UEFA Euro 2020 Semi Finals ** spoilers ** [6th - 7th July 2021]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
I've said all I want to say on it tbh, but if you're so offended by it what do you plan on doing about it?

Why would you think that I may have a plan to stop moronic English cretins from booing another country’s national anthem?
I’m not particularly offended by it, I expect it, I’ve lived in this country long enough to know that it will often happen.
A psychologist once told me that Freud said that bad mouthing an opponent is a sure sign of an inferiority complex, but what do I know, I didn’t get further than grammar school.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,818
Personally find the booing really disappointing - sadly seems empty headed acting on impulse is increasingly the standard for this country however.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
An Italian/American friend in NYC WhatsApped me to say that it was the final that he’d hoped for.
“All we, (Italy), have to worry about is England’s pace, but Bastoni and Chiellini, (if he plays), will have your guys legs off, and make it look like the England player was committing the foul.”



So with a gazillion cameras on us, if I fired a gun at you and missed, the police would say, “Okay Jean, you meant to shoot him but you missed and he’s not hurt, now go home and don’t do it again.”
Gimme a break.



So booing means “We love you and your country, welcome to England”, I see.


You'd get charged with attempted murder. Not murder.

There's your break.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jun 2004
Posts
19,437
Location
On the Amiga500
An Italian/American friend in NYC WhatsApped me to say that it was the final that he’d hoped for.
“All we, (Italy), have to worry about is England’s pace, but Bastoni and Chiellini, (if he plays), will have your guys legs off, and make it look like the England player was committing the foul.”
So an American then, whose great great grandad was from Italy or something :p they all say this. We also know Americans don't know a thing about football.

For the record, I'm a viking.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
You'd get charged with attempted murder. Not murder.

There's your break.

I'm not a lawyer, but I remember someone explaining to me once that a common misconception is there are attempted crimes and crimes and that somehow the two are different. It's a weird one as for some things for example, theft, whether or not the perpetrator made it out the store, or was "successful", the crime is always theft and there is no such charge as "attempted theft" (contrary to what a lot of police officers believe!). Murder and some others are different due to the severity of the intent to prevent the obvious defence of "but they're not dead". But it's a weak argument in this case to differentiate as for things where the punishment for "attempted" is not defined separately (eg attempted murder) , the punishment is THE SAME as if the act had been carried out. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47

(1)A person guilty by virtue of section 1 above of attempting to commit an offence shall—

(a)if the offence attempted is murder or any other offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life; and

(b)if the offence attempted is indictable but does not fall within paragraph (a) above, be liable on conviction on indictment to any penalty to which he would have been liable on conviction on indictment of that offence; and

(c)if the offence attempted is triable either way, [F6or is low-value shoplifting (which is defined in, and is triable only summarily by virtue of, section 22A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980),] be liable on summary conviction to any penalty to which he would have been liable on summary conviction of that offence.

The intent was to shine the laser in the person's eyes. It was a lack of skill/competence/quality of product that prevented it. They could be charged under assault, irrespective of whether they got it in the keeper's eyes - where they could then be looking at ABH or GBH if it had damaged his eyesight.

Better still, if the person can be shown to be doing acts that would contribute to or lead up to the offence, but didn't get so far as being able to commit the offence, they can still be charged and prosecuted as if they had committed the offence.

Attempting to commit an offence.

(1)If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence.

(2)A person may be guilty of attempting to commit an offence to which this section applies even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

(3)In any case where—

(a)apart from this subsection a person’s intention would not be regarded as having amounted to an intent to commit an offence; but

(b)if the facts of the case had been as he believed them to be, his intention would be so regarded,

then, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, he shall be regarded as having had an intent to commit that offence.

So if a person's actions show they could reasonably be intended to commit the offence they can be charged as if they had committed the offence.

If a person intended to commit the offence they can be charged and tried whether or not their loony plans were actuable in reality.

If a person's intent was to commit an offence, even if they were so incompetent that their actions would otherwise have been too trivial or ineffective, they can still be tried as if they had succeeded.

This laser pointing person has no defence. They can be charged as if they had succeeded in blinding the keeper, be that temporarily or permanently.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
I'm not a lawyer, but I remember someone explaining to me once that a common misconception is there are attempted crimes and crimes and that somehow the two are different. It's a weird one as for some things for example, theft, whether or not the perpetrator made it out the store, or was "successful", the crime is always theft and there is no such charge as "attempted theft" (contrary to what a lot of police officers believe!). Murder and some others are different due to the severity of the intent to prevent the obvious defence of "but they're not dead". But it's a weak argument in this case to differentiate as for things where the punishment for "attempted" is not defined separately (eg attempted murder) , the punishment is THE SAME as if the act had been carried out. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/47



The intent was to shine the laser in the person's eyes. It was a lack of skill/competence/quality of product that prevented it. They could be charged under assault, irrespective of whether they got it in the keeper's eyes - where they could then be looking at ABH or GBH if it had damaged his eyesight.

Better still, if the person can be shown to be doing acts that would contribute to or lead up to the offence, but didn't get so far as being able to commit the offence, they can still be charged and prosecuted as if they had committed the offence.



So if a person's actions show they could reasonably be intended to commit the offence they can be charged as if they had committed the offence.

If a person intended to commit the offence they can be charged and tried whether or not their loony plans were actuable in reality.

If a person's intent was to commit an offence, even if they were so incompetent that their actions would otherwise have been too trivial or ineffective, they can still be tried as if they had succeeded.

This laser pointing person has no defence. They can be charged as if they had succeeded in blinding the keeper, be that temporarily or permanently.

