“if that means dropping a couple of the attackers..”
The joint statement by the First and deputy First Ministers might be more convincing if the Northern Ireland Executive’s Shared Future strategy hadn’t disappeared down the back of the semi-detached polit-bureau’s sofa. Meanwhile in a statement issued through their solicitors, the McDaid family have criticised police “negotiations with a number of persons perceived to be from the Loyalist community” ahead of the murder of Kevin McDaid. As has already been stated, those negotiations involved representatives on both sides of the community, including Mr McDaid. It’s been a long established pattern of The Process™ to involve “those with influence” in such negotiations – especially those ubiquitous “community” workers.. But perhaps Kevin Myers is right..
If you want a symbol of what happens when you emasculate a police force, it goes by the name of Kevin McDaid, RIP. Two armed policemen on duty who see a gang of loyalist thugs armed with cudgels attacking a blameless mixed-community should have only one set of programmed responses. That is, to protect the innocent; if that means dropping a couple of the attackers — and by that, gentle reader, yes, I do mean shooting them dead — then so be it. If the dead had wanted to remain alive, they should have stayed at home.
[i]Is it your position that, when presented with, say, a youth armed with what appears to be a pistol, the officers are obligated to sit there … until actually struck by a round to ascertain its *not* a bb gun? [/i]
Absolutely not, you completely miss my point. It doesn’t make a difference whether the youth was firing at them with a BB gun or an AK-47 – if they identified him as presenting a threat, which he clearly was in this case, then nobody could blame the cops for shooting back. If the lad wishes to put himself in that position then he must be prepared to face the consequences.
I’m highlighting a double-standard – if the cops are under threat then the may, rightfully in my opinion, use lethal force according to their comments made after the Strabane incident. On the other hand, if a group of Catholics are under threat from a drunken, sectarian mob, armed only with their fists and some improvised primative weapons, and which has identified itself as “the UDA” then, it would seem given the facts of last weekend’s murder, lethal, or even non-lethal, force just isn’t an option.
SS RUC/NI: “Absolutely not, you completely miss my point. It doesn’t make a difference whether the youth was firing at them with a BB gun or an AK-47 – if they identified him as presenting a threat, which he clearly was in this case, then nobody could blame the cops for shooting back.”
And if the lad had come down with a bad case of the dead for winning a Darwin for pointing what looked like automatic pistol but turned out to be a CO2 pistol at the cops, I’m sure you’d be the first one in line being okay with it, eh?
SS RUC/NI: “I’m highlighting a double-standard – if the cops are under threat then the may, rightfully in my opinion, use lethal force according to their comments made after the Strabane incident. On the other hand, if a group of Catholics are under threat from a drunken, sectarian mob, armed only with their fists and some improvised primative weapons, and which has identified itself as “the UDA” then, it would seem given the facts of last weekend’s murder, lethal, or even non-lethal, force just isn’t an option. ”
Sure, if you ignore the fact that, in the former case, they are responding in kind (gun to gun) with a readily perceived threat and, in the latter, are wading into a political minefield that, given past precedent, leaves the police holding the bag either way. This is not a case of the police being the SS, this is a case of the police having to operate with one hand behind their backs and the other one cupping the jocks, metaphorically speaking. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
As much as I disagree with how the police reacted, I can’t get past the fact that *regardless* of what they did, they were going to take it in the shorts, politically.
[i]I’m sure you’d be the first one in line being okay with it, eh?[/i]
No, I wouldn’t and I’d appreciate it if you ceased making assumptions as to what my position or opinion would be with regard to a particular imagined situation. I repeat: “if the lad wishes to put himself in that position then he must be prepared to face the consequences”. Of course, hypothetically speaking, he’d become a martyr within the community. But, I’d certainly have no sympathy for him dying if that was the case given his provocative behaviour.
[i]Sure, if you ignore the fact that, in the former case, they are responding in kind (gun to gun) with a readily perceived threat and, in the latter, are wading into a political minefield that, given past precedent, leaves the police holding the bag either way.[/i]
That’s your opinion. However I, and many others, firmly disagree with that position i.e. “let’s not rock the boat with those loyalist baddies, let’s step back and let the man, his wife and the pregnant woman take the hits first while we retreat and can then provide first-aid once the blows have been inflicted and our guns have stayed silent.”
The policemen/women in attendance should and could, at the very least, have fired shots in the air. If those police officers didn’t want to be placed in life or death situations, where they’d have to be prepared to show some courage from time to time, then they shouldn’t have joined the PSNI in the first place. That same logic can be applied to the fool who shot at the police in Strabane: if you aren’t prepared to face the consequences of your actions then don’t take to the streets.
By the way: how would killing a Catholic youth in a republican estate and in a town with massive dissident and mainstream republican support not be “wading into a political minefield that, given past precedent leaves the police holding the bag either way.”
Is it coz he’s cathlik?
I would like to know why the police ran off and did not even draw their weapons. I thought police were supposed to be trained to deal with this type of situation without necessarily being able to rely on strength in numbers. Surely a shot fired in the air and the warning to the crowd that they would be shot if they continued would have had some effect ?
I’ve had some recent experience of rioting (not as a protagonist!) and the police response. The idea is similar; the police “contain” the trouble but they do not actively step in to try to stop it.
I think it is also the case that the police have ceded authority to the paramilitaries; not necessarily because they want to (although it certainly makes life easier for them not to have to do any actual public order police work) but because this is the political imperative. People need to think long and hard about the outcomes.
To pick up on some points from earlier today, I wasn’t trying to use euphimisms to sugar coat a situation. I was trying to say only that any police officer’s first priority is themselves and other officers. People come second. Therefore officers will not put themselves at risk to stop an attack such as this one, even if that attack is with lethal force.
For officers to use live rounds, they themselves need to be at risk. That is, the lethal force must be used against them and not against others.
The example used in Strabane may have caused the individual to be shot because he shot at a landrover.
In my view, SSRUC/PSNI is totally right – lethal force can only be used when a police officer’s own life is believed to be in danger – and it is my view that this is the correct course of action.
That’s unfair. The Officers have to protect their own lives first.
Hope that’s sarcasm there, Joe.
I was trying to say only that any police officer’s first priority is themselves and other officers.
Yes, far better that wives and pregnant neighbours try to save a member of the public’s life.
SS RUC-NI: “But, I’d certainly have no sympathy for him dying if that was the case given his provocative behaviour.”
po-TAY-to, po_TAH-to. Give the kid a darwin and move on.
SS RUC-NI: “That’s your opinion. However I, and many others, firmly disagree with that position i.e. “let’s not rock the boat with those loyalist baddies, let’s step back and let the man, his wife and the pregnant woman take the hits first while we retreat and can then provide first-aid once the blows have been inflicted and our guns have stayed silent.””
For someone who doesn’t like people making assumptions about what they think, you’re quick to do so. There’s a word for folks like that…
For the record, it is not an opinion, it is an informed extrapolation, based on past events. The pols have bent over, unionist and nationalist alike, to put a patina of respectability on the UDA and have worked hard, to keep the boat steady. The cops have learned that just because the thugs are breaking the law doesn’t mean the political considerations won’t trump the law. The cops, due to this political bupkis, have a hand so bad you couldn’t make a foot out of it.
They could escalate and display force — display and discharge firearms, they could attempt to distract or dissuade the thugs, they could maintain their station there or they could withdraw. Attack, Bluff, Hold or Withdraw.
I’m not a fan of un-aimed aerial discharge — Blood, Sweat and Tears said it best — what goes up must come down, somewhere. Likewise, the UDA has been known to re-escalate, so a bluff, as you suggest, might not be the most efficacious response. Popping caps into a general melee also has it down-side — you might hit the victims, which creates its own political hell.
SS RUC-NI: “how would killing a Catholic youth in a republican estate and in a town with massive dissident and mainstream republican support not be “wading into a political minefield that, given past precedent leaves the police holding the bag either way.””
The difference, sad to say, is the dissidents aren’t being courted. They had their chance and muffed it, opting to go “into the cold” as it were. The calculation is different — you’re back to the old “us vs. them” mentality, rather than the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” good monkey shtick that both sides are playing with the UDA.
[i]SSRUC/PSNI is totally right – lethal force can only be used when a police officer’s own life is believed to be in danger..[/i]
That’s not what I said at all. I believe that when a violent mob invades a ‘rival’ estate and, in front of police officers, subsequently brutally attacks a man and two women those officers can legitimately use lethal force as a last resort in order to protect those being attacked.
