If I jump on a car....
Discussion
LivinLaVidaLotus said:
So if I kill someone who has no family or friends and dispose of them so they are never found, I've not comitted an offence?
Errr no cos the victim is the murdered person.The offence has been commited, but there would be no investigation untill the body was found etc.
Edited by ^Slider^ on Monday 3rd September 14:51
Let me just clarify.......
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
LivinLaVidaLotus said:
Yes, but they can't tell you about it can they? Neither can their friends or family.
There is a victim in this instance, the person whose car got damaged (amongst other things).
No they cant cos they are dead.There is a victim in this instance, the person whose car got damaged (amongst other things).
You still commit the offence, its just no investigation untill the body is found.
^Slider^ said:
Let me just clarify.......
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
just like the time 4 drunks smashed up my midget & did about £2.5k of damage - it wasnt followed up as it wasnt in the public interest. even though the 'gang' was followed & pointed out to the police by about 4 witnessess. btw identification happened within 20mins of the attack.A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
still public interest obviously doenst include protection of property or the prosicution of criminals.
do i sound bitter? moi?
Hooli said:
^Slider^ said:
Let me just clarify.......
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
just like the time 4 drunks smashed up my midget & did about £2.5k of damage - it wasnt followed up as it wasnt in the public interest. even though the 'gang' was followed & pointed out to the police by about 4 witnessess. btw identification happened within 20mins of the attack.A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
still public interest obviously doenst include protection of property or the prosicution of criminals.
do i sound bitter? moi?
nope didnt go that far, police decided it wasnt in the public interest to even arrest them. they knew who they were but they were on drug rehab & a new charge would have made them come off that scheme.
so great i can get away with anything if i pretend im on drugs, must remember that.
FFS! public interest is stopping this stuff NOT letting them get away with it. lock them up in a PROPER jail, stone cells, no tv, nothing except a bucket in the corner & 30mins a day slop out. no access to drunks so thats cured & they get PUNISHED for it.
so great i can get away with anything if i pretend im on drugs, must remember that.
FFS! public interest is stopping this stuff NOT letting them get away with it. lock them up in a PROPER jail, stone cells, no tv, nothing except a bucket in the corner & 30mins a day slop out. no access to drunks so thats cured & they get PUNISHED for it.
^Slider^ said:
Let me just clarify.......
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
If you carry out an act that is in violation of the law - you are guilty of an offence - its that simple.A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
Is there such a thing as a victimless crime?
^Slider^ said:
Hmmmm,
Personally i would have complained about that.
How on earth was it written off without criming i dont know
too long ago to bother about now, but it things like that which mean i have very little respect for the police nowdays. almost everytime ive needed them they've been useless, yet when im on the road suddenly they do something.Personally i would have complained about that.
How on earth was it written off without criming i dont know
Moonhawk said:
^Slider^ said:
Let me just clarify.......
A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
If you carry out an act that is in violation of the law - you are guilty of an offence - its that simple.A victim would need to come forward to confirm that damage has been caused to the vehicle.
Without that then we cannot prosicute becasue we cannot prove that damage has been caused!
As a result if there is no victim then there is noone to confirm that a crime has been commited hence no offence.
If there was a witness that can confirm that damage has been caused then there is an offence, but without a "looser" or victim then it is not likely to be followed through!
Is there such a thing as a victimless crime?
Criminal damage requires that there is a victim ie that someones owns property and that property has been damaged willfully or wrecklessly.
If there is no victim then there is no one to say that they own that property and it has been damaged.
And yes there are victimless crimes technically some public order offence (but i guess regina is the victim!)
^Slider^ said:
No its not that simple.
Criminal damage requires that there is a victim ie that someones owns property and that property has been damaged willfully or wrecklessly.
If there is no victim then there is no one to say that they own that property and it has been damaged.
And yes there are victimless crimes technically some public order offence (but i guess regina is the victim!)
So damaging stuff that has no apparent owner isnt a crime? In reality there is very little that doesnt belong to somebody. Whether than person comes forward to claim said property is irrelevent.Criminal damage requires that there is a victim ie that someones owns property and that property has been damaged willfully or wrecklessly.
If there is no victim then there is no one to say that they own that property and it has been damaged.
And yes there are victimless crimes technically some public order offence (but i guess regina is the victim!)
Also - even if the property has no owner (or the owner doesnt care). This type of damage usually has to be cleaned up - thereby costing US money through increased taxes.
Public order offences also cost money to police, clean up etc - so in a way - we are all victims of these types of crime too. If you are doing something that can be considered a public order offence then it is likely that you are causing distress/inconvenience/annoyance to somebody.
I see where your going....
But,
In law there needs to be a victim.
If for example a guy smashes a bittle in the high street which does not belong to him.
Technically the bottle belongs to someone and as such could be criminal damage.
Now we dont actually have a victim that can be traced.
Therefore we cannot prove that the "suspect" did not have permission to damage the property and that the property did indeed belong to someone.
As such there would not be criminal damage as such as there is no victim.
Even though the cost of cleaning the mess up, the police attendance etc is there, it does not factor as a victim.
Dont confuse costs which we all bear through taxation as being a victim. You are talking i guess moral victim and not actual victim. Was it your property that got damaged.. No so you are not the victim.
Public order offences such as S5 public order only need someone to be likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress, they need not actually to be present or have suffered Harassment alarm or distress, and as such no victim.
But,
In law there needs to be a victim.
If for example a guy smashes a bittle in the high street which does not belong to him.
Technically the bottle belongs to someone and as such could be criminal damage.
Now we dont actually have a victim that can be traced.
Therefore we cannot prove that the "suspect" did not have permission to damage the property and that the property did indeed belong to someone.
As such there would not be criminal damage as such as there is no victim.
Even though the cost of cleaning the mess up, the police attendance etc is there, it does not factor as a victim.
Dont confuse costs which we all bear through taxation as being a victim. You are talking i guess moral victim and not actual victim. Was it your property that got damaged.. No so you are not the victim.
Public order offences such as S5 public order only need someone to be likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress, they need not actually to be present or have suffered Harassment alarm or distress, and as such no victim.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff