Okay, so let me get this right. The officer was supplying an informant with drugs as a trade off for information?
In my mind, that was a stupid thing to do, but then if the informant is a drug addict, he's going to use any money he is given to go get drugs anyway. I would think that having an informant that is a drug addict is the crime here, as I would imagine the source to be unreliable. Addiction can push boundaries and who knows what they would say to feed their habit, i.e. the information is not reliable.
tom rambo (12-10-14)
really no surprise there, we don't hear the half of it
Maybe the drug addict was smarter, getting free drugs for supplying useless information
Meursault (13-10-14)
The allegations against the detective, which were first made in October 2011, were that he handled significant quantities of drugs for a confidential informant – in breach of garda rules.
no mention was made of anyone using drugs or being addicted to a drug. was it an assumption?
I think it would depend on if they were able to get it freely for themselves or not. My immediate thoughts were that if the drug addict were able to get hold of drugs easily by themselves, then it would not be enough for them to part with any information. People don't generally squeal unless they really, really want or need something. Well, unless they are a complete shit with no moral code at all.
Bearing that in mind and knowing that drug addicts have been known to rob from their own families, take to prostitution and rob banks etc, to feed their addiction, which is not so prevalent amongst smokers or alcoholics (possibly because their needs are met in the corner shops at much lower prices) then it is not the same. Sex can be had for free. Least I never had to pay for my addiction
meath chap (13-10-14), tom rambo (12-10-14)
meath chap (13-10-14)