Shots in the air, a few leg wounds etc. would almost certainly have been sufficient in this case. The point I have repeatedly tried to highlight is the double standards now being applied by our brand, spanking new diverse and inclusive police force.
[i]po-TAY-to, po_TAH-to. Give the kid a darwin and move on [/i]
Honestly, I don’t understand what that means.
[i]For someone who doesn’t like people making assumptions about what they think, you’re quick to do so.[/i]
I was spot on in interpreting your words in the manner that I did. Your subsequent comments proved this to be the case. It was a correct interpretation, not an attributation – correct or otherwise.
[i]The difference, sad to say, is the dissidents aren’t being courted.[/i]
Fair, correct point. However, there isn’t a shadow of a doubt that the Sinn Féin would have kicked up an almighty fuss if the cops had killed the youth – their support base would have demanded that be the case. Therefore, we would also undoubtedly have waded “into a political minefield that, given past precedent leaves the police holding the bag either way” had the youth been killed, or even if the cops returned fire and ended up shooting an innocent person or their property.
SSRUC/PSNI, this were words you used. Although I understood you were using them sarcastically or whatever, the statement (as far as I am aware) is factually correct.
It is my understanding that, currently, an officer CANNOT use lethal force to protect other people being attacked. Ordinary officers can only use guns to protect their own officers. If you want people shot at then a SWOT type squad must be used, as was the case with the two men in the house in Belfast recently.
It is my view that this is the correct course of action. If police had of shot someone in this particular case, or even shot into the air, the outrage would have been greater. It is also likely to have resulted in people responding to the guns with guns and that is a situation I hope never again arises.
[i]this were words you used.[/i]
Posted by Bill on May 29, 2009 @ 07:49 PM
Back that up with proof. I have not adopted a sarcastic tone any at point.
“No, I don’t. I just hope that the bigoted, tiny minority of “the Borough’s 44,000 Protestants” (if those statistics are accurate) don’t feel the need to finish off the day with some Catholic bashing, as per what happened last weekend.”
“Enough of the hyperbole, please.”
Certainly. Now that your moment of drama has passed.
“I would like to know why the police ran off”
Did they though?
Who stopped the attack on Mr Flemming?
Who administered first aid to Mr McDaid?
I rather suspect that when the facts are made public those who seek to use this vile crime to further an anti-police agenda will look deservedly foolish.
Raven: the mistake which I can only assume that you have made is to interpret my comments as suggesting that evey Catholic in Coleraine is in danger of being wiped out tonight. My comments merely indicate that I hope that we don’t have another loyalist mob on another rampage through Catholic areas of Coleraine tonight after the march, .
Now, relax. For [i]your[/i] moment of moral indignation and hyperbole must now have passed given that I reassured you that I don’t think we’re on the brink of a genocide.
Your comment was typical of much of what has been written here over the past few days, mainly (and I don’t deign to include you in this should you wish) by people who don’t have a clue about the area.
Review some of them. The language of collectivity was vile. And much of it without clarification, all broad brush strokes. Hopefully it will serve to let people reflect before they write.
SS RUC-NI: “I was spot on in interpreting your words in the manner that I did. Your subsequent comments proved this to be the case. It was a correct interpretation, not an attributation – correct or otherwise.”
No, it isn’t — there is a difference between acknowledging reality and agreeing with it. The problem is is that you refuse to acknowledge the present reality, which interferes with changing it. Gotta know where you are now to figure how to get to where you want to end up.
That said, both sides are bending over — forwards or backwards being a matter of opinion — for the UDA. I personally think it is a rum deal for both the cops and the populace and have argued that the best thing to solve it would be for the pols grow spines and give the police their testicles back and let them do their jobs. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen any time soon, based on that which has gone before and that which is happening now.
SS RUC-NI: “However, there isn’t a shadow of a doubt that the Sinn Féin would have kicked up an almighty fuss if the cops had killed the youth – their support base would have demanded that be the case. Therefore, we would also undoubtedly have waded “into a political minefield that, given past precedent leaves the police holding the bag either way” had the youth been killed, or even if the cops returned fire and ended up shooting an innocent person or their property. ”
Not really — sure, the usual talking heads will go on, a few rallies will be held, but in a few weeks, a new flavor of the month will come out, assuming the kid doesn’t turn out to be a dissident himself. Republican or Loyalist intramural violence doesn’t rock the boat nearly as much as inter-sectarian urban jungle-ball. Sad to say, half the population tunes it out from the get-go. And, sure, a few Republican pols will make some noise, but that pales in comparison to have the who alphabet-soup constellation of parties jumping down your back.
