Gangland 7 arrests this am

Henry Ford III

Stab*City wrote: »

Link?

No link. Not mentioned in the press, yet.

concussion

I did say possibly cordons. I have no idea of the requirements of this specific operation. Show me something that proves that they needed less Gardaí than were involved but took them anyway and I'll stand beside you and say they wasted taxpayers resources. Otherwise I'll have to disagree with you view that too many were used.

Edit - daveharnett never said they would take statements at the scene. He said Gardaí would be needed to take statements.

smokie2008

Henry Ford III wrote: »

No link. Not mentioned in the press, yet.

You said his name was mentioned in the press recently, so post that link???

MissHoneyBun

concussion wrote: »

Show me something that proves that they needed less Gardaí than were involved but took them anyway and I'll stand beside you and say they wasted taxpayers resources. Otherwise I'll have to disagree with you view that too many were used.

I could equally request that you show me something that proves your opinion too. None of us here are privy to the specifics of this case so requesting proof is largely irrelevant. The basis of this conversation is speculatory for all of us.

johno2

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

None of us here are privy to the specifics of this case so requesting proof is largely irrelevant. The basis of this conversation is speculatory for all of us.

Translation: I'm making all this up so the rest of you must be doing that too.

johno

MissHoneyBun

johno2 wrote: »

Translation: I'm making all this up so the rest of you must be doing that too.

johno

Do you have anything to substantiate that accusation Johno or are you just contibuting groundless assumptions?

concussion

That's grand. There are three options that I can see so:

1 - You know that too many were used but won't tell us any more. If so, you are indirectly revealing operational information. Tut tut.

2 - You forgot to put "in my opinion" in front of everything you posted.

3 - You don't know what you're talking about.

Amazotheamazing

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Information and evidence is gathered mainly prior to arrests. It's what prompts the arrest to take place. Evidence gathered during an arrest would be mainly supplementary. An arrest is just the formal procedure of taking somebody in for questioning on suspicion of them being in breach of legislation. Often when a lot of the hard work has already been completed.

Daveharnett, statements would be taken at the station, not at the scene and are often taken on a one-to-one basis with occassionally two Gardai present. Evidence is also thin on the ground because the Gardai won't exhaust all their means of looking for it. Convictions can be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence too you know, which often has more impact than the anecdotal evidence supplied by witnesses. Gardai do expect to make raids and be shot at, it's the nature of their job which they are made fully aware of before they choose to pursue this type of career. Gangs don't exist in this town solely for financial gain Dave nor would they voluntarily 'quit crime' to live on claims if there were 8 arrests made per day. They should be forced to quit crime by being systematically arrested and imprisoned for consistently breaking the law.

How many people do you think are needed to search a house and arrest a person?

The point of these arrests is they are being charged with really serious stuff, offences against the state, it's not comparable to picking someone up for littering or whatever you want 8 people arrested for every day.

MissHoneyBun

concussion wrote: »

That's grand. There are three options that I can see so:

1 - You know that too many were used but won't tell us any more. If so, you are indirectly revealing operational information. Tut tut.

2 - You forgot to put "in my opinion" in front of everything you posted.

3 - You don't know what you're talking about.

I have made it clear what I'm talking about and don't see the need to assert my judgements to fit your requirements. Again, I could equally make those same three assumptions relevant to your posts.

Amazotheamazing

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

I have made it clear what I'm talking about and don't see the need to assert my judgements to fit your requirements. Again, I could equally make those same three assumptions relevant to your posts.

No you haven't, how many Gardai do you think should have been used?

Btw, do you think the same Gardai who arrested the guys left them unattended in the squad car while they had a quick look around the houses or something? Maybe the Gardai called a taxi to run the arrested back to Henry street while they checked the back yard etc? Sure, could they have hired a few polish lads to check the attic, half the price and twice as fast you know...

J K

concussion wrote: »

T
....
1 - ...... If so, you are indirectly revealing operational information....

She sounds like a solicitor actually. An angry solicitor. Wonder why the chip
on the shoulder, hardly analogous with success.

concussion

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

I have made it clear what I'm talking about and don't see the need to assert my judgements to fit your requirements. Again, I could equally make those same three assumptions relevant to your posts.

What you have done is asserted that you know what you are talking about and that there was no need for that amount of Gardaí. Yet you haven't given us any reason to believe what you say.

