Boss lose house to thief!!! (2 Viewers)

Its sad that as story like this gets the rounds as the greatest threat to whatever.

The reason society has laws is to regulate and limit punishment to fit the crime. Eye for an eye limits the punishment to only an eye and not death. (it was a start) It beats stoning to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath.

I fail to see the boss as a hero when he acted illegally with three other men against one. Now he's a whiny little girl about it. Some hero. If the guy was legally arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced then such a punishment might fit.
 
Thanks. I have a 15 and 22 year old and if they got hooked on drugs I'd get crazy as well. My wife works in the local courthouse and brings home plenty of "cautionary tales" for the kids. Parenting isn't for sissies.

The daughter in the case sympathized with her mother.
 
The lawyers cleaned up. Dude got 5k, and the lawyers got 30k.
 
Sure, the boss is the bad guy because he humiliated the poor, noble THIEF. What an @#%$#^ idea. "Progessive" alert! :)

I am one of those "reactionaries" who thinks its perfectly OK to do things like shoot an intruder DEAD inside your house. Its quite easy to avoid getting shot -- just stay out of my house when you are uninvited.

What is wrong with a little homemade vengeance? It seems most people like the idea. How else to explain the immense popularity of those movies where the good guy goes out and solves his own problem via "payback" on the criminal doers. Those almost always do well at the box office. As Client Eastwood once said, "Make my day, punk". LOL

One of the US's core principles, and of western civilization to some degree, is individual responsibility. Its why we applaud those who take care of their own and abhor the parasites, free-loaders, collectivists and thugs. Things always change, but hopefully this never will! :)
 
Justice would have been the owner settling with the crook with an invalid cheque from the same account and also accepting a caution from the Police.

Terry
 
People working together makes a civilization, Western or otherwise. Nobody is sticking up for the guy accused of being a thief. I'm sticking up for laws myself.

Sounds like this story was bumped up in the news to divide people up. Must be a slow day for celebrities.
 
Thing with this case is that it was not a failure of the courts to punish the individual it was the stupidity of the police in seeing this case as being worthy of a caution and not arresting the chap and allowing it to be dealt with by the courts.

Its great having a ''people working together makes a society'' bit but, there are sections of our society which do not work in anyway than against the decent hard working and law abiding and, sadly, IMO, societal values have gone overboard in somehow seeing these people as victims. Until punishment meets the crime so, they clearly understand that society will not tolerate such acts then they will continue to do such acts.

I feel rather sorry for the real victims and not those who feel it acceptable to take take take
Mitch

Scott said:
People working together makes a civilization, Western or otherwise. Nobody is sticking up for the guy accused of being a thief. I'm sticking up for laws myself.

Sounds like this story was bumped up in the news to divide people up. Must be a slow day for celebrities.
Click to expand...
 
Decision to charge is no longer a police one, but a Crown Prosecution Service one. Being 'Cautioned' is a means of crime (or otherwise) disposal. It is recorded as a criminal conviction as such and will appear on the subject's criminal record. The subject would still be fingerprinted / photographed etc, but would not attend court.

The decision as to whether a subject may be arrested as a means of investigating a crime also has to satisfy certain points, and is not an automatic 'right' for officers. It doesn't specify if he was arrested here.
 
Mitch said:
Thing with this case is that it was not a failure of the courts to punish the individual it was the stupidity of the police in seeing this case as being worthy of a caution and not arresting the chap and allowing it to be dealt with by the courts.

Its great having a ''people working together makes a society'' bit but, there are sections of our society which do not work in anyway than against the decent hard working and law abiding and, sadly, IMO, societal values have gone overboard in somehow seeing these people as victims. Until punishment meets the crime so, they clearly understand that society will not tolerate such acts then they will continue to do such acts.

I feel rather sorry for the real victims and not those who feel it acceptable to take take take
Mitch
Click to expand...



"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

Well Mitch, Your signature actually backs up my point.
 
I always thought that so long as an offence was an ''arrestable'' offence and met the criteria for that then an officer can arrest. Is it still not the case that an officer can arrest if he believes an arrestable offence has been commisioned??? The theft of the money should have warranted his arrest (as it is an arrestable offence) and processing I.E. a file being prepared and submitted for CPS. If they decided insufficient evidence was shown then its there decision based on the criteria they use.

The police are 'gatekeepers' to the criminal justice system and have great autonomy as to who goes before the system. The police do charge or release and that may be on advice from CPS but, I was under the impression it was not the norm.

Thing is with this case I think he should have been dealt with by the courts not by way of caution as it gets on the publics nerves when these things happen with greater frequency
Mitch



Wraith said:
Decision to charge is no longer a police one, but a Crown Prosecution Service one. Being 'Cautioned' is a means of crime (or otherwise) disposal. It is recorded as a criminal conviction as such and will appear on the subject's criminal record. The subject would still be fingerprinted / photographed etc, but would not attend court.

The decision as to whether a subject may be arrested as a means of investigating a crime also has to satisfy certain points, and is not an automatic 'right' for officers. It doesn't specify if he was arrested here.
Click to expand...
 
I suppose it does but, I am sure this was not meant to be used in cases of theft. Well, I would hope not
Mitch

Scott said:
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."

Well Mitch, Your signature actually backs up my point.
Click to expand...
 
Mitch said:
I always thought that so long as an offence was an ''arrestable'' offence and met the criteria for that then an officer can arrest. Is it still not the case that an officer can arrest if he believes an arrestable offence has been commisioned??? The theft of the money should have warranted his arrest (as it is an arrestable offence) and processing I.E. a file being prepared and submitted for CPS. If they decided insufficient evidence was shown then its there decision based on the criteria they use.

