davieG Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Boys walk free in trial over laser Two teenagers have walked away from court after being accused of shining a laser pen into the cockpit of a police helicopter. The boys, aged 15 and 16 from Leicester, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at youth court yesterday accused of recklessly endangering the aircraft and its three passengers on October 26, 2009. A trial took place yesterday after the boys pleaded not guilty. But interview evidence was dismissed when it was heard that police had not explained the meaning of the word reckless to the boys.
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 what happened to , "Ignorantia juris non excusat" ?
davieG Posted 12 November 2010 Author Posted 12 November 2010 what happened to , "Ignorantia juris non excusat" ? That would be classed as abusive the the poor dears
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 That would be classed as abusive the the poor dears quite so , i always thought it was the duty of their own legal representative to explain their situation with regard to the case
davieG Posted 12 November 2010 Author Posted 12 November 2010 quite so , i always thought it was the duty of their own legal representative to explain their situation with regard to the case As serious as it could have been I'd have thought a major telling off would have sufficed unless of course they have a history of being reckless.
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 As serious as it could have been I'd have thought a major telling off would have sufficed unless of course they have a history of being reckless. yes probably sledgehammer / nut etc
davieG Posted 12 November 2010 Author Posted 12 November 2010 yes probably sledgehammer / nut etc A visit to see the air ambulance at work bringing in some road accident victims might have had an effect.
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 A visit to see the air ambulance at work bringing in some road accident victims might have had an effect. i could see this sort of thing working , but i think there is a real danger of kids doing stuff just for voyeuristic reasons , ( just as rubberneckers at the scenes of accidents ) but it's an idea worthy of investigation
Babylon Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Do the police need to explain the meaning of every word now then? If they were being interviewed then they would of had a solicitor with them, is it not their job to make sure their client understands what the hell is going on.
davieG Posted 12 November 2010 Author Posted 12 November 2010 i could see this sort of thing working , but i think there is a real danger of kids doing stuff just for voyeuristic reasons , ( just as rubberneckers at the scenes of accidents ) but it's an idea worthy of investigation Good point.
Lillehamring Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Do the police need to explain the meaning of every word now then? If they were being interviewed then they would of had a solicitor with them, is it not their job to make sure their client understands what the hell is going on. yeah, surely based on that loophole you could get away with any crime.... "no, your honour, the police didn't explain the meaning of the word 'stab'"
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 yeah, surely based on that loophole you could get away with any crime.... "no, your honour, the police didn't explain the meaning of the word 'stab'" I've had a long held belief / suspicion , that loopholes in the law are there by design, and are used and tested on occasion for nefarious purposes ( this being a sort of tester case ) , so that the rich and powerful can get off with stuff by these means . ( although i've absolutely no evidence of this, as it's just my conspiritorial mind working overtime )
Jon the Hat Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 What nonsense. If you accept that they had to know pointing a laser in someone's eye means they cannot see, and that being able to see is clearly required to fly a helicopter, then this technical distinction is nonsense. Disagree that a telling off is appropriate at the ages of 15 and 16. Would you say the same if the helicopter had crashed?
StanSP Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Is 'reckless' really that hard a word to understand? Are they that unintelligent? Don't answer that; they did shine a laser into a police helicopter. Kind of answers my own question there...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Buy them a Bryan Adams CD. Then they will know the meaning of Reckless AND be suitably punished!
broughtonblue Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Surely its a case of knowing right from wrong, at 15 they know this, let's start getting tough in cases like this. Shoot the barstads!!!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Surely its a case of knowing right from wrong, at 15 they know this, let's start getting tough in cases like this. Shoot the barstads!!! Are you suggesting the police be equipped with these?
broughtonblue Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Are you suggesting the police be equipped with these? Excellent idea, you're on my wavelength
Smudge Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Only if it doesn't crash is it ...........reckless
Trav Le Bleu Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Only if it doesn't crash is it ...........reckless wreckless
Zingari Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 does anyone else remember wreckless eric ? he was a bit of a twat though
J.Lisemore Posted 12 November 2010 Posted 12 November 2010 Think I speak for most people on here in saying, I knew what reckless meant when i were 15.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.