Myself, I know very little about Garda operations but I do know that if you're going to raid a house you need a lot of bodies to get in there, more to stop them running away and an element to control all that. I would be very surprised if they did that without a backup unit standing by to assist and, given the nature of the arrests, an armed unit also. Put those numbers together and you could easily reach 16 per house, if not more.

You say they definately didn't need that many so prove it. Myself, and others, have shown how you may need that amount.

Amazotheamazing

J K wrote: »

She sounds like a solicitor actually. An angry solicitor. Wonder why the chip
on the shoulder, hardly analogous with success.

Thought she was the angry primary school student teacher in Mary I? Anyhow, good to know the next generation will be well versed in Garda procedure as well as the usual primary school subjects.

MissHoneyBun

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

No you haven't, how many Gardai do you think should have been used?

Btw, do you think the same Gardai who arrested the guys left them unattended in the squad car while they had a quick look around the houses or something? Maybe the Gardai called a taxi to run the arrested back to Henry street while they checked the back yard etc? Sure, could they have hired a few polish lads to check the attic, half the price and twice as fast you know...

I'm sure you know what they say about sarcasm so I'm not sure why you're resorting to it. Also, where in my posts did I suggest any of that nonsense about taxis etc?! Just to clarify, 130 Gardai for 8 arrests is too many. That clear enough for you?

MissHoneyBun

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Thought she was the angry primary school student teacher in Mary I? Anyhow, good to know the next generation will be well versed in Garda procedure as well as the usual primary school subjects.

Getting personal now? Charming way to make a debate. Actually I'm not sure why I'm bothering here when the foundations of your posts revolve around rhetoric, sarcasm and personal abuse which constitutes little or no intelligence regarding the issue.

daveharnett

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Just to clarify, 130 Gardai for 8 arrests is too many. That clear enough for you?

That much is clear. You have been asked a number of times how many Gardai you would task to an operation where 8 houses connected to armed gangs are raided. Care to answer?

MissHoneyBun

daveharnett wrote: »

That much is clear. You have been asked a number of times how many Gardai you would task to an operation where 8 houses connected to armed gangs are raided. Care to answer?

Can you provide the case history that would allow anyone to posit a concrete answer? If not, see post # 35.

Aidric

I'm surprised people are still engaging with this poster. Classic troll behaviour. Throw a statement out there and then steadfastly refuse to back it up.

MissHoneyBun

Aidric wrote: »

I'm surprised people are still engaging with this poster. Classic troll behaviour. Throw a statement out there and then steadfastly refuse to back it up.

Check out post #31 there Aidric before ya jump in with the old irrational statements. Anything more to contribute than that yourself no? Cos if not, you aren't really in a position to comment on people throwing statements out now are you? Classic troll behaviour indeed.

Stab*City

4 to 6 gurads involved in the dooradoyle raid.. FACT

2 guards approached the house on foot.. Started hitting the door "LET US IN, LET US IN" one took off running around back of house while the other gained entrance.. The runner returned with a gearbag and entered house. Door was locked and every window in house opened. Paddywagon arrived guard beat down door while detectives inside.. guard proceeded to kick in door while house was already occupied by gaurds..

end of eyewitness account.

So that leaves 126-124 useless guards to do the rest of the 7 "raids/arrests"

concussion

3 pages of this, I wouldn't be surprised if this was picked up by some lazy journo and turned into "dissatisfaction amongst public after mismanagement of sting operation".

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas or speculation as to why the National Immigration Bureau were involved? Human trafficking perhaps?

MissHoneyBun

Stab*City wrote: »

4 to 6 gurads involved in the dooradoyle raid.. FACT

2 guards approached the house on foot.. Started hitting the door "LET US IN, LET US IN" one took off running around back of house while the other gained entrance.. The runner returned with a gearbag and entered house. Door was locked and every window in house opened. Paddywagon arrived guard beat down door while detectives inside.. guard proceeded to kick in door while house was already occupied by gaurds..

end of eyewitness account.

So that leaves 126-124 useless guards to do the rest of the 7 "raids/arrests"

So it emerges that the first factual anecdote coincides with what I've suggested? Wonder why.
Brace yourself for the onslaught Stab*City.

concussion

Stab*City wrote: »

4 to 6 gurads involved in the dooradoyle raid.. FACT

Unless those 4, or 6, (I thought this was an eyewitness account?) Gardaí turned up at work and decided amongst themselves to drive over and make entry then no, it's not a FACT that those were the numbers involved in the raid. The only fact from this is you saw an undetermined number of Gardaí kicking down a door (twice actually )

Grumpypants

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

Check out post #31 there Aidric before ya jump in with the old irrational statements. Anything more to contribute than that yourself no? Cos if not, you aren't really in a position to comment on people throwing statements out now are you? Classic troll behaviour indeed.

