Is this mob justice, or fair justice?

[Meridian]

Emm. Bare hands equals fingerprints.

Easy way to check.

That sort of paint doesn't take fingerprints as the surface flows very slowly.


It's not illegal to touch the outside of a locker, so unless they can show either a) he has someone else's property or b) that he touched the inside of a locker, the officers were correct: there's no real evidence.


M

 

[Andy90]

It wouldn't have stood up in a Court, thats all I would say.

Now you could argue why they hell was he wearing gloves. I'm sure his defence would be, well I got knocked into the locker when the boat listed, got some paint on my hands that some jerk had painted it with. I then tried to scrub it off and couldn't so I put some gloves on to save getting it all over my uniform until it dried or came off.

It is one of the reasons why fingerprints on the outside of a car that may have been broken into tend to be discounted by CSI. Anyone could have leant against the car.

Mob justice? Well the silent treatment obviously had the desired effect and didn't leave any marks like real mob justice i.e a beating would leave.

Whilst stealing isn't a nice thing to do, you also have to look at the flipside. Was he innocent and more importantly what does he do next? If he kills himself is your mate and his mates REALLY sure he was the one?

 

[Cyanide]

Emm. Bare hands equals fingerprints.

Easy way to check.

Still doesn't prove anything if the paint was on the outside of the lockers

 

[leon4112]

everyone is missing one point! why wear the gloves if your not hiding something???

if you didn't steal anything and got the paint on your hands wouldn't try and get it sorted with the medics etc least you wouldn't be hiding the fact you had it there.

The fact he coverd his hands and went about his day does sounds guilty as sin!

 

[GreatAuk]

Poor guy probably leaned on a locker and thought WTF

Made me lol!

But yeah, unless the paint was only on the inside or the lockers were all in some private space there isn't really any proof, so I'd call it mob justice.

everyone is missing one point! why wear the gloves if your not hiding something???

if you didn't steal anything and got the paint on your hands wouldn't try and get it sorted with the medics etc least you wouldn't be hiding the fact you had it there.

The fact he coverd his hands and went about his day does sounds guilty as sin!

But what about if he had heard / worked out what was going on and didn't want to be labelled as a thief? He might still be innocent despite wearing the gloves.

 

[leon4112]

Made me lol!

But yeah, unless the paint was only on the inside or the lockers were all in some private space there isn't really any proof, so I'd call it mob justice.



But what about if he had heard / worked out what was going on and didn't want to be labelled as a thief? He might still be innocent despite wearing the gloves.

But then he had nothing to hide and (if it was me) would have told someone to try and get it off!

Its not like a base its a ship things get around very quickly so if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't have hid it!

 

[muon]

Still doesn't prove anything if the paint was on the outside of the lockers

Don't these lockers have locks?

It proves he broke into the locker, unless he can think of and show a legitimate reason.

Obviously talking about the inside of the locker. When you hold a door ajar you'll probably have your thumb on the inside.

All they need is the fingerprints on the inside for a few of these lockers. Quite likely if so many were stolen from. Police would catch the guy very quickly if he didn't use any gloves.

 

[Tefal]

Anyone else think the storey smells fishy?

 

[cupidstunt]

They should have put the paint somewhere better (inside edge of door maybe).

But if it was him, he should have been keel hauled then sent down to Davey Jones`s locker

arrrrrh.

 

[Energize]

Navy not heard of cctv then I take it?

 

[petemyster]

But then he had nothing to hide and (if it was me) would have told someone to try and get it off!

Its not like a base its a ship things get around very quickly so if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't have hid it!

Who would have believed him? Its pretty incriminating, the actual theif could just use that excuse equally well (assuming he isn't the thief). It is however the more sensible idea to come clean and not try and hide it, that way you have half a leg to stand on. I really hope he was the thief otherwise that's some serious mental scaring right there.

Great form of punishment though if it was the thief, I can't think of anying more effective (that sounds harsh, but if he stole from people who trusted him, he deserves every bit).

 

[LordSplodge]

not fair at all he may or may not have been a thieve but those guys ruined his career not really fair at all they should have got proper evidence.
EDIT i don't know why i quoted you sir lordsplodge??

I agree with you and quite like the title Sir LordSplodge

 

[physichull]

Anyone else think the storey smells fishy?

THIS. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it.

 

[Spitfir3]

THIS. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it.

Yeah, this. "Even the officers did it"... what are they, primary school children? People in those jobs aren't going to do that.

 

[Cyanide]

Don't these lockers have locks?

It proves he broke into the locker, unless he can think of and show a legitimate reason.

Obviously talking about the inside of the locker. When you hold a door ajar you'll probably have your thumb on the inside.

All they need is the fingerprints on the inside for a few of these lockers. Quite likely if so many were stolen from. Police would catch the guy very quickly if he didn't use any gloves.

If he was guilty and they had sufficient evidence then he would have been court marshalled. As he wasn't it's not the best idea to just assume he's guilty because of what could be circumstantial evidence.

 

[Tefal]

THIS. I'm sorry but I just don't buy it.

Yeah you'd have though this would have made it into the papers on a slow news day wouldn't you?

 

[Rroff]

Mob Justice

Unless there was absolutely 100% no way for him to have got it on his hands being honest or someone caught him in the act... it was absolutely disgusting... if he was guilty he deserved it but I'm afraid it sounds like its 50/50 that an innocent man got served by people unable to think things through in a mature fashion.

If he was guilty tho heh he got owned.

 

[^TANK^]

Fair justice ( assuming he was the guilty one )

 

[Cyanide]

If he was guilty tho heh he got owned.

Most important word highlighted above. When you use this word it gives reasonable doubt. When there is reasonable doubt you cannot go ruining someones life because you think something's been done wrong, regardless of whether you're certain or not.

[edit] In fact if this story is true then he's not had right to a fair trial, which is a much worse crime than stealing.

 

[Touchstone]

why didnt they set up a webcam?