Here's to another one being released without charge, hopefully...

Leaving flowers outside the house seems like a good way to cause distress to the family, and remind them of this no doubt traumatic incident. I say we put all the people who left flowers in jail for about 18 weeks. I imagine it could actually feel quite threatening if loads of scumbags came and left flowers at your house, as if to say "one of your own killed one of ours, and we know where you live".
 
GreatAuk said:
Leaving flowers outside the house seems like a good way to cause distress to the family, and remind them of this no doubt traumatic incident. I say we put all the people who left flowers in jail for about 18 weeks. I imagine it could actually feel quite threatening if loads of scumbags came and left flowers at your house, as if to say "one of your own killed one of ours, and we know where you live".
Click to expand...

On what charge?

I love the idea that we can make up offences as we go along.
 
Vonhelmet said:
On what charge?

I love the idea that we can make up offences as we go along.
Click to expand...

Malicious Communications Act maybe? At some point in the past, someone has decided to make up a new offence, and that's how we've ended up with our current set of offences. I would like it if I was the one making up the offences, but I am not in the correct position to do so - someone else did it for me.
 
GreatAuk said:
Malicious Communications Act maybe? At some point in the past, someone has decided to make up a new offence, and that's how we've ended up with our current set of offences. I would like it if I was the one making up the offences, but I am not in the correct position to do so - someone else did it for me.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, except it isn't a communication delivered to a person and it's not intended to cause distress to the homeowner. Other than those minor flaws, I suggest you call the fuzz posthaste.
 
Meridian said:
And the law understands this perfectly well, and if that's all you do then charges will be dropped. You can even keep hitting them if they keep struggling or fighting back. The only cases of people being found guilty of serious offences when "defending" their homes are when the burglar is attacked as the run away, or after they fall and are clearly not fighting back. Or where you go to round up some mates to administer a kicking rather than call the police. There really is nothing wrong with the current law. Just a lot wrong with people not understanding it.


M
Click to expand...

How do you tell when their not fighting back though? you could walk up to a bad ass bouncer outside a bar and punch him in the nuts and you would have a good few seconds where he isn't fighting back, then a few more where he's kicking your head in.

A weird analogy I know but in the first gulf war after the Iraqi army that had invaded Kuwait retreated back into Iraq they were driving along the road a US air strike came over and destroyed the entire armoured column to make sure they stayed retreated. I agree with this mentality.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Well, OK, except it isn't a communication delivered to a person and it's not intended to cause distress to the homeowner. Other than those minor flaws, I suggest you call the fuzz posthaste.
Click to expand...
Well maybe it wasn't put into the hands of the homeowner as such, but being left outside the house it seems fairly clear who is intended to see them.

As for whether distress is meant to be caused, I would argue that it could well be meant to cause distress.
I personally imagine that I would find it distressing if flowers for the criminal who broke into my house, threatening my and my families safety were left outside my house.
 
GreatAuk said:
Well maybe it wasn't put into the hands of the homeowner as such, but being left outside the house it seems fairly clear who is intended to see them.
Click to expand...

They are not delivered to anyone. They are just left there. It doesn't even fall into the idea of communications that are intended for one person and seen by another. It's not a communication.

GreatAuk said:
As for whether distress is meant to be caused, I would argue that it could well be meant to cause distress.
Click to expand...

Speculative.

GreatAuk said:
I personally imagine that I would find it distressing if flowers for the criminal who broke into my house, threatening my and my families safety were left outside my house.
Click to expand...

You can't be found guilty of causing distress if that was not your intention at the time.

Anyway. I'm not defending their right to leave flowers there, and I'm sure it is a pain in the arse and possibly a threat to the homeowner. I'm just saying that if you are going to bring a charge then it had better be the right one, and I doubt that the right one is the MCA.
 
LeJosh said:
Generally though, if people stab the burgler more than once into the chest, they don't have much of a case. GO FOR THE LEGS PEOPLES. :p
Click to expand...

It was one in the leg that killed him apparently, so not very sage advice ;)

At the risk of this turning into a medical advice thread :p, I'll just point out that the femoral arteries go through the legs, and it's not a good idea to nick them with a knife.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
The police would not usually release the address details but the press will get wind of such matters by jungle drums and fair means or foul and once police activity as well as press is plain to see, it wouldn't take much to find the address in the scenario you mention.
Click to expand...
Wow that's scary, I would have thought data protection act would stop that being released. In case one of the departed's family members decided to practice "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth".
 
Castiel said:
Stabbing someone in the legs is likely to kill them. There are several large arteries above the knee called the Femoral Arteries, severing these arteries is highly likely if you stab someone above the knee which will lead to death very quickly.

Better yet, don't use an edge weapon at all, hit them with something else.
Click to expand...

americanpsychoz.jpg
 
UncleRuckus said:
Wow that's scary, I would have thought data protection act would stop that being released. In case one of the departed's family members decided to practice "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth".
Click to expand...

The press aren't interested in data protection against selling papers.

It doesn't take much to find out when the press are parked outside of an address though. The police wouldn't have released the address specifically but they would have had to attend and close down the scene by the very nature of what the job was.
 
britboy4321 said:
If a 7 year old boy climbs over the wall into my back garden to collect his football, takes one of my flowers 'for his mam', and suggests I leave him alone or he'll 'punch me', am I allowed to hack him to pieces with a chainsaw as he tries to leave? After all, he wouldn't be dead if he stayed off my property eh, so, er, it's his fault ..? :/
Click to expand...

Of course it is!

I'd also eat his heart, **** in his mouth and send the decapitated head back to his parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom