Gardai shooting to kill?

JewellyBird

"you make it seem like you wouldn't endorse the right of a non-Garda to self-defense."

Well I thought we were talking specifically in terms of the right of a Garda to self defense, so I only wrote in that context.

"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?"

I think we have to be careful with this idea. First of all, most people in this country don't hold arms as a matter of course, and I think that's right. I certainly wouldn't encourage a mindset whereby American style gun ownership became the norm. I think self defense is only excusable where there is a real and substantial risk. So if someone threatens you directly with a gun then yes, you should be able to defend yourself with equal force. But if someone threatens you with a rolling pin, shooting them is disproportionate.

"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?"

I hope we won't have to discuss every theroetical example of a situation where it might be appropriate to shoot someone! I think shooting in this context really would depend on the weapon and how far intent can be ascertained. If it's the case that the individual has taken this child hostage with a weapon and clearly realises that they've gone too far and are looking for an 'out' (and I think we've all done that) then I wouldn't think shooting them would be appropriate. However, if the clear impression is that the person in question would not stop at killing a child and there is no other method available to disarm him/her, then I would find it difficult to imagine what alternative a Garda might have. However, I have to say that I'm not an expert in this issue. There may be persons who have more information about the method of handling such a scenario.

murphaph

But you claim everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attacker. Now a child is in NO position to defend themselves so surely that duty falls back on the Garda and if there is even a sligh chance of an innocent kid being harmed by an attacker then I'd be 100% ok with an armed Garda shooting him/her, note: shooting, not killing. If he/she dies, so be it.

the_syco

murphaph wrote:

note: shooting, not killing. If he/she dies, so be it.

If they know they'll die, whats to stop them taking a few down with them? The kid, the garda... your mother.

murphaph

the_syco wrote:

If they know they'll die, whats to stop them taking a few down with them? The kid, the garda... your mother.

You're assuming the Garda is visible and/or calls a warning to the attacker and you're also assuming that in the event the Grada does warn the attacker that he/she doesn't opt for option A, put down the weapon and give him/herself up. Personally if some scum was threatening my mother with a weapon I'd keep any Garda that shot the scum and took my mother out of danger in beer for a year.

JewellyBird

"But you claim everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attacker."

With respect, I don't think I said that. I was careful to mention that there are differing circumstances and atmospheres in situations and that these had bearing on the outcome.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

"But you claim everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attacker."

With respect, I don't think I said that. I was careful to mention that there are differing circumstances and atmospheres in situations and that these had bearing on the outcome.

Eh, you said this...

JewellyBird wrote:

So if someone threatens you directly with a gun then yes, you should be able to defend yourself with equal force.

.....and I said a kid can't defend themselves at all, nevermind with equal force. So I still ask, is it ok for an armed Garda to shoot someone who's endangering some kid?

JewellyBird

".....and I said a kid can't defend themselves at all, nevermind with equal force. So I still ask, is it ok for an armed Garda to shoot someone who's endangering some kid?W

I can't recall saying that it would be wrong for a Garda to shoot someone in that situation, and that context would have to be considered. You would correctly think me very foolish if I made a blanket statement that yes, in every circumstance, no matter what happened, the person should be killed.

We may have a differing idea about what "so if someone threatens you directly with a gun then yes, you should be able to defend yourself with equal force" means. You appear to think that it means that you should be able to defend yourself in a blanket way, whereas I only meant that if somebody points a gun at you and you reasonably expect that they will shoot you, then you are justified in shooting them first. This does not mean that "everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attacker" in all circumstances and with guns where the nature of the threat is not mortal.

The Muppet

I haven't read the whole thread but I just want to add my congratulations to the gardai on their operation in Lusk. Anyone contemplating carrying out an armed robbery is having second thoughts at the moment and will have to do so from now on. It's about time the gloves came off and if the price of reducing serious crime is a few dead criminals so be it.

bonkey

JewellyBird wrote:

"you make it seem like you wouldn't endorse the right of a non-Garda to self-defense."

Well I thought we were talking specifically in terms of the right of a Garda to self defense, so I only wrote in that context.

You wrote that armed robbery is a lesser crime then threatening a police officer with a gun. Armed robbery contains an implicit threat from the weapon to those robbed. Therefore, armed robbery of a post-office (this particular case) involves a threat to a post-office-clerk.

This is why I chose the example I did

"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?"

I think we have to be careful with this idea.

Whats to be careful of? Either you have the right to defend yourself or you don't. We're not talking about how or whether one can defend oneself, just that one has the right to do so.

First of all, most people in this country don't hold arms as a matter of course, and I think that's right. I certainly wouldn't encourage a mindset whereby American style gun ownership became the norm.

The average garda doesn't hold a gun as a matter of course either, but you distinguish the threat on them against the threat on other non-gun-toting people, so this is a side-issue.

Unless you're saying that there's a distinction between threatening an armed garda and an unarmed one as well?

I think self defense is only excusable where there is a real and substantial risk. So if someone threatens you directly with a gun then yes, you should be able to defend yourself with equal force. But if someone threatens you with a rolling pin, shooting them is disproportionate.

So, there is no difference between the post-office clerk threatened with a gun during an armed robbery, and the police-man threatened by the gun after the robber?

So explain to me why armed robbery is a lesser crime then threatening a garda again? Or why the right of the garda to self-defence has anything to do with it?

JewellyBird

"Anyone contemplating carrying out an armed robbery is having second thoughts at the moment and will have to do so from now on. It's about time the gloves came off and if the price of reducing serious crime is a few dead criminals so be it."

Or else those who might have gone unarmed are considering arming themselves. Violence rarely leads to a reduction in violence.

"Armed robbery contains an implicit threat from the weapon to those robbed."

A threat of that nature is different to an actual, direct threat though. I imagine most bringing guns to a robbery would have them but hope not to use them.

"Whats to be careful of? Either you have the right to defend yourself or you don't. We're not talking about how or whether one can defend oneself, just that one has the right to do so."

I don't agree with that. In order to defend yourself, the nature of the threat is a relevant consideration. You don't have the right to defend yourself against a cushion wielding lunatic with a machine gun. The nature of the threat is the essential issue. The intent of the attacker is vital.

"but you distinguish the threat on them against the threat on other non-gun-toting people, so this is a side-issue."

In the context of this debate, which is whether the Garda actions in respect of an armed robbery was justified, I do focus my remarks on the Gardai, which I consider appropriate.

"Unless you're saying that there's a distinction between threatening an armed garda and an unarmed one as well?"

No, I wouldn't maintain that. But I would say that it's not entirely relevant to a discussion about whether an armed Garda used an appropriate use of force against an armed gang.

"So, there is no difference between the post-office clerk threatened with a gun during an armed robbery, and the police-man threatened by the gun after the robber?"

Are you trying to get me to say that it's worse to shoot a Garda than anyone else? If you are, I wouldn't agree.

"So explain to me why armed robbery is a lesser crime then threatening a garda again? Or why the right of the garda to self-defence has anything to do with it?"

Oh dear, rather aggressive phrasing. Robbery - armed or otherwise - where the the intention is to steal goods does not result in fatalities as a direct result of the act of robbing. That is not as bad as threatening a Garda because an actual threat - rather than the implied threat of brandishing a weapon - is likely to end in at least on fatality.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

".....and I said a kid can't defend themselves at all, nevermind with equal force. So I still ask, is it ok for an armed Garda to shoot someone who's endangering some kid?W

I can't recall saying that it would be wrong for a Garda to shoot someone in that situation, and that context would have to be considered. You would correctly think me very foolish if I made a blanket statement that yes, in every circumstance, no matter what happened, the person should be killed.

We may have a differing idea about what "so if someone threatens you directly with a gun then yes, you should be able to defend yourself with equal force" means. You appear to think that it means that you should be able to defend yourself in a blanket way, whereas I only meant that if somebody points a gun at you and you reasonably expect that they will shoot you, then you are justified in shooting them first. This does not mean that "everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attacker" in all circumstances and with guns where the nature of the threat is not mortal.

I didn't say anything about killing the attacker. I said shooting him, he might die alright. As for defending yourself against an attacker, well I'm pretty strongly opinioned on this. If some individual accosts me for no reason as I'm walking down the street then I should have the right to put him down so he won't get back up to have another go at me. Whatever it takes to do that is justifiable in my book. He's the one who gave up his rights when he attacked me.

JewellyBird

"If some individual accosts me for no reason as I'm walking down the street then I should have the right to put him down so he won't get back up to have another go at me. Whatever it takes to do that is justifiable in my book. He's the one who gave up his rights when he attacked me."

You mean you reserve the right to injure anyone in any way, regardless of circumstances if you think you are being attacked?

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

Or else those who might have gone unarmed are considering arming themselves. Violence rarely leads to a reduction in violence.

But armed robbers have to have a weapon by definition. In all honesty, how many banks/post offices get 'done over' without a weapon? Not many.

JewellyBird wrote:

A threat of that nature is different to an actual, direct threat though. I imagine most bringing guns to a robbery would have them but hope not to use them.

How are the armed Gardai supposed to know which armed robbers feel which way on this? In any case, when the sh!t hits the fan, even armed robbers who did not originally intend to use their weapons may react differently when cornered.

murphaph

JewellyBird wrote:

You mean you reserve the right to injure anyone in any way, regardless of circumstances if you think you are being attacked?

No, I reserve the right to injure someone to a level where they are incapable of attacking me further. I respect your opinions, but they are quite 'fluffy' for want of a better word. I wonder have you ever been subjected to an assault. My girlfriend and I were attacked one night about 5 years ago. I hadn't punched anyone in anger since I was an angry teenager but what option did I have? There were 2 guys and a girl. The girl was the most vicious of the three, attempting to gouge my girlfriend's eyes out. I punched her in the face and she stopped gouging my girlfriend's eyes out. I took quite a few belts to the face but got the better of one of the blokes at which point all three fled. What did we d to attract this upon ourselves? To this day we still have no idea. The Gardai were informed. Nobody was ever charged.

ishmael whale

JewellyBird wrote:

I imagine most bringing guns to a robbery would have them but hope not to use them.

This is straight out of Alias Smith and Jones

“Hannibal Hayes and Kid Curry, the two most respected outlaws in the history of the West. In all the trains and banks they robbed, they never shot anybody. This made our two latter day Robin Hoods very popular. With everyone except the railroads and the banks that is...”

Can I suggest to you that, outside of old TV series set in the Wild West, most of us are happy enough with a Garda making an assumption that an armed raider is a threat to the public. We equally don’t particularly see a problem if the Garda further assumes that an accomplice of the raider is also a threat. Proceeding on any other basis is simply bizarre.

Trotter

JewellyBird wrote:

You mean you reserve the right to injure anyone in any way, regardless of circumstances if you think you are being attacked?

So if someone puts a syringe full of blood to your neck some night and says "empty your wallet".. you immediately have a think about how you might get out of the situation while protecting the attackers rights, and not hurting them too much.

Id be thinking.. I wish I had a stick you F'r.. and reluctantly Id hand over my wallet.. but if he dropped the syringe, Id kick him up and down the road.
Just being honest!

bonkey

JewellyBird wrote:

"If some individual accosts me for no reason as I'm walking down the street then I should have the right to put him down so he won't get back up to have another go at me. Whatever it takes to do that is justifiable in my book. He's the one who gave up his rights when he attacked me."

You mean you reserve the right to injure anyone in any way, regardless of circumstances if you think you are being attacked?

Thats not what he said. He said he has the right to ensure that they cannot continue to pose a threat to him. Arguably, breaking a muggers leg is self-defence. Breaking his other leg while he is on the ground is not.

With someone wielding a handgun, they need the ability to pull a trigger. Nothing more. Being wounded, knocked down, out of breath, or anything smiilar does not impair their potential lethality.

So, you can either take the gun off them, or ensure that they cannot pull the trigger.

