Madam, - As someone with experience in the armed services of the State, I have misgivings at the speedy retribution meted out, in the form of lethal force, to the criminals involved in the attempted robbery of Lusk post office.
The implication that lessons need to be taught has no basis in our law, nor is capital punishment a penalty for robbery.
The State was in a planned containment advantage where the only way out by the criminals was to attempt to escape by force of arms. However that did not happen, rather they seemed to have been put down "just in case".
Military personnel are governed by conventions which requires them to confine their response, to armed action, in a proportional manner. If no shots are fired, there should be no unilateral action or any form of lethal retribution. - Yours, etc,
JOHN JORDAN,
Ballyadam,
Carrigtwohill,
Co Cork.
Madam, - Claire Prendeville's letter of May 28th illustrates the misconceptions most people have about shooting. She seems to believe that shooting to wound, like the Lone Ranger, is a feasible alternative to killing. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Limbs are a much smaller target than the torso and therefore much easier to miss, even at the best of times. Given the highly stressful situation faced by the gardaí in Lusk, and given that there was a risk of hitting a member of the public, expecting them to aim at a leg or arm is ludicrous.
The criminal with the gun was pointing it at the gardaí; if they had aimed for a limb and missed the criminal could have fired. If they had hit a limb but failed to incapacitate, the criminal could have still fired. Does Ms Prenderville think the gardaí should have placed themselves and the civilians in even greater danger than they already were? - Yours, etc,
FIACHRA MOLLOY,
Orwell Park Glen,
Dublin 6W.