The difference between a ball-peen and a sledgehammer
SSRUC/PSNI –
[i]It would seem that when a policeman’s life is considered to be in danger that lethal force can be used [/i]
These were your words. I am sorry if I misquoted them or misinterpreted the underlying meaning. And you are correct, they are not sarcastic.
No matter, I was simply saying that this statement is factually correct. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Whether you the fact of the statement are the correct course of action is an entirely different matter.
Last post should read,
“Whether you think that the facts of the statement are the correct course of action is an entirely different matter.”
What a lot of the comments on this thread prove is that there is an army of armchair generals out there, sat in front of their keyboard with their slippers on and a cup of whatever they drink at their elbow. The only decision they have had to make in the previous ten minutes was the amount of sugar to put in their drink and whether or not they are going to dunk their digestive biscuits or nibble them dry. Tough decisions!!
Switch to that Coleraine housing estate last Sunday and put yourself in the position of two policemen who witness a person getting attacked. The adrenalin starts to pump they have to make decisions. Yes they have a gun that can kill. They shoot three or four of the attackers dead and the person getting attacked gets up and walks home. I could guarantee that the policeman who fired the shots would find himself in a holding cell in Antrim Police Station with the shadow of a murder charge hanging over him. He would be immediately suspended from his job and his family would be devastated. A chorus would go out why he did he open fire? Could he not have used his baton? What about a shot in the air, never guaranteed to scatter blood lusting people like in the movies. It is so easy after the event to have all the answers. I bet that the two police officers are broken with the responsibility that they could have done things differently and saved a life. We have all watched too many Superman movies to really realise how normal human beings react in any life or death situation. Trained police officers don’t have all the answers despite what people might think. A man is dead and another seriously ill. They both, along with their families, have my prayers. I was not present at the scene of this atrocity so i am not qualified to pass judgement on anyone’s shortcomings. The police have charged a number of men and I hope they charge many more and get convictions. Remember it was not the police who killed Mr McDaid ( RIP) In the meantime perhaps the armchair generals should just concentrate on their digestive biscuits.
The biggest of the armchair generals being Myers himself – athough he’s more an armchair dirty harry eally.
I can almost see him chewing on a match and squinting as he becomes mildly aroused by his use of “dropping a few of the attackers”. His hands were probably shaking as he resisted the use of the word “perps”. And then he feels like he has to explain to the rookies just what exactly Dirty Kev means when he uses the word “drop”.
Its quite discomforting to see such a juvenile use of language when what he is suggesting is that police shoot into a crowd of people with intent to kill.
What this crowd of murderers did was blatantly wrong and absolutely horrific – however, in the aftermath, to ask for a police force that shoots into crowds of people as some kind of remedy for what happened is insane.
To subsequently then try and say “this wouldn’t have happened before the dreadful emasculation of our very Royal Ulster Constabulary” is complete bollocks too. They wouldn’t have intervened either.
The reasons for this lack of enthusiasm to intervene on the side of the police when seeing a member of the public being battered to death isn’t the topic of this thread – but it should certainly be a topic at least for an ombusmans investigation.
circles: “What this crowd of murderers did was blatantly wrong and absolutely horrific – however, in the aftermath, to ask for a police force that shoots into crowds of people as some kind of remedy for what happened is insane.”
Depends on what they give them to do the shooting with. Some places in the States arm their cops with a veritable arsenal, ranging from baton, pepperspray and a pistol on the belt, but with a “beanbag” gun, rapid fire pepper gun (fires paint-ball style round filled with Capsaicin) and a few other items that might have made the difference (or not) in this scenario.
That said, yeah, Myers has seen one too many Westerns, if nothing else.
I see what you’re saying Dread, but Myers explicitly talks about “shooting them dead” – no bean bag, pepper gun or other touchy-feely crowd incapacitation device.
Not for Dirty Kev. Shoot them dead he says, and so be it.
