Sentencing options - you decide.

anglolawyer said:
If it was an accident then I'm not sure it's even a crime (don't tell Truethat I said that). I would dismiss him from the force. If the child sustained harm as a result of not receiving medical attention ... even that would not be a crime in our law. I had better check the link to see what he got :D
Click to expand...

The officer "jokingly" threatened the kid with the weapon, and then it went off. If there had been a legitimate reason for the officer to pull the weapon, such as the kid not complying with a lawful order, and he accidentally fired it, that would be one thing. But he didn't. He pointed a weapon at a kid for laughs.

The only reason why he's getting off is because he's a cop. Had anyone else done such a reckless thing they would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
 
anglolawyer said:
I am a bit skeptical about this 'damage to the railway' thing. He was not prosecuted for criminal damage and it isn't obvious how a 4 by 4 would damage a railway anyway. I suspect they could not prove damage found (if any) on the railway had been caused by him, in which case it should not have been a factor in the sentencing.
Click to expand...

According to this article:
He also denied that he had driven on the rail tracks of the Snowdon Mountain Railway, causing thousands of pounds worth of damage.
Click to expand...
the question of thousands of pounds damage to the tracks was a specific accusation he had to answer in court.

Potentially damaging? What can this mean?
Click to expand...

It means he could potentially have damaged things? You don't have to actually damage something in order to commit a crime. Drink driving, for example, is a crime because you might potentially hurt someone, not because every single drunk driver is guaranteed to do so. Depending on which report you read, this guy either damaged the railway or did something that had the potential to damage it. Either way it doesn't seem unreasonable to punish him more than someone who never went anywhere near the railway would have been. The same is true for the parking on the roof part. As it turned out his car didn't fall through the roof, but that doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous to park there.

Note that I'm still not convinced he deserved any jail time at all. Personally I'd go with taking his license and car, plus community service to help with environmental protection in the area. I just don't agree with you that this was a crime that did no harm and wasn't dangerous. It wasn't dangerous in the same way as dangerous driving on a busy motorway is, but there was still plenty of potential to cause damage and hurt people.

Newtons Bit said:
The only reason why he's getting off is because he's a cop. Had anyone else done such a reckless thing they would have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

It's illegal for anyone other than a police officer to have a taser in the first place, so yes.
 
Cuddles said:
It's illegal for anyone other than a police officer to have a taser in the first place, so yes.
Click to expand...

They're legal in New Mexico, where this happened:


Taser devices are not considered firearms by the United States government.[55] They can be legally carried (concealed or open) without a permit in 43 states. They are prohibited for citizen use in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island,[56] as well as certain cities and counties. Their use in Connecticut, Illinois, and Wisconsin[57] is legal with restrictions.[58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser
 
anglolawyer said:
OK, but something you may not know is that it pretty unusual for sentences to be ordered to run consecutively. It's much more common for them to run concurrently. Which may seem pointless but it is so. In that case, the more usual one, he would have served just 10 months (or about half that with good behaviour). I think the imposition of consecutive sentences was harsh.
Click to expand...

I agree that the judge certainly didn't pull any punches, do you know if the Judge commented on his choices? I'd suspect that it was a way to stay within sentencing guidelines while reflecting the way that the offences after the first were deliberate and provocative affronts to the law.
 
The Don said:
I the linked case, the driver of the car that hit and killed the girl got 7 years. I think (but could very well be wrong) that pleading guilty results in a 50% reduction in sentence.

The person who got the 18 months (increased to 3 1/2 years) was driving another car that was involved but did not hit and kill the victim.
Click to expand...

I'd read the article pretty quickly and missed the bit where it said they'd been doing more than double the speed limit through the town center. My bad. It said they'd been in the pub, wonder what the alcohol levels were? Either way inexcusable.

His sentence seems reasonable if you agree with 50% for taking responsibility for his actions, hers..... Probably fair I suppose but it still feels like she got off lightly.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I agree that the judge certainly didn't pull any punches, do you know if the Judge commented on his choices? I'd suspect that it was a way to stay within sentencing guidelines while reflecting the way that the offences after the first were deliberate and provocative affronts to the law.
Click to expand...

No, I only read what you did. I can imagine the prosecution barrister sympathising with the defence barrister afterwards in the robing room (where they change out of the wigs, gowns, tabs and wing collars) the latter having to go down to the cells to commiserate with and explain the sentence to his client. The judge will have imposed the sentences one by one and then finished by saying they were to run consecutively (like administering a sharp stab). It's quite possible the accused would have been taken down from the dock without understanding what that meant until his counsel told him half an hour or so later.
 
lobosrul said:
A police officer "joking around" with a 10 year old child pulls his taser and "accidentally" tazes (is that a word?) him. Also, he did not immediately seek medical treatment for the unconscious boy. To be clear, the child was not being threatening to anyone, and it was not part of an authorized demonstration of his taser.
Click to expand...

My guess is a month off with pay. He should at least get probation, primarily for delaying medical treatment.

Also I would guess the kids parents sued and settled for $15,000.
 
My turn

- the illegal collection of 31 eggs from hen harrier, merlin, red throated divers, curlew, fulmar, dunlin and a starling. The charges were for taking and possessing eggs and disturbing rare and protected birds. There was a noticeable drop in the local bird population for the species involved.

Two males, both working, no previous convictions of note. Your sentences your pretend honours please.
 