The police are 'gatekeepers' to the criminal justice system and have great autonomy as to who goes before the system. The police do charge or release and that may be on advice from CPS but, I was under the impression it was not the norm.
Mitch
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, those days have gone in both areas.
Re Arrestable offences. Nowadays, even if someone has committed what used to ba an arrestable offence, there is still a necessity test that needs to be applied and satisfied before an arrest is made. Now, with a little bit of lateral thinking, the necessity test can usally be satisfied, but it is no longer an automatic given, and you have to potentialy account for the rationale leading to the decision to arrest. It's a pain, but in most cases where you'd expect an arrest to be made, it can be. On the positive side, those lower end offences whereby there was no direct power of arrest, now fall within the same necessity test.

Re Police vs CPS, the power of the custody sergeant has significantly diminished. Crown Prosecution Service review each case to determine whether or not the subject should be charged. Police can make representations, however, they look at it from a slightly different perspective to the police. Generally, if they feel there's less than a 50% chance of a successful prosecution, they won't allow the charge. As you can probably imagine, this is somewhat frustrating to say the least. :mad:
 
The CPS criteria has always been that standard I was never a fan of the 51% standard nor, the in the public interest which, is worse. I do recall a training inspector telling what were old stage one officers that as long as they arrested honestly believing what offence they arrested for had happened the force would back them. I know SOCAP 2005 changed arrestable offences but, the criteria did not fundamentally change from the PACE guidelines IMO. Police officers on the street don't have the luxury of time to contemplate all the extra legal issues taken at a later date, was my point. £800 plus is a sufficient amount to charge and, disposal of cases in such ways are what gets hostility towards police and the courts unecessarily though it may be IMO.
Mitch

Wraith said:
Unfortunately, those days have gone in both areas.
Re Arrestable offences. Nowadays, even if someone has committed what used to ba an arrestable offence, there is still a necessity test that needs to be applied and satisfied before an arrest is made. Now, with a little bit of lateral thinking, the necessity test can usally be satisfied, but it is no longer an automatic given, and you have to potentialy account for the rationale leading to the decision to arrest. It's a pain, but in most cases where you'd expect an arrest to be made, it can be. On the positive side, those lower end offences whereby there was no direct power of arrest, now fall within the same necessity test.

Re Police vs CPS, the power of the custody sergeant has significantly diminished. Crown Prosecution Service review each case to determine whether or not the subject should be charged. Police can make representations, however, they look at it from a slightly different perspective to the police. Generally, if they feel there's less than a 50% chance of a successful prosecution, they won't allow the charge. As you can probably imagine, this is somewhat frustrating to say the least. :mad:
Click to expand...
 
Mitch said:
The CPS criteria has always been that standard I was never a fan of the 51% standard nor, the in the public interest which, is worse. I do recall a training inspector telling what were old stage one officers that as long as they arrested honestly believing what offence they arrested for had happened the force would back them. I know SOCAP 2005 changed arrestable offences but, the criteria did not fundamentally change from the PACE guidelines IMO. Police officers on the street don't have the luxury of time to contemplate all the extra legal issues taken at a later date, was my point. £800 plus is a sufficient amount to charge and, disposal of cases in such ways are what gets hostility towards police and the courts unecessarily though it may be IMO.
Mitch
Click to expand...

I must have misunderstood what you were commenting on.
 
How does this necessity test work? Never heard of that. In the US, an arrest can be made on probable cause. However, a prosecution won't or may not be made if the chance of a conviction is not large.
 
Rutledge said:
Sure, the boss is the bad guy because he humiliated the poor, noble THIEF. What an @#%$#^ idea. "Progessive" alert! :)

I am one of those "reactionaries" who thinks its perfectly OK to do things like shoot an intruder DEAD inside your house. Its quite easy to avoid getting shot -- just stay out of my house when you are uninvited.

What is wrong with a little homemade vengeance? It seems most people like the idea. How else to explain the immense popularity of those movies where the good guy goes out and solves his own problem via "payback" on the criminal doers. Those almost always do well at the box office. As Client Eastwood once said, "Make my day, punk". LOL

One of the US's core principles, and of western civilization to some degree, is individual responsibility. Its why we applaud those who take care of their own and abhor the parasites, free-loaders, collectivists and thugs. Things always change, but hopefully this never will! :)
Click to expand...

I don't often agree with Rutledge but in this he his 100% right on.:salute::
Mark
 
My cousin was a cop and had to retire early.Not because of the criminals but he was fed up with the judges.The laws in the U.S. were set up to protect the innocent from being unfairly inprisoned.The founders did not forsee the animals and nuts that are running around now.
Mark
 
jazzeum said:
How does this necessity test work? Never heard of that. In the US, an arrest can be made on probable cause. However, a prosecution won't or may not be made if the chance of a conviction is not large.
Click to expand...

Brad,

Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005.

Copied & pasted the relevent bits (powers of arrest) to save me typing and in case I missed anything out.

The power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is
exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for
any of the reasons mentioned below it is necessary to arrest the
person in question.

The reasons are -

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case
where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person’s address;
(c) to prevent the person in question -

(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection
(6); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the
conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the
disappearance of the person in question.

(6) Subsection (5)(c)(iv) applies only where members of the public going about
their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person in
question.”

(e) is usually applicable, but there are times when you struggle to find the necessity, in which case, other investigative options have to be explored.
In reality, it doesn't change the way business is carried out drastically, just yet another consideration that needs accounting for.

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top