Gardai shooting to kill?

pete

DublinWriter wrote:

The death sentance was removed from the books here in the mid-90's. The last people to be sentanced for death in this country where the bank-robbers who shot that Guard in St.Anne's Park in Raheny in 1979, the names escape me, but even by then, the death-sentance usually meant 'natural-life' in prision (they were released in the mid 90's).

Even when it was still on the books, the death sentence for capital murder was commuted to life / 40 years.

DublinWriter wrote:

To be honest, the robbers had to be caught in the act. End of story. There was no other way to prove intent.

I beg to differ. If that were the case, then why did the Gardaí plan to apprehend the raiders outside the post office, before they got a chance to enter the building?

Gardaí confirmed yesterday that they had hoped to tackle the raiders before they entered the shop. However, they were forced to change their plans after the gang drove to a delivery bay at the rear of the premises.

Supt Kevin Donohoe said: "Certainly the best option was to confront that gang in a location where there was no civilians, where there was minimum threat to anybody. But we don't control the script in these cases."

(from ireland.com)

DublinWriter wrote:

Secondly, to all the bleeding hearts who are arueging about two robbers getting shot while only one was armed, rumour has it that the Guards only fired one shot. One gang-member was fatally wounded by a bullet entering and exiting him and entering another robber standing closeby, who died hours later.

"Garda sources" don't seem to agree. ireland.com again:

Senior Garda sources claimed last night that one member of the ERU opened fire on the two men after one of them threatened him with a fully loaded semi-automatic handgun. The second raider was fatally wounded as he attempted to rush at or confront the armed ERU officer. Garda sources said they were satisfied the raiders had not discharged their weapon but a technical examination would be needed to confirm this. The shooting and the events leading up to it were captured on CCTV footage inside the shop in Lusk village where the post office is situated.

Gardaí claimed the man brandishing the firearm was warned repeatedly to drop it. They said he refused and threatened gardaí with the gun, at which point he was shot.

It is understood both men were wounded in the upper body with 9mm bullets from a Sig Sauer automatic handgun. One of the men died at the scene while the other was rushed to Beaumont hospital where he was pronounced dead.

I don't see any mention of a 'magic bullet' theory there.

DublinWriter wrote:

Don't try and twist this to be anything other than it is. It's a result, plain and simple.

A "result"? This isn't The Sweeney, you know...

DublinWriter wrote:

Considering, at the time, the number of armed detectives around and number of unharmed civilians, this is a complete vindication of the discipline and training methods of An Garda Siochana.

And maybe if the Garda had realised there was a back door into the premises there would have been a whole lot less unarmed civilians getting guns stuck in their faces.

DublinWriter wrote:

If this had have happened in the states, it would have been a complete bullet-fest with numerous civilian casualties.

Small mercies, eh?

Trotter

Thankfully there was 98% support for the Gardai in a poll taken on RTE Radio on friday morning. I think no matter what they would have done they'd have taken criticism from the same people.

Bambi.. you havent responded to my post showing you exactly where I got the facts on temporary release for Garda killers.

Given your accusation that I was being corrected left right and centre, (people disagreeing with me is to be expected, its a democracy, it dosnt mean they are correcting my facts) and that I was generally inaccurate, It'd be nice to see your response to be honest!

oscarBravo

pete wrote:

Gavin Farrelly, 28, with an address at 42 Lower Sheriff St, was charged last night at Blanchardstown Garda Station with possession of a firearm and with intent to commit a robbery.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0528/dublin.html

That looks to me like a typo on the RTE website. AFAIK the charge was "possession of a firearm with intent to commit a robbery". The intent was not a separate charge. I could be wrong.

pete

oscarBravo wrote:

That looks to me like a typo on the RTE website. AFAIK the charge was "possession of a firearm with intent to commit a robbery". The intent was not a separate charge. I could be wrong.

It's actually "...with intent to commit an indictable offence". The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 inserted the following offence in the Firearms Act, 1964:

27B. (1) A person who has with him a firearm or an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist or prevent the arrest of himself or another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

The penalty was subsequently increased to 14 years by the Criminal Justice Act, 1984.

In other words had they been arrested outside, before they entered the post office premises, and if they were charged, tried and convicted, they could have all been sent to the big house for up to 14 years.

shltter

pete wrote:

In other words had they been arrested outside, before they entered the post office premises, and if they were charged, tried and convicted, they could have all been sent to the big house for up to 14 years.

yes this nonesense that they could have claimed the sledge hammer was for work

please if the Gardai had arrested them outside with balaclavas on sledge hammers knives and one with a gun The I was on my way to work defence would not carry any weight with a judge or a jury.

pete

pete wrote:

In other words had they been arrested outside, before they entered the post office premises, and if they were charged, tried and convicted, they could have all been sent to the big house for up to 14 years.

I love the way people here second guess what information the Gardaí have and play ametuer detective without any knowledge of the case book or what inteligence the Gardaí had here.
The situation developed quickly by the way and I'd say it took quick thinking to adapt the situation into a salvageable arrest opperation.
It's unfortunate that those with malace aforethought got killed but they put themselves in that position, and not the Gardaí.They were in charge of what they did and not the Gardaí.
It was the Gardaí who were acting within the law here-remember that.

Sparks

Earthman, the "arrest them outside" plan was, according to senior gardai commenting to RTE Radio, the original plan.

And on the Amnesty call for an independent inquiry, it's of interest to note the legal definition of "natural justice" here, one of the bases of Irish (and most western) law - namely, that you cannot be a judge in a case where you're involved. (There's also a second precept, that basicly says that the proceedings must be fair). An internal investigation, with Gardai investigating Gardai, would seem to violate that precept; and that's a wholly independent thing from any individual or act.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

Earthman, the "arrest them outside" plan was, according to senior gardai commenting to RTE Radio, the original plan.

yeah,I know that sparks I'm just commenting on how the Gardaí may have quickly came to be in the situation that they were in.

I'm on record in this thread as supporting the ombudsman idea, we should have one and one as strong as the one in the North, otherwise the door is open to non stop criticism, the called for and perhaps the uncalled for to continue to flow in an un independent adjudicated manner.

pete

Earthman wrote:

I love the way people here second guess what information the Gardaí have and play ametuer detective without any knowledge of the case book or what inteligence the Gardaí had here.

"Amateur detective"?

Please don't try to patronise me. I'm basing my opinion on reported police statements, reported comments from "senior Garda sources", reported eyewitness acounts and a reading of the actual indictable offences contained in the Firearms, Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) & Criminal Justice acts.

As Sparks said, the Gardaí themselves said that they planned to arrest these guys outside the post office, before they entered the premises. They were unable to do so because the raiders drove around to a rear entrance which the Gardaí were either unaware of or didn't factor into their plans.

Earthman wrote:

It's unfortunate that those with malace aforethought got killed but they put themselves in that position, and not the Gardaí.They were in charge of what they did and not the Gardaí.

Very true. However, this in no way reduces the need for an accountable police force. I for one do not relish the thought of living in a society where deaths at the hands of the police are blindly accepted without question just because the deceased were undesirables.

Earthman wrote:

It was the Gardaí who were acting within the law here-remember that.

I believe that is best left to an inquiry to decide, not you or I.

Trotter

Earthman wrote:

I love the way people here second guess what information the Gardaí have and play ametuer detective without any knowledge of the case book or what inteligence the Gardaí had here.
The situation developed quickly by the way and I'd say it took quick thinking to adapt the situation into a salvageable arrest opperation.
It's unfortunate that those with malace aforethought got killed but they put themselves in that position, and not the Gardaí.They were in charge of what they did and not the Gardaí.
It was the Gardaí who were acting within the law here-remember that.