Nessie said:
My turn

- the illegal collection of 31 eggs from hen harrier, merlin, red throated divers, curlew, fulmar, dunlin and a starling. The charges were for taking and possessing eggs and disturbing rare and protected birds. There was a noticeable drop in the local bird population for the species involved.

Two males, both working, no previous convictions of note. Your sentences your pretend honours please.
Click to expand...

I read of another case involving illegal egg collecting (a larger number) where the guy got a conditional discharge and a small fine. So I suspect your case got something vastly different?
 
Nessie said:
My turn

- the illegal collection of 31 eggs from hen harrier, merlin, red throated divers, curlew, fulmar, dunlin and a starling. The charges were for taking and possessing eggs and disturbing rare and protected birds. There was a noticeable drop in the local bird population for the species involved.

Two males, both working, no previous convictions of note. Your sentences your pretend honours please.
Click to expand...

If they are rare birds (starlings aren't rare but the others might be) then it's jail time. I would give them two months each, or two weeks, not sure. I bet they actually got one to two years (or you wouldn't be asking).

Ever here the one about the three magistrates who were all stopped one night by the village bobby and done for cycling without lights? They appeared before themselves the next day and decided to take turns to be tried. The first one was convicted and fined £1. Same with the second. When the third was found guilty the bench was outraged: 'this is the third case of this kind we've heard today! Six months imprisonment.'
 
The cop in the case I posted earlier was suspended for 3 days. The family are now suing the department. If I had done the same thing he did, I'd be looking at a lengthy sentence in the NM state pen. Nothing about what the cop did had anything to do with his job or law enforcement, so the penalty should be exactly the same as if a private citizen had down it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/10-year-old-tasered-new-mexico_n_2050463.html

Nessie said:
My turn

- the illegal collection of 31 eggs from hen harrier, merlin, red throated divers, curlew, fulmar, dunlin and a starling. The charges were for taking and possessing eggs and disturbing rare and protected birds. There was a noticeable drop in the local bird population for the species involved.

Two males, both working, no previous convictions of note. Your sentences your pretend honours please.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure how to pass sentence on this one. It depends on how endangered the birds are and what the exact circumstances were. Was it on their own property, or some sort of national park or bird sanctuary? Was it some sort of illegal enterprise, and the authorities know it was much more than 31 eggs in total, or did they really only take 31 eggs for their breakfast? Is it a well known law they were breaking or something obscure?

I could say anywhere between a $200 or $300 fine to a year in jail, depending on the exact circumstances.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul said:
......


I'm really not sure how to pass sentence on this one. It depends on how endangered the birds are and what the exact circumstances where. Was it on their own property, or some sort of national park or bird sanctuary? Was it some sort of illegal enterprise, and the authorities know it was much more than 31 eggs in total, or did they really only take 31 eggs for their breakfast? Is it a well known law they were breaking or something obscure?

I could say anywhere between a $200 or $300 fine to a year in jail, depending on the exact circumstances.
Click to expand...

It was on a nature reserve, it was 31 eggs they were caught with and they were collected and not for breakfast:)

Answer in about half an hour.
 
Nessie said:
The answer - they were fined £90,000 ($142,600) each.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/egg-thieves-fined-record-pounds-90000-1263828.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/WE'LL+GO+TO+JAIL+SAY+EGG+THIEVES.-a061074158

http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/vermin_patrol_for_howl_65.htm

I thought I better provide more than one source so you believe that is what happened :D
Click to expand...
Cool. I agree with that so long as they make them pay! I have a dark suspicion that an enormous amount of fines are not paid.
 
anglolawyer said:
Here are three recent cases from the UK. I want you to pass sentence. No googling to look up what each defendant actually got.

Case A

Two businessmen perpetrated a series of mortgage frauds worth £750M (yes, million).

Case B

A guy twice drove his Range Rover up mount Snowdon (Wales's highest peak) and parked it there. He failed to turn up at court and posted a message on the courthouse saying 'you can't catch me'.

Note: Snowdon is three thousand feet high. A railway line runs all the way to the top where there is a snack bar.

Case C

A guy sued his local authority (local government) after injuring himself when crossing their land. He was supported by two witnesses. They all signed 'statements of truth' to support the claim but the claim was dismissed when CCTV evidence showed they had made it up. The local authority then successfully brought proceedings for contempt of court and they were duly sentenced.

I will reveal the answers after a few guesses as I think they are interesting. For the Americans, we are a lot softer than you so I will probably have to halve your guesses to bring them into line but it's the ratio between them that interests me mainly. Er, no one got the death penalty btw.:)
Click to expand...

A: Death
B: Death
C: Death
 
anglolawyer said:
Cool. I agree with that so long as they make them pay! I have a dark suspicion that an enormous amount of fines are not paid.
Click to expand...

I found that whilst trying to find a case I knew about where a guy was fined £16,000 for an illegal birds egg collection. The reason behind the huge fine is the crime does not carry a prison sentence, but non payment of a fine does. So slap an enormous fine, the don't pay and serve time instead.

I cannot find what the final outcome actually was.
 
Nessie said:
I found that whilst trying to find a case I knew about where a guy was fined £16,000 for an illegal birds egg collection. The reason behind the huge fine is the crime does not carry a prison sentence, but non payment of a fine does. So slap an enormous fine, the don't pay and serve time instead.

I cannot find what the final outcome actually was.
Click to expand...

There should be a prison sentence for stealing eggs from rare or endangered species. I really wonder about our political system when it has no time to pass such a sensible law but plenty of space for constant, populist fiddling with the criminal justice system and erosion of basic rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom