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

benny79

how did he get tickets for that? seriously must have some connections Irish mafia.

Eyes1

Relax brah wrote: »

Also mentions thats LB was in the UK at England game. He thinks he’s British now FFS

As if being at the game wasn’t bad enough, the Irish Mirror saying he was wearing an England jersey and cap.

Cringe.

MickyPearse

MickyPearse wrote: »

Was that the General's son who got charged for slashing Anto Fitzgerald?

What's the name, or initials.

Relax brah

Eyes1 wrote: »

As if being at the game wasn’t bad enough, the Irish Mirror saying he was wearing an England jersey and cap.

Cringe.

the brits can have him and his sham sun bed using clown of a young lad

john boye

Eyes1 wrote: »

As if being at the game wasn’t bad enough, the Irish Mirror saying he was wearing an England jersey and cap.

Cringe.

Gotta fit in somehow! Wonder if he sang god save the queen and chanted no surrender too.

stingrayed

john boye wrote: »

Gotta fit in somehow! Wonder if he sang god save the queen and chanted no surrender too.

How he never got lifted with bomber is strange, maybe he has a MI5 Kinahan card also, and that was his invite to the match,

Lord_Slong2

The new legislation that allows Gardai to request a pin or password for a phone/tablet is applicable when Gardai have an active search warrant for a premises/house and you’re there. They can request you to open your device and if you don’t that’s when the legal issues can arise.

If they stop you on the street or anywhere they can request you to unlock a device but you’re not legally bound to adhere to their requests.

A user a few pages back says that a Judge won’t accept if someone says they can’t remember or selective amnesia. To that I’ll say just read up on the Liam Keane murder trial.

One person will say they couldn’t remember because they were under duress and boom that’s the legal precedent that’ll be used against this new law.

Nobody can tell a person what they can and can’t remember, it’s impossible. There has and will always be cases whether it be criminal or civil where both sides will use to their advantage; ‘I can’t remember, I apologise Your Honour/Judge’

OzBhoy88

That won’t stand up. It doesn’t in Australia anyway. They will just seize the phone and get the info anyway and tag a few extra years on sentence anyway for impeding an investigation. They will for any reasonable size players anyway. Might not bother or be cost effective for any old joe blogs. This directive has come from the EU cyber crime convention where it was recommended each country brings it into legislation. It’ll be well covered under cyber crime and terrorism legislation. And it won’t be just for your phone, they’ll require wicker, telegram pins as well

Donald Trump

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

The new legislation that allows Gardai to request a pin or password for a phone/tablet is applicable when Gardai have an active search warrant for a premises/house and you’re there. They can request you to open your device and if you don’t that’s when the legal issues can arise.

If they stop you on the street or anywhere they can request you to unlock a device but you’re not legally bound to adhere to their requests.

A user a few pages back says that a Judge won’t accept if someone says they can’t remember or selective amnesia. To that I’ll say just read up on the Liam Keane murder trial.

One person will say they couldn’t remember because they were under duress and boom that’s the legal precedent that’ll be used against this new law.

Nobody can tell a person what they can and can’t remember, it’s impossible. There has and will always be cases whether it be criminal or civil where both sides will use to their advantage; ‘I can’t remember, I apologise Your Honour/Judge’

And when stopped for drunk driving, if you think you might be even slightly over the limit, you can always refuse to blow into the breathalyzer and tell the judge that you were on your way home from running a marathon and couldn't catch your breath. I'd say you'd be let off then.



In the event that your phone is seized, you can of course try to tell the judge that you forgot the password. The Guards will get a court order for access to your phone records which will show that you were still using it, and remembering the password on how to unlock it, right up until it was seized. The phone would likely be seized so even after the initial trauma of being questioned wears off, if your amnesia still doesn't wear off then you don't even have that excuse!



"I forgot the password" might be slightly slightly plausible if they seize an old dusty laptop. If they seize a phone you were using 5 minutes previously, then I reckon you have an uphill battle. It has nothing got to do with Liam Keane murder trial. It would possibly have, had they not brought in this law.

Lord_Slong2

Donald Trump wrote: »

And when stopped for drunk driving, if you think you might be even slightly over the limit, you can always refuse to blow into the breathalyzer and tell the judge that you were on your way home from running a marathon and couldn't catch your breath. I'd say you'd be let off then.



In the event that your phone is seized, you can of course try to tell the judge that you forgot the password. The Guards will get a court order for access to your phone records which will show that you were still using it, and remembering the password on how to unlock it, right up until it was seized. The phone would likely be seized so even after the initial trauma of being questioned wears off, if your amnesia still doesn't wear off then you don't even have that excuse!



"I forgot the password" might be slightly slightly plausible if they seize an old dusty laptop. If they seize a phone you were using 5 minutes previously, then I reckon you have an uphill battle. It has nothing got to do with Liam Keane murder trial. It would possibly have, had they not brought in this law.

You can’t compare a drunk driver refusing to do a breath analysis to refusing your phone password ffs. Don’t be so thick. I wasn’t saying that at all, you’re twisting what I said.