Long post but all based on an incorrect set of premises I'm afraid.

Take the example of me going to punch you in the street. I miss. The police arrest me.

I will not be charged with assault. I would be charged with affray. Two different crimes with different sentences. Tbh I'd probably walk away with no more than a caution.

Taking your example of theft, to be guilty of theft you have to be proven to have the intent to permanently deprive someone of their property. Hence why theft of a motor vehicle and taking without owners consent are two different crimes. Intent and outcome. Both can have the same outcome but with different intent.

For the laser pointer there has been no ill effect therefore ABH or GBH aren't on the cards. At most it's assault.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
Long post but all based on an incorrect set of premises I'm afraid.

Take the example of me going to punch you in the street. I miss. The police arrest me.

I will not be charged with assault. I would be charged with affray. Two different crimes with different sentences. Tbh I'd probably walk away with no more than a caution.

Taking your example of theft, to be guilty of theft you have to be proven to have the intent to permanently deprive someone of their property. Hence why theft of a motor vehicle and taking without owners consent are two different crimes. Intent and outcome. Both can have the same outcome but with different intent.

For the laser pointer there has been no ill effect therefore ABH or GBH aren't on the cards. At most it's assault.

Depends on how severly they want to go for him. That might be the outcome, it doesn't mean that's what the law says. In your example of affray there are lots of different categories of offence and they select the most appropriate. Just so here, but it is to do with the perceived intent and/or severity had that succeeded. Someone who shines a laser pointer at an airplane can be chareged with either terrorism and/or endangering an airplane irrespective of intent or motivation or any "ill effect". Here the CPS could push for a charge more than assault, but it would probably be seen as disproportionate and not in the public interest. If it was felt important to make a statement to try to prevent future occurences then they might push to take a harder line. Either way thank you for acknowledging the guy can be charged with assault and not "attempted".
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Depends on how severly they want to go for him. That might be the outcome, it doesn't mean that's what the law says. In your example of affray there are lots of different categories of offence and they select the most appropriate. Just so here, but it is to do with the perceived intent and/or severity had that succeeded. Someone who shines a laser pointer at an airplane can be chareged with either terrorism and/or endangering an airplane irrespective of intent or motivation or any "ill effect". Here the CPS could push for a charge more than assault, but it would probably be seen as disproportionate and not in the public interest. If it was felt important to make a statement to try to prevent future occurences then they might push to take a harder line. Either way thank you for acknowledging the guy can be charged with assault and not "attempted".

It doesn't matter how severely they want to go for him. The facts matter.
The outcome.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2019
Posts
3,307
But if those "ill effects" are irrelevant to the charge then that is immaterial. Go back to the airline example. Whether or not the plane crashes is immaterial. Whether the person intended to blind the pilot is immaterial. Whether the pilot's vision is or isn't affected is immaterial. It is endangering an airplane and prosecutable. If it can be shown the person had motivations or terrorist leanings they can also be charged with terrorism. That the plane landed safely is immaterial to the charge. It might mean a lighter sentencing than if all the people on board had died, but the charge and the crime, as defined in law, are unaffected.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
4,071
Location
Worcestershire
Except it does...the CPS won't proceed with a prosecution where there isn't a reasonable chance of success. There won't be a reasonable chance where the evidence was beamed around the world and showed no ill effects.
You are intelligent from the way you argue but you're also a bit of an idiot for basing your entire line of reasoning on a few still images.

Watch the video here, it dances across his eyes at least once. There is no way you can say definitively it didn't affect him, you've just come to that assumption yourself for fun.
Euro 2020: Denmark's Kasper Schmeichel targeted with laser before England penalty - BBC Sport

I even caught a snip-shot of it shown either side of his eyes so presumably part of the laser in his eyes, and he blinks immediately after this
schm.png
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
You are intelligent from the way you argue but you're also a bit of an idiot for basing your entire line of reasoning on a few still images.

Watch the video here, it dances across his eyes at least once. There is no way you can say definitively it didn't affect him, you've just come to that assumption yourself for fun.
Euro 2020: Denmark's Kasper Schmeichel targeted with laser before England penalty - BBC Sport

I even caught a snip-shot of it shown either side of his eyes so presumably part of the laser in his eyes, and he blinks immediately after this
schm.png

Where's his reaction? The beam doesn't go in his eye as there'd be an involuntary reaction, nevermind the voluntary shielding or complaint.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
You are intelligent from the way you argue but you're also a bit of an idiot for basing your entire line of reasoning on a few still images.

Watch the video here, it dances across his eyes at least once. There is no way you can say definitively it didn't affect him, you've just come to that assumption yourself for fun.
Euro 2020: Denmark's Kasper Schmeichel targeted with laser before England penalty - BBC Sport

I even caught a snip-shot of it shown either side of his eyes so presumably part of the laser in his eyes, and he blinks immediately after this
schm.png

This seems reasonable to me, I’ve had enough of yo-yoing back and forth about intent and outcome.
I don’t imagine that whoever held the laser was worried about any possible outcome, I think that he just had the intent of distracting Schmeichel, and IMO should get a custodial sentence.
How about reverting to discussing the possible result this Saturday?

Why would you think that I may have a plan to stop moronic English cretins from booing another country’s national anthem?
I’m not particularly offended by it, I expect it, I’ve lived in this country long enough to know that it will often happen.
A psychologist once told me that Freud said that bad mouthing an opponent is a sure sign of an inferiority complex, but what do I know, I didn’t get further than grammar school.

I appear to have jumped out of turn with the above, I thought that @Eddie was asking me a question, when in fact he appeared to be asking @Andybtsn, sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom