Gangland Shootings part 4 - Read OP before posting - updated 30/12/23

Halenvaneddie

If you are dumb enough to leave incriminating stuff on your phone, that’s on you

theballz

stingrayed wrote: »

Would not consider a few hundred million a bit of cash.

It's only a bit of cash when you compare it to the Sinaloas and the Jalisico cartels in South America who are both still at large supplying the world. That's who the DEA care about

paw patrol

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

From what I’ve gathered it’s in circumstances that the Gardai are searching somewhere with a warrant, they can then demand all devices to be opened there and then. If the suspect fails to adhere to the demand that’s when legal issues will arise.

I thought similar just can't find exact details anywhere.

Be interesting how this balances with the right to silence.

portlaoisepal

paw patrol wrote: »

I thought similar just can't find exact details anywhere.

Be interesting how this balances with the right to silence.

Right to silence gone since Omagh

paw patrol

portlaoisepal wrote: »

Right to silence gone since Omagh

indeed, I didn't know that . consider me educated.

although seems to be there in some circumstances i wasn't aware of the finer details.

OzBhoy88

These powers to have to hand over mobile phone access are already in play in Australia for years, so will most likely pass any challenges. I was searched going through customs into Australia numerous times due to being an associate of an Irish person who went down for 12 years for dealing and had to open phone for searches. This can be as simple as them suspecting of involvement in crime or visa issues. I was neither. And numerous lads arrested here have had no option but to hand over passcodes or they get an extra 2 to 3 years on top of sentence for impeding investigations.

LMHC

Right to silence on a sections isn't gone. You have the right to sit and stare at a wall or N.C the interviews, unless inferences are invoked your brief will advise you.

LMHC

The Supreme Court affirmed the right to silence in police custody as having a constitutional status. However, the Supreme Court also indicated that the constitutional right to silence applied to anything that might offer the police evidence, which was self-incriminating. In other words, the constitutional right to silence may not extend to not answering police questions that would not involve self-incrimination.

portlaoisepal

portlaoisepal wrote: »

Right to silence gone since Omagh

What's your source on that? From reading citizens information it seems that while it is not an inherent right, it applies to the vast majority of cases. It only applies to things that could incriminate you, so not your name or address or similar. I can't, however, find a definitive definition of cases that are outside of this right but I am assuming that they would be ones where the person being interviewed could not be incriminated by the answers.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/right_to_silence_in_criminal_cases.html#


EDIT: Ah what was removed after Omagh was just the juries right to make an inference based on your silence, in certain cases. So the right to silence is far from gone.

Even then it seems like that amendment to the right to silence didn't even hold up after all and Colm Murphy was acquitted of the bombing in 2010 because the SCC ****ed up and disregarded his right to silence

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/murphy-acquitted-over-omagh-bombing-1.627159

portlaoisepal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's your source on that? From reading citizens information it seems that while it is not an inherent right, it applies to the vast majority of cases. It only applies to things that could incriminate you, so not your name or address or similar. I can't, however, find a definitive definition of cases that are outside of this right but I am assuming that they would be ones where the person being interviewed could not be incriminated by the answers.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/right_to_silence_in_criminal_cases.html#


EDIT: Ah what was removed after Omagh was just the juries right to make an inference based on your silence, in certain cases. So the right to silence is far from gone.

Jury in the special crim
ffs

portlaoisepal

portlaoisepal wrote: »

Jury in the special crim
ffs

Used the wrong word, replace 'jury' with 'court'. Seems strange to pick out one word being wrong, when the entirety of what you said is wrong. It didn't hold up in the exact case you referenced.

portlaoisepal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Used the wrong word, replace 'jury' with 'court'. Seems strange to pick out one word being wrong, when the entirety of what you said is wrong. It didn't hold up in the exact case you referenced.

Were you ever arrested?

LMHC

portlaoisepal wrote: »

Were you ever arrested?

Mate you just stated right to silence was gone. Where you ever arrested?

portlaoisepal

portlaoisepal wrote: »

Were you ever arrested?

No, I'm not a ****ing dope who brags about getting caught when they've been caught out again.

portlaoisepal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, I'm not a ****ing dope who brags about getting caught when they've been caught out again.

Thinking as much
hurler on the ditch

theballz

Nicola tallant podcast on fat Freddie is very good

Fcuk me he’s a horrible bag of sh*te, seen a few on here claiming he’s on strung out on Bobby now inside - is that true?

Necro

BernieFogsMa and portlaoisepal take your nonsense elsewhere, keep it up and you'll both be removed from the thread

Kaisersosay

theballz wrote: »

It's only a bit of cash when you compare it to the Sinaloas and the Jalisico cartels in South America who are both still at large supplying the world. That's who the DEA care about

If you were tasked with convicting the South American Cartels of selling drugs surely you would be looking at their customers, the big bulk buyers around the world, as part of your investigations.
DK, and his buying group, by all accounts buy by the tonne. Pallet loads. Europol and the DEA would be sharing info weekly if not daily.