The Gardai can ask all they want for your password but if they haven’t got an active warrant they have no legal right to access it, simple as.

There has been numerous cases of people forgetting what they said when questioned once the trial starts, in fact many a case was struck out because of it. So don’t sit behind your phone being deliberately malicious towards me when all I’m doing is actively contributing here.


Selective amnesia has everything to do with the Liam Keane trial, laws were implemented based on that case.

Phones will be confiscated of course they will and Judges won’t accept the shtick that I’ve said, but it won’t stop it being used. Whether it’s successful or not will depend on the case and the person but it will go on being used in criminal and civil cases.

In fact, this is my last comment here. Enjoy the satire from Donald

New app

Here's my password guards.

The password, wipes the whole phone.

"Developer Zygote Labs created an app to help shore up this particular security risk. Locker, as it's called, will automatically wipe all of the sensitive data from your device after a preset number of failed unlock attempts. While you should have no problem typing in your password or PIN within the allotted attempts, a potential identity thief no longer gets unlimited shots at cracking your security code."

A few tweeks of code, an app can wipe your phone BECAUSE of the password been entered or a certain password.

Donald Trump

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

You can’t compare a drunk driver refusing to do a breath analysis to refusing your phone password ffs. Don’t be so thick. I wasn’t saying that at all, you’re twisting what I said.

The Gardai can ask all they want for your password but if they haven’t got an active warrant they have no legal right to access it, simple as.

There has been numerous cases of people forgetting what they said when questioned once the trial starts, in fact many a case was struck out because of it. So don’t sit behind your phone being deliberately malicious towards me when all I’m doing is actively contributing here.


Selective amnesia has everything to do with the Liam Keane trial, laws were implemented based on that case.

Phones will be confiscated of course they will and Judges won’t accept the shtick that I’ve said, but it won’t stop it being used. Whether it’s successful or not will depend on the case and the person but it will go on being used in criminal and civil cases.

In fact, this is my last comment here. Enjoy the satire from Donald

You're wrong.

"selective amnesia" in the Keane trial, or any other, can be difficult to prove. However some people were actually later convicted of perjury and sentenced in that case so it is not even a good example for yourself to pick! In such a case, the "prosecution" would have to prove that a person was not telling the truth in order to get a conviction.

What we are talking about here is a new law which makes it an offence not to hand over a password (when they have a search warrant). So once you don't hand it over, you will be charged with that offence. What the prosecution has to prove in this case is that you refused to hand it over. They do not have to prove that there was anything on the phone.

When you refuse to give a sample for suspected drunk driving, you are convicted of refusing to give that sample. Whether you were drunk or not is irrelevant to the fact that you would not provide a sample. Here, what may or may not be on your phone is similarly irrelevant to the fact that you would not provide your passwords.

So the onus would now be on you to prove that you had suddenly and forever forgotten your password at that moment in time. If you cannot prove that, then you would be done for it.

Donald Trump

New app wrote: »

Here's my password guards.

The password, wipes the whole phone.

"Developer Zygote Labs created an app to help shore up this particular security risk. Locker, as it's called, will automatically wipe all of the sensitive data from your device after a preset number of failed unlock attempts. While you should have no problem typing in your password or PIN within the allotted attempts, a potential identity thief no longer gets unlimited shots at cracking your security code."

A few tweeks of code, an app can wipe your phone BECAUSE of the password been entered or a certain password.

Yes, but you have to have that installed. There is also a concept called plausible deniability in encryption

Halenvaneddie

Everyone wants to be a Tony Montana, what’s wrong with being a Gustavo Fring?

Collie D

stingrayed wrote: »

I can understand friendship, but once you know what is what, you might think a little bit about what is more important in life, tis true footballers do not have half a brain.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/tottenham-star-troy-parrott-snapped-20826732

The real crime is that shirt

Kaisersosay

Donald Trump wrote: »

......
So the onus would now be on you to prove that you had suddenly and forever forgotten your password at that moment in time. If you cannot prove that, then you would be done for it.

Well from personal experience I think its very possible to temporarily forget a password. It's happened to me on my bank card. Couldn't remember it when I got to till... couple digits out. Was next day when it came back to me.
A lot of these judges are over 50. I think temporarily or permanently forgetting one digit out of four is very possible and believable. Particularly if you could prove you had 5 or 6 pin numbers to remember in life. Like I do.

DivulgeItAll

Donal you said the onus is on you then and that the person must prove their innocence and said that other user was wrong. You’re wrong because Isn’t it innocent until proven guilty a person never has to prove innocence the law has to prove guilt. Your wrong there

Donald Trump

DivulgeItAll wrote: »

Donal you said the onus is on you then and that the person must prove their innocence and said that other user was wrong. You’re wrong because Isn’t it innocent until proven guilty a person never has to prove innocence the law has to prove guilt. Your wrong there

No. The person is guilty of not providing their password (again assuming the warrant case). Unless they claim that they actually did provide it, or want to claim that they were never asked for it.