I absolutely cannot agree more. Nobody here can say that the Gardai did not factor the back door into the plan because we havent seen the plan. In fact there would have been 10 or 15 plans. It is not for us to say what went to plan and what didnt. There is a massive amount of improvisation involved in operations like this. The anti Garda sentiment in this thread makes me sick. Yes there are a few bad apples like there are in EVERY organisation, but I believe that the Gardai were right and justified to do what they did.

In a nice fluffy world the bad guys would have gone around the front like they were first planning to do, then would have seen a sole uniformed Garda (nobel prize winner who has adopted 15 homeless kids, otherwise he'd be tarred as an incompetent fool with no respect for human life like the ERU members are in this thread), an immense sense of remorse would have fallen upon them and they'd have laid their arms down when asked nicely.

Wake up call. This wasnt a scripted Home and Away episode. There were thousands of permutations that could have happened.. and we are not privy to the plans.

No innocent civilians dead, no Gardai dead, no money stolen, 3 in custody. Thats acceptable to me.

2 died, so in should kick the external enquiry by an ombudsman in order to vindicate their actions publicly and silence the anti garda rubbish that 2% of the population are spouting.

Seemingly from the Star Yesterday theres a 100k bounty on the heads of the ERU now.. None of the anti Garda gang here have complained about that yet from what I can see. Maybe theres a priority problem there.

Turner

pete wrote:

"Amateur detective"?

Please don't try to patronise me. I'm basing my opinion on reported police statements, reported comments from "senior Garda sources", reported eyewitness acounts and a reading of the actual indictable offences contained in the Firearms, Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) & Criminal Justice acts.

The Gardai have not released and will not release all the information relative to this incident, for operational reasons and because an inquiry is underway.

Dont think for one second that you know all the information regarding what happened on the morning.

pete

Trotter wrote:

Nobody here can say that the Gardai did not factor the back door into the plan because we havent seen the plan. In fact there would have been 10 or 15 plans. It is not for us to say what went to plan and what didnt.

Quite right, so let's get the Gardaí's statement, courtesy of the Irish Times:

Gardaí said yesterday they were conducting an ongoing operation in the area at the time of the attempted armed robbery. They had received information that a robbery on the post office might be imminent and members of the ERU, the Emergency Response Unit, and local gardaí from the Meath-Louth division were waiting on the gang when they arrived at about 8am.

The Garda helicopter was on standby in the event of a high-speed chase and a number of Garda cars were waiting on approach roads to and from Lusk.

Senior Garda sources told The Irish Times they expected the gang to run into the post office through the front door and it was planned to apprehend them at the entrance.

However, the same sources said the gang opted to drive around to the back of the shop in their stolen vehicle and enter through the rear of the building.

Trotter wrote:

There is a massive amount of improvisation involved in operations like this.

"Improvisation" which appears to have put civilian life at risk unnecessarily.

Trotter wrote:

The anti Garda sentiment in this thread makes me sick. Yes there are a few bad apples like there are in EVERY organisation, but I believe that the Gardai were right and justified to do what they did.

It's not anti-Garda, it's pro rule of law. The rule of law should apply equally to us all, and just because someone is a member of a police force does not mean they are above reproach or entitled to the benefit of the doubt when lives have been lost.

In a nice fluffy world the bad guys would have gone around the front like they were first planning to do

In a nice fluffy world, they would have been arrested before gaining access to the post office irrespective of which entrance they elected to use; civilians would not have been placed in the line of fire and there'd be two more armed robbers in custody - like the law says they should be.

Seemingly from the Star Yesterday theres a 100k bounty on the heads of the ERU now.. None of the anti Garda gang here have complained about that yet from what I can see. Maybe theres a priority problem there.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Trotter

Chief--- wrote:

The Gardai have not released and will not release all the information relative to this incident, for operational reasons and because an inquiry is underway.

Dont think for one second that you know all the information regarding what happened on the morning.

Id prefer not to know the specifics of the plans and procedures.. If I did, then you can be sure so would the scumbags, and they'd be better prepared next time. That would be a disaster.

pete

pete wrote:

"Amateur detective"?