It is of course an idotic thing to say or write.
circles: “I see what you’re saying Dread, but Myers explicitly talks about “shooting them dead” – no bean bag, pepper gun or other touchy-feely crowd incapacitation device.”
And I agreed with you — that man has seen too much bad television.
And, frankly, most of these weapons ain’t “touchy-feely,” leastwise I’m not wanting to feel their touch. They just happen not to be lethal.
Seriously, tho — if you’re going to hand the police such a half-arsed rules of engagement, why not given them some options between standing around shouting “Stop… or I’ll say stop again!” and committing a felony??
circles on May 29, 2009 @ 08:36 PM – nail ….head !
(Lmao @ the Dirty Harry comparison)
Dread/Circles, agree with you guys. All this ‘shoot them dead’ stuff is nonsense suggested by someone who clearly has no idea of the potential outcomes of such action. Never mind the moral or democratic issues that could arise from it.
[i]if you’re going to hand the police such a half-arsed rules of engagement, why not given them some options between standing around shouting “Stop… or I’ll say stop again!” and committing a felony?? [/i]
I know they aren’t appropriate for use in this situation but I’m straight away reminded of the difficulties of introducing Tasers. I simply don’t think there is the will (among the public or politicians) to introduce other ‘weaponry’. Northern Ireland is in a transition from a totally dysfunctional society to an almost functional one and I think the current situation/rules are making the best of a far from perfect situation.
Bill: “I know they aren’t appropriate for use in this situation but I’m straight away reminded of the difficulties of introducing Tasers. I simply don’t think there is the will (among the public or politicians) to introduce other ‘weaponry’. Northern Ireland is in a transition from a totally dysfunctional society to an almost functional one and I think the current situation/rules are making the best of a far from perfect situation. ”
Tell that to the McDaid family and the cops who have to live with the outcome.
If the government — both wings — weren’t intent on kissing the UDA’s arse, I think we’d see a different outcome. Just my tuppence worth.
This was tried before, when a group of rioters started thowing petrol bombs and missiles, Bloody Sunday I think it was called. nationalists didn’t really like it then, Its a funny old world they are calling for its return.
“If you want a symbol of what happens when you underestimate the SAS, it goes by the name of the loughgall Martyrs RIP (lol). Eight armed SAS on duty who see a gang of Republican thugs armed with AK’s attacking a blameless Police Station should have only one set of programmed responses. That is, to protect the innocent; if that means dropping 8 of the attackers—and by that, gentle reader, yes, I do mean blowing their little brains out with 600 rounds so be it. If the dead had wanted to remain alive, they should have stayed at home and watched Corrie.”
It is indeed a funny old world when we have someone equating a civil rights march with a bunch of drunken sectarian bigots out to lynch someone.
RepublicanStones
“It is indeed a funny old world when we have someone equating a civil rights march with a bunch of drunken sectarian bigots out to lynch someone.”
Yes you are right
the Civil rights marchers opened fire with live ammunition on the Army giving them the right to return fire, as well as petrol bombs.
If the coleraine “mob” had opened fire then the PSNI may have been able to “drop someone”.
Good to see we are in agreement
The most pointed and poignant questions about the police response before, during and after the time Kevin McDaid was kicked and beaten to death come from specific eyewitnesses to the attack — Kevin McDaid’s bereaved wife and sons.
McDaid’s widow, Evelyn McDaid, was successfully rescued from the mob by her neighbour. The neighbour was unarmed, female, and ten weeks pregnant. No one familiar with well-placed kicks to the head who has seen the purple bruises on Mrs McDaid’s face can doubt that she might well have otherwise died in the attack, alongside her late husband.
To dismiss questions about police conduct as the idle pursuit of “armchair generals” better off choosing digestive biscuits is not my place, or yours, Observer.
‘the Civil rights marchers opened fire with live ammunition on the Army’
Wow, you should change your name to Widgery.
I suppose James Joseph Wray was lying on the ground to take up an aim and not because he had been previously hit with a bullet. I suppose Bernard McGuigan’s white hankerchief was concealing a pistol was it?
