I have a question for the people who have posted on this thread with the idea that Amnesty and RTE shouldn't question the actions of the Gardai - why not? Why shouldn't the Gardai have to be held to account for shooting people? In what sense does it indicate hatred of the Gardai that they should have to be fully accountable to those they serve?

This kowtowing to authority is ridiculous. The world is not divided into righteous Forces of the State (even referred to as G-Men on this thread. G-Men.) versus 'scumbags'.

Actually, I have two more questions:

1.Do you think that the Gardai should be an unaccountable tool of the state for repression?

2.If the penalty for armed robbery is execution without trial, what sanction is there for any more serious crime?

Or do the tabloids not investigate these questions when pontificating about scum?

My Answers... 1.) No. External ombudsman which would investigate impartially .

2). I'll answer that with a question.. Is death the penalty for being a member of the ERU present at a bankraid?

If the Garda hadnt pulled his trigger first, do you honestly think the robber wouldnt have used his LOADED gun and killed him first?

I honestly think some people here would have preferred the Garda not to have fired, and been shot. (Comment not aimed at any one person here). Is it his duty to take a bullet "for the good of us all"??
No.. It absolutely isnt.

Trotter

JewellyBird wrote:

If the Garda's actions were correct then an independent inquiry would vinidicate it, which is right and proper.

However, the tenor of the discussion on this thread has been more towards the opinion that being some ill-defined 'scum' is reason enough to merit being shot. That the 'scum' thing is specifically pointing a gun at a Garda is only mentioned by you.

What do you think 'serious business' will mean? And what are the implications for you if due process is removed?

What would you have changed between the point where the robber pointed a gun at the Garda, and the point where he fired, to allow due process to happen?
If anything.. If I point a loaded gun at an armed Garda, Im taking away my own right to due process. If I did that, Id expect to end up shot. If I didnt, in my opinion, we'd be inviting armed robbers to take what they like.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

What do you think 'serious business' will mean? And what are the implications for you if due process is removed?

Serious business could mean any of a number of things. I don't know what Conroy meant. I believe the stand off was of the order of seconds (maybe 12 seconds). Perhaps 'meaning business' means that the ERU will shoot after 1 warning and a 1 second wait.

JewellyBird

Sounds like trying to sound tough and knowing that if there are mistakes, Irish people won't care if someone is extrajudicially killed so long as a label can be applied.

I wonder if any of the law and order, hang 'em and flog 'em, shoot to kill crowd here have used drugs or bought items off the street? Tax free cigarettes?

paddyc

there actions were spot on

any other country in the world would have shot em dead and jogged on....


A few years in the legion might sort a few peoples heads out on this planet

Evil people cause harm... if they are dead then there no more evil... period

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

Sounds like trying to sound tough and knowing that if there are mistakes, Irish people won't care if someone is extrajudicially killed so long as a label can be applied.

I'll be honest here, I wouldn't care if the Gardai hadn't given the armed robbers any warning. I'm fed up with it all mate. The armed Gardai are very restrained compared to many countries, so let's not get carried away with a shoot to kill policy.

JewellyBird wrote:

I wonder if any of the law and order, hang 'em and flog 'em, shoot to kill crowd here have used drugs or bought items off the street? Tax free cigarettes?

Only legal drugs and I never buy anything which I think might have been stolen having been the victim of vehicle theft I know what it's like. Stolen goods (shoplifted) drive the prices up for the rest of us. M&S on Grafton Street alone loses €40k a WEEK to thieving scum. M&S like the rest will just adjust their prices accordingly.

JewellyBird

To be honest, when I was discussing drugs I didn't mean you specifically, I was referring to all of the people who had posted earlier. I don't know that I'm convinced that none of them have done any of those things, and I wonder how, in concience, someone could theoretically buy drugs from these criminals and at the same time condemn them for selling them (and refer to them as 'scum' with a straight face).

Regarding the issue of being fed up with criminality, lots of people are, but we have to retain some sense of proportion. We are supposed to be a civilised country (although some would make one doubt it).

I don't think that the Gardai are operating a shoot to kill policy, and I wouldn't care to allege any such thing, but there is a feeling that once someone puts on a Garda uniform their actions cannot be questioned (witness those who mention phrases like 'anti-Garda' - that kind of nonsense is intended to shut off discussion), once anyone challenges society in any form they deserve any sanction against them (the attitude towards anti globalisation protesters is illustration), once anyone has any contra attitude to the smug, self satisfied, selfish status quo in this country they have to be stamped on. So even if the Gardai were operating such a policy or acting outside what we would think of as the normal, decent boundaries, I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't care, so long as anything that causes trouble or dissent was taken care of and they didn't have to face any challenge to the consensus at all.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

To be honest, when I was discussing drugs I didn't mean you specifically, I was referring to all of the people who had posted earlier. I don't know that I'm convinced that none of them have done any of those things, and I wonder how, in concience, someone could theoretically buy drugs from these criminals and at the same time condemn them for selling them (and refer to them as 'scum' with a straight face).

Regarding the issue of being fed up with criminality, lots of people are, but we have to retain some sense of proportion. We are supposed to be a civilised country (although some would make one doubt it).

I don't think that the Gardai are operating a shoot to kill policy, and I wouldn't care to allege any such thing, but there is a feeling that once someone puts on a Garda uniform their actions cannot be questioned (witness those who mention phrases like 'anti-Garda' - that kind of nonsense is intended to shut off discussion), once anyone challenges society in any form they deserve any sanction against them (the attitude towards anti globalisation protesters is illustration), once anyone has any contra attitude to the smug, self satisfied, selfish status quo in this country they have to be stamped on. So even if the Gardai were operating such a policy or acting outside what we would think of as the normal, decent boundaries, I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't care, so long as anything that causes trouble or dissent was taken care of and they didn't have to face any challenge to the consensus at all.

I think I'm getting a better idea of your position now. I was very disappointed with the Gardai during the reclaim the streets. We have a right to show dissent in a legal manner. I think we need to remember that that member of the ERU is paid to risk his life in defence of the law that protects us all. Clubbing defenceless anti-globalisation protestors is a wholly different thing than shooting an armed robber who points a gun at a law enforcement officer. A sense of proportion is needed.

JewellyBird

I quite agree that they are different, but the underlying attitude that the authority of the state and its representatives cannot be challenged is the same.

I am very concerned that some think that the idea that independent investigatations of Garda actions is somehow an irrational overreaction to the shooting of some that people like to think of as 'scum'.

Trotter

JewellyBird wrote:

To be honest, when I was discussing drugs I didn't mean you specifically, I was referring to all of the people who had posted earlier. I don't know that I'm convinced that none of them have done any of those things, and I wonder how, in concience, someone could theoretically buy drugs from these criminals and at the same time condemn them for selling them (and refer to them as 'scum' with a straight face).

I'll stick this on the record.. If by being in favour of the Gardai's actions , Im branded a member of the "hang'em flog'em" brigade, then so be it.. I am in favour of what they did, but Im not extremist in my opinion. JewellyBird has some excellent comments to make that I agree fully with. I think the Gardai did lose the plot during the reclaim the streets march.. but thats a different story to being threatened by someone with a loaded gun.

I dont smoke so Ive never bought hookie cigarettes, and Ive never gone near any kind of non prescription drugs in my life.

I still havent had anyone answer my question about what the Gardai should have done between the stage where the thug pointed a gun at the Garda, and the stage where the Garda pulled the trigger!

If the Gardai were so wrong in what they did... what should the Garda in question have done when he had a loaded gun put in his face?

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

I am very concerned that some think that the idea that independent investigatations of Garda actions is somehow an irrational overreaction to the shooting of some that people like to think of as 'scum'.

Do you think these armed robbers were scum?

JewellyBird

"If the Gardai were so wrong in what they did... what should the Garda in question have done when he had a loaded gun put in his face?"