Please don't try to patronise me. I'm basing my opinion on reported police statements, reported comments from "senior Garda sources", reported eyewitness acounts and a reading of the actual indictable offences contained in the Firearms, Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) & Criminal Justice acts.

I understand what you are saying there,however,I'm merely stating that they couldnt have hummed and hawed.
To use weather parlance the twister that they were chasing changed direction,they had to act quickly.
I've no idea of the specefics of what is in the Garda casefile and neither do you.

As Sparks said, the Gardaí themselves said that they planned to arrest these guys outside the post office, before they entered the premises. They were unable to do so because the raiders drove around to a rear entrance which the Gardaí were either unaware of or didn't factor into their plans.

I'm not disputing that.

Very true. However, this in no way reduces the need for an accountable police force.

I agree and have said so a couple of times in this thread.

I for one do not relish the thought of living in a society where deaths at the hands of the police are blindly accepted without question just because the deceased were undesirables.

Unfortunately though with human nature being such that it is, that type of view will prevail as much (if not more) in society as say for example there are criminals in society willing to take advantage of the view that you hold.

I believe that is best left to an inquiry to decide, not you or I.

Oh indeed it is.However, theres no doubt whatsoever that these guys brought this situation upon themselves , I mean pointing guns at the guards instead of having real jobs.In the instants of time available the Guards had no option but to shoot in my view.

pete

Chief--- wrote:

The Gardai have not released and will not release all the information relative to this incident, for operational reasons and because an inquiry is underway.

Dont think for one second that you know all the information regarding what happened on the morning.

You could at least have the decency to quote me in context.

Could you point out where I claimed to have "all the information"? You will note, however, that 90% of the information available has been released by Garda spokespersons or "sources".

pete

Earthman wrote:

I've no idea of the specefics of what is in the Garda casefile and neither do you.

Exactly. So what's wrong with asking questions then?

Earthman wrote:

Unfortunately though with human nature being such that it is, that type of view will prevail as much (if not more) in society as say for example there are criminals in society willing to take advantage of the view that you hold.

And what view would that be, then?

pete

Trotter wrote:

Id prefer not to know the specifics of the plans and procedures.. If I did, then you can be sure so would the scumbags, and they'd be better prepared next time. That would be a disaster.

Well apparently someone ratted on them, and the cops lay in wait to arrest them but (apparently) didn't cover all the entrances and so had to rush them.

Shhh nobody tell the crooks.

Trotter

pete wrote:

Well apparently someone ratted on them, and the cops lay in wait to arrest them but (apparently) didn't cover all the entrances and so had to rush them.

Shhh nobody tell the crooks.

I think you misunderstood me. I mean the in depth procedures carried out as part of everyday ERU training, and the plans that the ERU made on receipt of the intelligence info.

I dont mean that the crooks cant figure out what happened in general, but if you think there isnt a much more in depth level of information that we havent had access to, you're mistaken. It was the extra restricted, internal info that the crooks could base future raids on.

pete wrote:

Shhh nobody tell the crooks.

Correct.. it'd be a disaster if the crooks were aware of the detailed plans of ERU operations and training procedures. No offence but I hope you misunderstood my post otherwise that was a pretty ridiculous comment.

pete

pete wrote:

Exactly. So what's wrong with asking questions then?

Nothing, but at the same time,do have recognisance that there is a view within society that enough is enough, people who in large measure are just fed up of this.

And what view would that be, then?

The one expressed above.

pete

Trotter wrote:

I think you misunderstood me. I mean the in depth procedures carried out as part of everyday ERU training, and the plans that the ERU made on receipt of the intelligence info.

I dont mean that the crooks cant figure out what happened in general, but if you think there isnt a much more in depth level of information that we havent had access to, you're mistaken. It was the extra restricted, internal info that the crooks could base future raids on.