I could go on, but as you seem to be caught in some kind of 1972 info timewarp, what would be the point.
the suggestions for stopping a crowd kicking someone to death without shooting one or more of the crowd in the legs (if possible) are?……………
its a messy situation, but the point is that having policing rules where the police do nothing is unacceptable. it has come about because we have politicians that are looking to find ways to prosecute the police in some way. they would rather prosecute an officer for killing a would be murderer than support him for stopping a murder and saving a life. It’s a perverse situation.
As others have asked in this thread, what politicians would you hold responsible for the murder of Robert Hamill, kicked to death by a loyalist mob in 1997? The questions about police conduct at the time of Hamill’s murder — again, back in 1997 — are in the headlines often lately, due to ongoing Inquiry.
If politicians are to blame for poor police response, what politicans are to blame for the mob’s murderous actions, in McDaid’s murder, or Hamill’s? Or are we to blame the American makers of baseball bats, or Serbian cudgel manufacturers?
“Its quite discomforting to see such a juvenile use of language when what he is suggesting is that police shoot into a crowd of people with intent to kill.” – circles
Quite right. The police should have left a parcel bomb in the middle of the crowd and then ran away to a safe distance like real men.
Kevin Myers is right to see that this failure of the police force to protect the innocent is related to the incessant political interference in policing by members of murder gangs masquerading as legitimate politicians and community activists. The police have no business pandering to murderers. If it is established that the police were cooperating with these loyalists during the period in which this man was murdered by them and that this politically-created misidentification of murder gangs as ‘community activists’ contributed in any way to the police either not intervening or not being present in sufficient numbers then it is the politicians who demanded this politicization of the police service, along with the policing board and the head of the police, who should be forced to resign.
So, Dave, you think the RUC would have handled this differently then?
If so in what way?
Good idea, shoot into the crowd, maybe kill wee Billy, then watch as it unfolds, that wee Billy was just going out to get a carton of milk for his ma, to wee Billy was actually trying to stop the attack.
“Aim for the legs”, fuck me sideways, a leg is less than half the width of the torso and moves twice as fast, good luck hitting that.
Either way, the cops get dicked.
susan: To dismiss questions about police conduct as the idle pursuit of “armchair generals” better off choosing digestive biscuits is not my place, or yours, Observer.
I thought Observer was dismissing people who thought they had answers, not questions.
“Aim for the legs”, fuck me sideways, a leg is less than half the width of the torso and moves twice as fast, good luck hitting that.
On top of that, hit the thickest part of the leg and there is a fair to middlin’ chance to kill anyway — the bullet hits the femoral artery or the femur and splinters both the bone and the round, in turn hitting the femoral artery.
I’m not a fan of a routinely armed police service but given they had the weapons then, yes, the end of the line should have been lethal force. But only as a last resort, and the idea they could have ran straight in a downed a couple is simply ludicrous.
What is vital now is that they make sure that if this happens again the police are trained and capable of doing more than beating a hasty retreat.
I have to say i am shocked at some of the comments on here, if two officers really stood buy and watched these attacks, then serious questions have to be asked if the nationalist population can ever have faith in pnsi to protect them. i can not think of any other area were so many excuses would be made for the police not doing there job, would you not want a fireman to go near a burning house incase he gets burnt.
‘would you not want a fireman to go near a burning house incase he gets burnt.’
MacLeod is right !!!!
I seem to remember the police in Northern Ireland used to have a very effective middle way in dealing with riotous mobs between standing around with their fingers up their arses and shooting the people dead.
In a desk drawer somewhere I have half a dozen hard lumps of PVC about the same size and shape as the cardboard centre of a toilet roll. I picked these up on the night of July 14/15 1996 when the Brits and Peelers were popping them out with joyous abandonment in the William Street/Rossville Street area of Derry, the roads were carpetted with them. Don’t they have these anymore?
Oh that’s right we didn’t like plastic bullets did we? And in such a sane, normal, restrained society like Northern Ireland there’s no reason for the police to have such terrible devices is there?
And yes I know several innocent people were killed by them (and a heck of a lot of not very innocent people too) but that was a problem with individual officers and not the weapon itself.
In that respect Myers is spot on about the malign influence of the “peace process” on policing in Northern Ireland. Sometimes policemen have to be tough, sometimes they don’t need to “liaise” with “community representatives”, sometimes they just need to let rip.
Harry – any chance of you listing that “heck of a lot” of “not very innocent people” shot dead by plastic bullets?
You’re definition of innocent in this case would also be interesting as be being “not very innocent” it would imply that they were guilty enough to be shot dead.
So I suppose what I’m asking for is a list of people shot dead by the RUC using plastic bullets who deserved it.
Thanks in advance for being so obliging and thus making your post seem much more sensible and not the ramblings of a complete eejit.
If you were actively taking part in a riot then you weren’t very innocent when you got clobbered by the baton round were you? Again I emphasise for the avoidance of any doubt that several people killed by plastic bullets were entirely innocent.
Riots aren’t pretty things, when you decide to join in with them you must be prepared to take the consequences, I don’t believe a drunk driver “deserves” to die but if he does well sucks to be him, he made his bed he may lie in it. If the Peelers had plastic bullets in Coleraine on Saturday night it might have been a couple of wee spides who were stiffed rather than a decent, hardworking family man, I know which outcome I’d prefer. You seem to prefer that the innocent suffer rather than any harm should befall members of riotous mobs, I don’t share that opinion and believe you are a fool for doing so.
Or do you seriously expect me to believe that everyone killed by a plastic bullet was entirely innocent? If so there’s a fine looking bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.
Kevin ‘bloody’ myers,
It’s them nasty Fenians fault I tell ya.
I wonder how much British intelligence pay that man?
“So, Dave, you think the RUC would have handled this differently then?
If so in what way?” – circles
It may well be that the two police officers did not intervene because they had faith in the judgement of the mob to pick a taig for a good kicking rather than a prod but that isn’t a reasonable assumption to make, is it? Post-Patten, it would also fall flat on its face if it turns out that the two police officers were catholic recruits.
The RUC didn’t have to consult with community workers as some sort of ad hoc dispute resolution service. The PSNI are glorified social workers. Sinn Fein weren’t exactly supportive of Margaret Ritchie when she tried to call a halt to this farce of rebranding loyalists as community workers, stopping funding for UDA connected community projects. If the PSNI were in social worker mode under command to allow the “community workers” to resolve the dispute, then whose fault is that? That’s the fault of the political cartel.
That just a working assumption, as none of us know what was actually going on. The odd thing is that the loyalists are still under the control of the PSNI’s Special Branch and not MI5, so they probably knew what was going to happen even without speaking to the ‘community workers.’ So your guess is as good as mine as to why there was so little police presence.
Blimey, is this still going on?
Colonel Myarse is speaking out of his proverbial as usual.
Basically, the situation is this. The Police see a fight. They do not intervene. People in a fight do not wear bomber jackets with “Guilty Terrorist Attacker” and “Innocent Bystander Victim” written on the back. You cannot tell the aggressor from the victims.
A friend of mine saw an attack. He felt it was his duty to stop it, and then seized and held the victim, who at that precise moment had managed to defeat and get on top of the aggressor.
So what the Police had to do was wait till it was established that someone was in the wrong, that a crime had been committed. When Mr McDaid deceased fell to the floor, it became obvious that GBH, manslaughter or murder was taking place, and they were able to intervene to save Mrs McDaid and Mr Fleming.
Had they, perish the thought, shot into the crowd, they might well have ended up shooting Mr and Mrs McDaid and others dead.
Punchups and fracas of this sort are common currency among the Irishry, often undertaken for purposes of diversion at weddings and even funerals, i.e. in any gathering in which drink has been taken. It is not the policy of police or magistrates to intervene unless a serious crime (of damage to person or property) occurs.
A grand wake my father had, for which my mother furnished usquebaugh galore; and comfortably and dacently it passed over till about three o’clock in the morning, when, a dispute happening to arise, as to whether the O’Keefs or O’Kellys were kings of Ireland a thousand years ago, a general fight took place, which brought in the police, who, being soon dreadfully baten, as we all turned upon them, went and fetched the military, with whose help they took and locked up several of the party, amongst whom were my mother and myself, till the next morning, when we were taken before the magistrates, who, after a slight scolding, set us at liberty, one of them saying that such disturbances formed part of the Irish funeral service; whereupon we returned to the house, and the rest of the party joining us, we carried my father’s body to the churchyard, where we buried it very dacently, with many tears and groanings.”
George Borrow, Wild Wales.
Note the “as we all turned upon them”.