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?
Last edited:
UEFA Euro 2020 Semi Finals ** spoilers ** [6th - 7th July 2021]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
- Status
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?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,166
- Location
- London
Another angle on Sterling - clearly tripped. 5:37 in
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.
So an American then, whose great great grandad was from Italy or something
they all say this. We also know Americans don't know a thing about football. For the record, I'm a viking.
Thought you meant Italy to win the cup at 2/1, sounded like a very good bet. That's only to win it in 90 mins though, which is not a good bet.
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.
Last edited:
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.
German betting sites have England as favourites too, although not by such a margin. I see us as about 55:45 favourites. We have a great shot at this.
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".
Not according to that wording of the law.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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