Oh please. This wasn't a military campaign they were undertaking - they wanted to do over a post office. The only "internal info that the crooks could base future raids on" is whether or not the cops are wide to them.

I mean, it's not like Griffin & co were sitting in their command HQ beforehand, poring over detailed plans of the post office, discussing their oh so sneaky and completely unpredictable "enter by the back door" tactics should they discover that the cops had the front of the premises staked out.

pete

Earthman wrote:

Nothing, but at the same time,do have recognisance that there is a view within society that enough is enough, people who in large measure are just fed up of this.

And screw due process in the meantime? Are you advocating the abandonment of the rule of law in favour of mob rule, just because people are "fed up with this"?

Earthman wrote:

The one expressed above.

Sorry, i don't understand so i'll elaborate:

Originally Posted by Earthman
Unfortunately though with human nature being such that it is, that type of view will prevail as much (if not more) in society as say for example there are criminals in society willing to take advantage of the view that you hold.

What view do I hold and how might it be taken advantage of?

Trotter

pete wrote:

Oh please. This wasn't a military campaign they were undertaking - they wanted to do over a post office. The only "internal info that the crooks could base future raids on" is whether or not the cops are wide to them.

Im not even going to bother arguing this one. These garda operations are massively detailed. If the crooks know what tactics the Gardai use, they'll use it to their advantage. Are you telling me every tactic and training routine the ERU use is freely available somewhere? Its not. Theres a reason for that. There are elements such as numbers of ERU involved.. positioning under various circumstances, etc.

pete wrote:

I mean, it's not like Griffin & co were sitting in their command HQ beforehand, poring over detailed plans of the post office, discussing their oh so sneaky and completely unpredictable "enter by the back door" tactics should they discover that the cops had the front of the premises staked out.

Garda intelligence has already said in the press that the gang meticulously planned the raid, and that the back door was a change to the original plan. This was not just some random robbery... anyone can see it wasnt just a "lets go rob a post office tomorrow!" plan!!

You're entitled to your opinion but I disagree with it strongly. I think you are simplifying the situation to the extent that You or I could have done a better job. There is a huge amount of information regarding ERU ops that the crooks would bend over backwards to receive. You cant possibly disagree with that?

I agree that it seems odd that the back door wasnt covered, but I would expect there were reasons for that, no plan goes perfectly where armed robberies are concerned.

Id love to know what the other posters think of your thoughts on it. If everyone thinks Im talking rubbish, hands up I apologise to you Pete.. but I genuinely disagree with your thoughts on it... in a friendly way of course!

pete

pete wrote:

And screw due process in the meantime? Are you advocating the abandonment of the rule of law in favour of mob rule, just because people are "fed up with this"?

nope, just explaining that people are fed up, these people could vote for parties advocating a tougher policy on crime and if theres enough votes thats it.
By the way what rule of law did the Gardaí abandon in this case?

What view do I hold and how might it be taken advantage of?

I wasnt referring to your view,I was referring to the view that people would have of the guys involved in this raid and others as undesirables or to use the phrase most used in this thread scum bags . I was asking that you be recognisant of that situation due to human nature having a low tolerance when its fed up with said scum bags behaviour.
I wasnt asking you to apply the same values to yourself.
It would have been clearer if I used one holds instead of you hold.

pete

Trotter wrote:

Im not even going to bother arguing this one.

Apparently you are.

These garda operations are massively detailed. If the crooks know what tactics the Gardai use, they'll use it to their advantage. Are you telling me every tactic and training routine the ERU use is freely available somewhere? Its not. Theres a reason for that. There are elements such as numbers of ERU involved.. positioning under various circumstances, etc.

What "I'm telling you" is that IMO the only "tactical" issue of importance to a crook planning a post office job is DO THE COPS KNOW ABOUT THIS OR NOT!

Are you seriously claiming that the raid would have gone ahead if the gang were aware that they had been rumbled with just a few changes to the plan to take into account the ERU's tactics? Somehow I doubt it.