As a defence to the charge of not providing it, they can claim that they forgot it. But for a conviction it does not have to be proven that they did not forget it. All that has to be proven is that they did not provide it.



If a gatso clocks me doing 80 in a 60 zone, I can go to the court and tell the judge that my friend had a serious accident and that I needed to rush them to hospital in the car immediately as we could not wait for the ambulance and I had to break the speed limit. Now, if I raise that in my defence, it is up to me to prove it. I can't just tell that story and hope that the Guards cannot prove a negative. The Guards do not have to prove anything other than the fact that I was clocked breaking the speed limit. I might be able to prove my story and the judge could let me off



If there was no law explicitly compelling them to hand over the passwords, then you would be correct. But that is why they brought the law in. Now, once you don't hand them over it is by default an offence.


Again, back to my drink driving analogy. There might be a one-in-a-hundred-thousand genuine reason why an individual cannot blow enough to register on a breathalyzer. Once you don't do it though you will be charged with the offence of failing to provide a sample. When you go to the court, the onus will be on you to prove that reason. Maybe you have vastly reduced lung function and can't breathe out with enough force. Again, if you go to the court and claim that, you are not assumed innocent until the guards produce evidence that you don't have whatever condition it is.

Donald Trump

Kaisersosay wrote: »

Well from personal experience I think its very possible to temporarily forget a password. It's happened to me on my bank card. Couldn't remember it when I got to till... couple digits out. Was next day when it came back to me.
A lot of these judges are over 50. I think temporarily or permanently forgetting one digit out of four is very possible and believable. Particularly if you could prove you had 5 or 6 pin numbers to remember in life. Like I do.

Well the key word there is temporarily. If they seize the device and you never remember it ever again, despite them knowing that you have been making calls on up until that point in time, it won't be as plausible. If you actually temporarily forget and subsequently remember the next day, you can then call them up and tell them (in theory). They will have seized the device anyway and will have it.



Lads will have devices that can be remotely wiped too......... So maybe they will temporarily forget and remember a few minutes later after that wiping has been done unless the guards have some way of stopping the phone accessing the network.

MrNiceGuy42

The shades could access this info anyway only difference now they can use it in court i rekon.Any time they raid they seize the phones and id imagine theyve tech to read everything in the phone unless it encrypted id imagine that the big difference in the legislation but could be wrong

With a majority of new iPhone users using face unlock they've only to hold the phone up to you and you've unlocked it for them anyways.

stingrayed

Deleted User wrote: »

With a majority of new iPhone users using face unlock they've only to hold the phone up to you and you've unlocked it for them anyways.

That is if you have a face, some in Oliver bond do not.

giles lynchwood

stingrayed wrote: »

How he never got lifted with bomber is strange, maybe he has a MI5 Kinahan card also, and that was his invite to the match,

According to the press the police believe he was one of the few that did not use an encrypted phone , on that note I wonder do Tesco have a store in Dubai the lads will need to talk somehow.

stingrayed

giles lynchwood wrote: »

According to the press the police believe he was one of the few that did not use an encrypted phone , on that note I wonder do Tesco have a store in Dubai the lads will need to talk somehow.

Tesco special in the hand and Encro in the left hand pocket.

Tacitus Kilgore

That's a glasses case clouseau

Titzon Toast

Private chat on the aul PlayStation. Sorted.

benny79

Who fcuking cares about the new laws regarding the phones ffs its gangland I wont to know about the gangs, gang bosses
not 2 pages on a stupid law will or wont it work etc...

jackrussel

Lord_Slong2 wrote: »

You can’t compare a drunk driver refusing to do a breath analysis to refusing your phone password ffs. Don’t be so thick. I wasn’t saying that at all, you’re twisting what I said.

The Gardai can ask all they want for your password but if they haven’t got an active warrant they have no legal right to access it, simple as.

There has been numerous cases of people forgetting what they said when questioned once the trial starts, in fact many a case was struck out because of it. So don’t sit behind your phone being deliberately malicious towards me when all I’m doing is actively contributing here.


Selective amnesia has everything to do with the Liam Keane trial, laws were implemented based on that case.

Phones will be confiscated of course they will and Judges won’t accept the shtick that I’ve said, but it won’t stop it being used. Whether it’s successful or not will depend on the case and the person but it will go on being used in criminal and civil cases.

In fact, this is my last comment here. Enjoy the satire from Donald

You deleted your account over that? Jesus

Eyes1

benny79 wrote: »

Who fcuking cares about the new laws regarding the phones ffs its gangland I wont to know about the gangs, gang bosses
not 2 pages on a stupid law will or wont it work etc...

Need a couple of shootings to jazz things up a bit. These pesky crims have let this forum down badly the last 2 years

mrh1974

jackrussel wrote: »

You deleted your account over that? Jesus

yeah Im really surprised at that.....always thought he seemed a sound enough fella, never had him down as the 'it's my ball and im taking it home'sort.