How do you ensure they can't pull the trigger? There's very, very few ways that work with any certainty that don't involve a serious risk of death.

jc

murphaph

Hey Bonkey, I see your location is one of the world's most gun crazed countries How do you sleep at night!

Esel

murphaph wrote:

Hey Bonkey, I see your location is one of the world's most gun crazed countries http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/custom/cloud/smilies/biggrin.gif How do you sleep at night!

. . . with that big lump under your pillow?

Rew

JewellyBird wrote:

I imagine most bringing guns to a robbery would have them but hope not to use them.

Why bring them so? Armed robbers kill and seriouly injure people all the time but you think that its ok coz they didnt mean too...?

JewellyBird

"How are the armed Gardai supposed to know which armed robbers feel which way on this? In any case, when the sh!t hits the fan, even armed robbers who did not originally intend to use their weapons may react differently when cornered."

I agree, so I would say that we need to take the fact that people will come armed to a robbery as a threat, but if we allow a vigilante spirit to develop, the risk that they will come armed and prepared to use arms increases. On balance, if a gun is pointed at a Garda with the clear threat of use, then I would say the Garda must be allowed to act for their own safety and the safety of bystanders. However, I would not say that holding a gun by your own side with no clear threat is the same thing.

"I respect your opinions, but they are quite 'fluffy' for want of a better word. I wonder have you ever been subjected to an assault."

Thank you. I have never been assaulted, no. But I'm a woman of five feet and under 8 stone, I know there's no way I could ever hope to defend myself in any circumstance where I might be attacked. Someone might just as well shoot me as anything else, I don't think that if I were to be assaulted violently I would survive it. At the same time, I don't want this society to become more violent. Look at the kids who do these things - they are looking for retribution against someone who looked at them funny or someone they feel showed them a lack of what they consider respect. Frankly, I'm refusing to take part in that growing sense that violent retribution to personal insults is appropriate. I think that's the best way to defend myself.

Not that I go around looking at people funny, you understand.

"So if someone puts a syringe full of blood to your neck some night and says "empty your wallet".. you immediately have a think about how you might get out of the situation while protecting the attackers rights, and not hurting them too much."

As I explained above, there's no thinking for me in this. I know very well that I just give over my purse. I doubt anyone really wants to syringe me very much anyway.

"How do you ensure they can't pull the trigger? There's very, very few ways that work with any certainty that don't involve a serious risk of death."

You can't, as far as I know. But you can try very hard not to back someone who really didn't have any intention of pulling a trigger into a corner where they feel they don't have any other choice.

"Why bring them so? Armed robbers kill and seriouly injure people all the time but you think that its ok coz they didnt mean too...?"

Threat, I imagine. I can't recall armed robbers killing or seriously injuring people all that often in Ireland. I do think that it's relatively rare. Regarding my thinking that it's alright because it wasn't intentional, I'm afraid you've misread me. I do not think it is alright to hurt or kill anyone, with or without intent. I simply think that it is advisable not to exacerbate a situation where an individual has a gun that they haven't intended using to cause injury or death. I think you'll agree that that's quite different.

The Muppet

JewellyBird wrote:

"But you can try very hard not to back someone who really didn't have any intention of pulling a trigger into a corner where they feel they don't have any other choice.

IMO that's the attitude that is the root of the problems in our society. I say back them into a corner and let them make the choice between jail and the funeral home. If the armed crims knew there was a good chance they would not be coming home from thier next job they may be more reluctanat to undertake it.

JewellyBird

"IMO that's the attitude that is the root of the problems in our society. I say back them into a corner and let them make the choice between jail and the funeral home. If the armed crims knew there was a good chance they would not be coming home from thier next job they may be more reluctanat to undertake it."

Do we have examples of where this has proven to be the case?

The Muppet

JewellyBird wrote:

"

Do we have examples of where this has proven to be the case?

We could have asked the same about the CAB in the wake of the Veronica Geurin murder.

It's common sense TBH If the criminals know that there is a possibility they could end up in a body bag it's bound to be a consideration. It's early days yet but I haven't heard of any armed robbereis since Lusk , before they were a near daily occurance so possibly it has made the difference. Whether it works or not something had to be done so I would welcome a get tough policy.

I was delighted to see the silent majority voice their opinion in support of the Gardai on this one. Too ofen in this country the whinging weak knee liberal voice is heard the loudest.

JewellyBird

Oh, common sense. Who could argue with that?

"I was delighted to see the silent majority voice their opinion in support of the Gardai on this one. Too ofen in this country the whinging weak knee liberal voice is heard the loudest."

Well that's right. We weak kneeded liberals have brought the tough but silent majority down with us, alright. What we do need is an armed and unaccountable police force and the return of the death penalty, the end of so-called due process and 'civil rights'. Then we'd sort the scumbags out, right?

mycroft

JewellyBird wrote:

I agree, so I would say that we need to take the fact that people will come armed to a robbery as a threat, but if we allow a vigilante spirit to develop, the risk that they will come armed and prepared to use arms increases. On balance, if a gun is pointed at a Garda with the clear threat of use, then I would say the Garda must be allowed to act for their own safety and the safety of bystanders. However, I would not say that holding a gun by your own side with no clear threat is the same thing.

I think the act of holding a firearm is clear view is that the person is aware of the impact the sight of the weapon will cause, and there is an implied threat.

Theres an instance of armed police recently shooting a guy in the UK who was holding a car leg the police thought it was gun, unjustified killing.

Carrying a firearm, and when confronted, not dropping the firearm, is a justifiable reason for police to use force. The potential situation is just too serious.

Thank you. I have never been assaulted, no. But I'm a woman of five feet and under 8 stone, I know there's no way I could ever hope to defend myself in any circumstance where I might be attacked. Someone might just as well shoot me as anything else, I don't think that if I were to be assaulted violently I would survive it. At the same time, I don't want this society to become more violent. Look at the kids who do these things - they are looking for retribution against someone who looked at them funny or someone they feel showed them a lack of what they consider respect. Frankly, I'm refusing to take part in that growing sense that violent retribution to personal insults is appropriate. I think that's the best way to defend myself.

No one on this thread is justifying a violent response to insults.

And there is a way you can defend yourself, my girlfriend is of a similar build as yourself, and has studied martial arts for a few months, in a recent pub brawl (caused by an agressive outsider) she floored him, before any man could react, she floored a 6ft man, with a slap

As I explained above, there's no thinking for me in this. I know very well that I just give over my purse. I doubt anyone really wants to syringe me very much anyway.

And what about violent rape and abuduction?

You can't, as far as I know. But you can try very hard not to back someone who really didn't have any intention of pulling a trigger into a corner where they feel they don't have any other choice.

And again, if you're holding a loaded firearm, that you brought with you to a robbery, you lose the presumption of non violent intent. Out of curiousity how do you "not back them into a corner"

Threat, I imagine. I can't recall armed robbers killing or seriously injuring people all that often in Ireland. I do think that it's relatively rare.

Garda Gerry Mc Cabe, and the owner of the Goat Grill, and a few others would beg to differ.

Regarding my thinking that it's alright because it wasn't intentional, I'm afraid you've misread me. I do not think it is alright to hurt or kill anyone, with or without intent. I simply think that it is advisable not to exacerbate a situation where an individual has a gun that they haven't intended using to cause injury or death. I think you'll agree that that's quite different.

And again you have to prove that they hadn't intended to use it, and carrying a loaded firearm to threatened means you lose the presumption of innocence that you didn't intend to use it. The threat comes from you giving off the aura that you will use the firearm on staff and security. Pulling off the mask and dropping the gun and going "only kidding" wouldn't be a justifed defence in court.

So how would you resolve it so it doesn't "get out of hand"

JewellyBird

"And what about violent rape and abuduction?"

I've not been a victim of those, either. And I hope that, since I try to take reasonable precautions, I won't be. That's all I can do.

"And again, if you're holding a loaded firearm, that you brought with you to a robbery, you lose the presumption of non violent intent. Out of curiousity how do you "not back them into a corner""

I think the first thing to do is give someone an opportunity to drop the weapon.