I wouldn't say the Garda was necessarily wrong, but we do need independent verification of the appropriateness of these actions, and not just in this instance. I am just of the opinion that having a uniform doesn't make you infalliable. In fact, I would argue that representing the Irish people gives you a responsibility be accountable. Further, it may be the case that if such actions were inappropriate, it might not be the Garda in question at fault, it could be proceedure or training that should be modified. These issues should also be dealt with independently. If we sanction some individuals to have guns legally and discharge them legally, we need to be very sure that the highest standards of training are in place.

"I still havent had anyone answer my question about what the Gardai should have done between the stage where the thug pointed a gun at the Garda, and the stage where the Garda pulled the trigger!"

If someone pointed a gun at a Garda and threatened him/her, then it seems to come to a choice between the Garda and the person threatening them, and in that instance, the Garda was correct to shoot. However, I still think the situation needs to be independently assessed after the event. It may have been the right decision in the circumstances at the time, but that doesn't mean that useful lessons shouldn't be taken from it.

Regarding the question of whether these people are scum, I would say that they appear to have fallen into that tabloidesque category, but I don't think that automatically makes someone shooting you acceptable.

Threatening a Garda is one thing, robbing a post office is quite another.

murphaph

Ok, your above post was reasoned and I agree with most of it but I don't quite get you here......

JewellyBird wrote:

Regarding the question of whether these people are scum, I would say that they appear to have fallen into that tabloidesque category, but I don't think that automatically makes someone shooting you acceptable.

Threatening a Garda is one thing, robbing a post office is quite another.

I'm not sure whether you classify an armed robber as scum or not. I know I do.

If you mean that robbing a post office is a lesser offence than threatening a Garda with a gun then that may in some cases be true, but not in all. Commiting an armed robbery which involves threatening (terrorising) innocent members of the public (imagine your family members having loaded guns pointed at them by individuals purely motivated by greed for a moment) is despicable and shooting these bastards is just fine by me. I have a friend who had a knife put to his throat during a bank robbery about 10 years ago by some scumbag who didn't feel that working for his money was the way for him. He feels the same as me.

JewellyBird

I don't classify anyone as scum, I think that's an easy way of forgetting that they have rights, even if I don't like the way they act. And I firmly believe that even the most reprehensible do have rights.

And I do think that robbery - even armed robbery - is a lesser crime than threatening a Garda with a gun. I wouldn't endorse the death penalty in any circumstances but if a Garda is given no option but to choose between him/her self and a person threatening them with a weapon, I'd endorse the right of the Garda to self defense.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

I don't classify anyone as scum, I think that's an easy way of forgetting that they have rights, even if I don't like the way they act. And I firmly believe that even the most reprehensible do have rights.

And I do think that robbery - even armed robbery - is a lesser crime than threatening a Garda with a gun. I wouldn't endorse the death penalty in any circumstances but if a Garda is given no option but to choose between him/her self and a person threatening them with a weapon, I'd endorse the right of the Garda to self defense.

I don't believe in the death penalty either, purely because there is always a small chance of an error being made and there's no appeal when you're dead. Now, what if the armed robber is holding a weapon to a child's head, would you condone a Garda if he shot that robber?

bonkey

JewellyBird wrote:

And I do think that robbery - even armed robbery - is a lesser crime than threatening a Garda with a gun. I wouldn't endorse the death penalty in any circumstances but if a Garda is given no option but to choose between him/her self and a person threatening them with a weapon, I'd endorse the right of the Garda to self defense.

The way you say this, you make it seem like you wouldn't endorse the right of a non-Garda to self-defense.

If a gun is waved in the face of an unarmed Post-office-clerk, or an unarmed garda...whats the difference? Are both not entitled to self-defence as a right?

Put a different way...rewrite your last sentence with the word "civilian" in the place of "garda", and you get :

I wouldn't endorse the death penalty in any circumstances but if a civilian is given no option but to choose between him/her self and a person threatening them with a weapon, I'd endorse the right of the civilian to self defense.

Are you saying that you disagree with this statement - that while the garda can defend themselves, the citizen would be wrong to make the same decision?

If thats *not* what you're saying, then consider that this "right of defence" is the only distinction you're making as to why its different.

jc