5 ms·
Key point: a chunk of the evidence against the thieves was collected via wireless bugging devices. Reading between the lines they'd also racked up an impressiv
by cstross 11y ago
Key point: a chunk of the evidence against the thieves was collected via wireless bugging devices.
Reading between the lines they'd also racked up an impressive stretch of prison time, individually and collectively. So perhaps were behind the curve in understanding just how modern intelligence-led policing and the surveillance state have converged to make their former profession extremely questionable.
(A supplementary point: the problem with criminology is that it's the study of the criminal mind -- but the only criminal minds available for study are the ones who were stupid enough to get caught. These guys got lucky (if the on-site security guard had done his job and checked inside the premises properly, they'd have walked into a police trap on their second attempt), but luck wasn't enough. They were still running on a classic 1970s-80s London gangland script, and were known to the Met as robbery suspects with prior form. By speaking aloud about what they'd done they basically handed the police enough evidence to roll them up. Score: old-school bank robbers 0; modern surveillance state: 1.)
- pavel_lishin 11y agoIt seems that they were identified as the primary suspects just from surveillance cameras near the scene - I wonder how successful the case against them would have been without the bugging devices.
- lotu 11y agoWell the police still would have found the loot in their possession so I'm going to say pretty successful.
- pavel_lishin 11y agoWould they have been able to legally search their homes without the wireless bugs and the camera-and-lip-reading surveillance?
- JupiterMoon 11y agoAlmost certainly yes a warrant could eventually have been obtained. UK law (well English and Welsh law at least -- I can't speak of Scottish law) tends to err on the side of "catch the bad guys" rather than personal freedom. Most people here argue that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and would not object to a police search of their own property. EDIT Also I see that the article says that two of the men were arrested whilst (driving?) with some of the loot. I'm not sure of the current status of stop and search but I'm fairly sure that the police have rather broad powers that don't require a warrant to search people outside of their home. Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm definitely not your lawyer. If you are looking for legal advice then hire a solicitor. Other disclaimer: I'm in the minority that thinks that everyone has something to hide -- even if only their bank details.
- bsder 11y ago> Key point: a chunk of the evidence against the thieves was collected via wireless bugging devices. They continued to talk about it. Mistake, period. Just, no. If I ever do something illegal, I will never talk about it after the fact. I have even had conversations with friends when I was younger: "Hey, how did you manage to get away from <place that got busted>?" "<incredulous look on my face> Why would you even ask me to admit I did something illegal that actually got busted by the police? And, even if I were there, why would you expect me to be stupid enough to answer?"
- bro-stick 11y agoIt seems they wanted to get caught to show off and get publicity to further that. It was a pretty impressive heist but the after-execution flopped like a plane made out of mercury. They gambled on the courts not prosecuting old-timers for compassionate reasons. Yet, the coolest thief/ves wouldn't have let themselves be caught and would be basking on a warm tropical island they own.
- marcoperaza 11y agoTwo things: 1) You're saying this because you're intelligent. But because you're intelligent, you're also less likely to turn to a life of crime. You can make money honestly and you have a lot to lose if you get busted. Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant. 2) It's easy to keep a secret that only you know. But there's usually more than one person involved in a crime. Are all of your companions in crime going to be as careful? People just can't resist talking. They want to brag. They want to tell their friends and loved ones. And as time goes on, people let their guard down.
- mabbo 11y ago> Crooks tend to be uneducated and ignorant. Only the ones you've heard about. Also: Wall Street is full of educated guys who are outright criminals.
- rms_returns 11y ago> Also: Wall Street is full of educated guys who are outright criminals. That is "white-collar crime" which is a different thing entirely. It revolves around exploiting the loopholes around laws, rather than actually breaking them. He is talking about "blue-collar crime" which is about outright breaking the laws. In the white crimes, no statesman can punish you since there is no legal evidence against you - the issues are with the legal framework.