People are attacking your posts becasue you made quite a few poor posts.

The first one slagging off the cops for as you put it "only doing their jobs". Then you made an assuption about 130 cops for 8 arrests is a waste. Completely ignoring that just becasue 8 people got arrested doesnt mean there was only 8 people in these houses and that they are dangerous armed criminal. When this was pointed out you claimed to have inside knowledge of how the cops work. Then when asked if that was from being a cop or from coming in contact with them you told the person to mind their own business (Dont make claims you arent comfortable backing up it just makes you look bad). You have then gone on to post a few long posts that are just rubbish about gathering evendence like post 31 you keep refering to. Only back up people opinions that you dont understand how these things work.

Simple facts are a number of houses where raided in a number of locations it can be quite tricky for the cops as the estate layouts can leave them vunerable. They could quite quickly find themselves surrounded and outnumbered by gang members in a matter of minutes. That is 1 reason to use such numbers.

The second reason is to display a show of force if the locals and even low level runners for the gangs see 1 or 2 cops coming up and the gang member fighting them off, finally getting dragged away and released later that day its a victory for the gang. If 130 cops come up with guns take them all away for 7 days then the locals are reasured that the cops mean business.

If you make statements claiming to be "in the know" about something you have to back it up. If you really are in the know then god help us all.

MissHoneyBun

concussion wrote: »

The only fact from this is you saw an undetermined number of Gardaí kicking down a door (twice actually )

He said 'proceeded to' Concussion which means the Guard continued to do the same thing (beating at, then kicking the door) until he gained entry. So I'm not sure what your 'twice actually' relates to or your 'undetermined number of Gardai' when he clearly said between four and six. Why are you being consistently pedantic?

Grumpypants

Stab*City wrote: »

4 to 6 gurads involved in the dooradoyle raid.. FACT

2 guards approached the house on foot.. Started hitting the door "LET US IN, LET US IN" one took off running around back of house while the other gained entrance.. The runner returned with a gearbag and entered house. Door was locked and every window in house opened. Paddywagon arrived guard beat down door while detectives inside.. guard proceeded to kick in door while house was already occupied by gaurds..

end of eyewitness account.

So that leaves 126-124 useless guards to do the rest of the 7 "raids/arrests"

So 1 raid in a posh part of town used 6 cops. Some one up at 7 am peeking out their window saw the cops approaching !!

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

So it emerges that the first factual anecdote coincides with what I've suggested? Wonder why.
Brace yourself for the onslaught Stab*City.

No it doesnt first point is its not fact its hearsay from a dubious source. 2nd thing its in no way backs up any of your points. It shows it took 6 cops to look after 1 house that isnt a serious target. The other locations would require more cops. It in fact totally dissagrees with your point.

Grumpypants

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

He said 'proceeded to' Concussion which means the Guard continued to do the same thing (beating at, then kicking the door) until he gained entry. So I'm not sure what your 'twice actually' relates to or your 'undetermined number of Gardai' when he clearly said between four and six. Why are you being consistently pedantic?

so thats 5 then.

MissHoneyBun

Grumpypants wrote: »

You have then gone on to post a few long posts that are just rubbish about gathering evendence like post 31 you keep refering to. Only back up people opinions that you dont understand how these things work.

Simple facts are a number of houses where raided in a number of locations it can be quite tricky for the cops as the estate layouts can leave them vunerable. They could quite quickly find themselves surrounded and outnumbered by gang members in a matter of minutes. That is 1 reason to use such numbers.

The second reason is to display a show of force if the locals and even low level runners for the gangs see 1 or 2 cops coming up and the gang member fighting them off, finally getting dragged away and released later that day its a victory for the gang. If 130 cops come up with guns take them all away for 7 days then the locals are reasured that the cops mean business.

May I ask what makes your post so correct Grumpypants before I dismiss it as rubbish in the same way as you did mine? I'm willing to overlook the numerous spelling and punctuation errors.

Grumpypants

MissHoneyBun wrote: »

May I ask what makes your post so correct Grumpypants before I dismiss it as rubbish in the same way as you did mine? I'm willing to overlook the numerous spelling and punctuation errors.

Common sense

MissHoneyBun

Grumpypants wrote: »

so thats 5 then.

Er, no Grumpypants. Between four and six means either four, five or six.