"Garda Gerry Mc Cabe, and the owner of the Goat Grill, and a few others would beg to differ."

A very few, since the names spring to mind. And the owner of the Goat Grill was not murdered. Murder-robbery is very rare.

"So how would you resolve it so it doesn't "get out of hand""

In the first instance, by giving people the option to retreat and disarm with some semblance of dignity.

JewellyBird

JewellyBird wrote:

"And what about violent rape and abuduction?"

I've not been a victim of those, either. And I hope that, since I try to take reasonable precautions, I won't be. That's all I can do.

So if you were attacked you wouldnt fight back then? You'd take their name and address or ask for the attackers mobile so you could call the guards ?
I'm struggling here to understand how your stance could reasonably be suggested for adoption among the masses.

"And again, if you're holding a loaded firearm, that you brought with you to a robbery, you lose the presumption of non violent intent. Out of curiousity how do you "not back them into a corner""

I think the first thing to do is give someone an opportunity to drop the weapon.

Ah the Alias Smith and Jones approach again... how long would you give them by the way, the guys in question here got 12 seconds-15? 20? 1 minute?

In the first instance, by giving people the option to retreat and disarm with some semblance of dignity.

With respect, that would be a very naive approach for a law enforcer to take with a person who is pointing a loaded gun at you.
By the way,I'd better declare an interest here,I have a neighbour who was crippled for life by a gunshot wound from an armed robber.
Said neighbour was only doing his job behind the counter and was obviously unarmed.
Softly softly only encourages more of that in my humble opinion.
By all means give the gun wielding robber a warning and unless he's deaf theres no reason why he should continue to point the gun.
Nor is there any reason either that the guard should wait to be shot himself in such circumstances.

JewellyBird

"So if you were attacked you wouldnt fight back then?"

I think I've explained that I couldn't fight back, even if I wanted to. However, if it came to mugging, for example, I'd rather let them have my purse (for the all that they'd get out of it) than actually injure someone. Goods are replaceable. Physical assault is more complicated, but there's not much more to say than that I can't counter it physically and in cases where the assault is not the intention, I can't see why I'd really want to try.

"Nor is there any reason either that the guard should wait to be shot himself in such circumstances."

I'm not sure that I said there was.

mycroft

JewellyBird wrote:

I've not been a victim of those, either. And I hope that, since I try to take reasonable precautions, I won't be. That's all I can do.

And again a self defence class would be slighty more pro active.

I think the first thing to do is give someone an opportunity to drop the weapon.

And if they don't how long do you wait?

A very few, since the names spring to mind. And the owner of the Goat Grill was not murdered. Murder-robbery is very rare.

No it's not and don't you think it's pretty unfair to innocents and the garda to put their life at greater risk because statistical only one in fifty armed robberies end in violence? Is that fair to the innocent victims of those instance. And the owner of the goat grill was shot. You said injuried or killed, would you like me to go through armed robbery statistics with you?

In the first instance, by giving people the option to retreat and disarm with some semblance of dignity.

I'm sorry "dignity", dignity??????

"Sgt why did you not take the guy out before he took the hostage?"

"Well Sir the new manual clearly states if you too quickly disarm gunmen it can send them into a shame spiral."

"Nor is there any reason either that the guard should wait to be shot himself in such circumstances."

I'm not sure that I said there was.

By expecting Garda to lose the element of surprise because on the off chance this is one of the nice gunmen wants to surrender but is afraid his ickle pride will be wounded, so they play soothing whale music and light incence in order to send him into a calm happy place.

Lets make this real simple, you bring a loaded gun into a robbery, I work under the assumption you're going to use it, because thats the assumption the robber wants you to have, the police arrive, shout a warning, if it is ignored the police should be allowed fire.

Sod the dignity of the robber, sod the assumption that they're not going to use it. It's a high tension situation and the police need to be trained to defuse the situation so there is less chance innocent life is not lost, and if that means a guy who brought a firearm to a robbery gets shot, so be it.

Woman, you're making me sound like an NRA gun nut, I'm a left wing liberal, but seriously catch yourself on.

"dignity"

Sweet mother of jesus............