So I think it would be fair to say the American authorities would have huge knowledge of the individual in question. I'd even go as far as to suggest that they would have surveillance on him. He's a major player in Europe.

Lord_Slong2

theballz wrote: »

Nicola tallant podcast on fat Freddie is very good

Fcuk me he’s a horrible bag of sh*te, seen a few on here claiming he’s on strung out on Bobby now inside - is that true?

There’s a good few that take whatever to pass the time whilst inside lad. Anything that makes your day go faster and seem easier will be took.

Lord_Slong2

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

From what I’ve gathered it’s in circumstances that the Gardai are searching somewhere with a warrant, they can then demand all devices to be opened there and then. If the suspect fails to adhere to the demand that’s when legal issues will arise.

So it’s only for houses with warrants and not for strip searches and stopping lads on the street/in cars ?

crooked cockney villain

theballz wrote: »

Nicola tallant podcast on fat Freddie is very good

Fcuk me he’s a horrible bag of sh*te, seen a few on here claiming he’s on strung out on Bobby now inside - is that true?

It seems a bit mad alright. You grow up in an area where you see the damage it causes, probably had numerous childhood friends sucked into it, you spend 20 odd years trafficking the stuff knowing how dangerous it would be to be tempted to use it, then you hit 40 odd years old and you're so depressed you say fcuk it I'm game for some. Mad carry on.

Is there any/ many people who have combined a prominent gangland career with a serious heroin habit? I know some of the Dunnes got addicted in the end. A few heroin addicts were referred to as members of the Westies in the media (Halpins, White, Allen) though whether these lads ever made serious money or were mere runners/ enforcers feeding a habit who weren't seriously regarded as players I don't know. Certainly the Halpin lads seem daft as a brush.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-broke-yankee-candle-over-the-head-of-beauty-salon-robber-as-she-was-getting-her-nails-done-34482300.html

Halpin was wearing a scarf over his face but a customer, Emma Kelly, recognised him...... Halpin raised the knife above his head and said “back off Emma.”

:pac::pac::pac:

stingrayed

Kaisersosay wrote: »

If you were tasked with convicting the South American Cartels of selling drugs surely you would be looking at their customers, the big bulk buyers around the world, as part of your investigations.
DK, and his buying group, by all accounts buy by the tonne. Pallet loads. Europol and the DEA would be sharing info weekly if not daily.

So I think it would be fair to say the American authorities would have huge knowledge of the individual in question. I'd even go as far as to suggest that they would have surveillance on him. He's a major player in Europe.

Could have not put it better, Encro, Skyecc, An0m and No1BC are just the start to cartels including the K,s coming down hard and for long spells in prison, the phones are hot and they are all petrified.

Jinglejangle69

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

This law will be challenged in the Court of Human Rights. There’s no way it won’t be amended. A mobile phone has so much sensitive data that the Gardai have no right to access. It will just take one person to say that Gardai were making snide comments on their personal photos and a whole can of worms opens

So do computers and laptops but that doesn't stop them

Omackeral

crooked cockney villain wrote: »

Certainly the Halpin lads seem daft as a brush.

Gerry is nuts, did a few crazy strokes in Birmingham and some bad bad stuff. Out of it on Crystal Meth at one stage and all. His mot is arguably madder...

Lord_Slong2

Fedcba321 wrote: »

So it’s only for houses with warrants and not for strip searches and stopping lads on the street/in cars ?

From what I’ve gathered, no. They must have a valid warrant

Lord_Slong2

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So do computers and laptops but that doesn't stop them

When I made that comment it was in relation to street searches, I wasn’t fully versed on how these new powers they have would work.

Pasor84

Stingtayed is and has ruined this thread, iv never claimed to know big stuff but only my end of the street, which is minute compared to others, he's a melt. Had a mate in fás who said Coates used to always give him an eight of hash on his bday for free but his eyes would literally put the fear of god in ye, only talk but no reason to not believe

Tiktokboom

Fedcba321 wrote: »

So it’s only for houses with warrants and not for strip searches and stopping lads on the street/in cars ?

This is where it gets interesting, does it have to be online crime or are we looking at guards driving around targeting people for their mobile and passwords, using the excuse that a crime just happened close by or something, before checking their calls logs and messages and any other messaging app they might have, just hoping to find something incriminating, guaranteed some guards will chance it either way.

Witcher

Tiktokboom wrote: »

This is where it gets interesting, does it have to be online crime or are we looking at guards driving around targeting people for their mobile and passwords, using the excuse that a crime just happened close by or something, before checking their calls logs and messages and any other messaging app they might have, just hoping to find something incriminating, guaranteed some guards will chance it either way.

If you read the actual Bill you would know the answer to that.