I agree that it seems odd that the back door wasnt covered, but I would expect there were reasons for that, no plan goes perfectly where armed robberies are concerned.

You might expect; I hope. Mostly, I'd just like to know why.

pete

Earthman wrote:

By the way what rule of law did the Gardaí abandon in this case?

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.

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.

angeldelight

I was listening to the radio during the week and there was an ex army officer on explaining that if theres a threat they have to neutralise the threat and you "shoot for the middle of the visible mass" as if you aimed for an arm or a leg there would be a 1 in 10 chance of a highly qualified gunsman hitting their target... Yes there was only 1 gun but in the split second the gardai had to make their decision that mightn't have been clear and they had to protect themselves and the public. 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

Sparks

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?

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. 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 - so an inquiry, which won't pull punches because it's tied to the ERU and everyone wants to be pals, would be in the ERU's best interests even if it hurts a bit in the short term. Think of it as the army going running for twenty miles every morning - it hurts to do the run, but it'll hurt more if they're not up to a set standard when they need to be...

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. Which would make their jobs easier (reporting crimes to a force perceived as being honest tends to happen more often than if it's perceived to be corrupt, so they'd have more information to do their jobs with), and would make it a lot safer for them as well (a police force perceived as being honest and working for the people gets a lot more respect and assistance from those people).

So frankly, if you don't want such an inquiry, you're anti-Gardai.

So, why don't you love our cops?

Sparks

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.

He wasn't brandishing it, they yelled at him and when he turned around to see who was calling him, they shot him because the leg was under his arm so as he turned, it swept towards them.
And the reason they were pointing a gun at him in the first place? Someone rang up to say there was an Irishman walking down the road with an odd package under one arm...
Frankly, in such a situation, an inquiry is mandatory, and accusing the inquiry of secondguessing the SO19 officers with the benefit of hindsight and a stress-free evaluation isn't valid.

Trotter

pete wrote:

Apparently you are.

Yeah sorry, most arguments I have with my girlfriend start with me saying Im not going to argue lol :rolleyes:

pete wrote:

What "I'm telling you" is that IMO the only "tactical" issue of importance to a crook planning a post office job is DO THE COPS KNOW ABOUT THIS OR NOT!

Are you seriously claiming that the raid would have gone ahead if the gang were aware that they had been rumbled with just a few changes to the plan to take into account the ERU's tactics? Somehow I doubt it.

Hmm..Yes I see your point. However I think they would use relevant information to use if in future robberies, they were rumbled.. i.e. how to get out without being arrested. That would probably involve a dead Garda, but yes, I see where you are coming from.

pete wrote:

You might expect; I hope. Mostly, I'd just like to know why.

"I expect" because I read a lot about things like this that have happened around the world. The general thing is that all elite forces make themselves as aware of all eventualities as possible, but the smallest of things can turn a plan to mush and have the improvisation skills of the "good guys" tested to the full. If they factored the back door in, but something happened that stopped them getting to it first, I wont criticise one bit. If they didnt realise it was there, I agree its a massive shortcoming. That brings me back to expecting that something happened to change the scenario and the final events were a result of trained improvisation where the primary objective that civilians dont get killed and neither do police was achieved.

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?

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. 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 - so an inquiry, which won't pull punches because it's tied to the ERU and everyone wants to be pals, would be in the ERU's best interests even if it hurts a bit in the short term. Think of it as the army going running for twenty miles every morning - it hurts to do the run, but it'll hurt more if they're not up to a set standard when they need to be...

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. Which would make their jobs easier (reporting crimes to a force perceived as being honest tends to happen more often than if it's perceived to be corrupt, so they'd have more information to do their jobs with), and would make it a lot safer for them as well (a police force perceived as being honest and working for the people gets a lot more respect and assistance from those people).

So frankly, if you don't want such an inquiry, you're anti-Gardai.

So, why don't you love our cops?

I'd give sparks positive rep for that post if it still existed because its well written and I agree with it wholeheartedly.