know your rights - ANSWERS

[Yahwe]

Firstly let me say how happy i was to see so many of you both getting elements right and, much more importantly, approaching the questions in a systematic and logical manner.

a) you are on a train platform and see a £50 note you pick it up and take it, illegal?

- yes. English law has a law of finding, its a simple concept we learn in nursery yet it remans true. The essence of this law lies in how people relate to property, if you find something you gain a right to that property. that right can only be trumped by the person who's property it was before it was lost.
- the criminal law clouds the water somewhat here, to avoid criminal conviction (and i should point out that a criminal conviction would not affect your property right gained through the law of finding, it would merely carry criminal sanction) you must ensure that you do not act 'dishonestly'. this could involve things such as asking people nearby if it belongs to them or more proactive measures depending on the value. with money little effort need be taken.

b) you're a girl and have a boyfriend you feel is going to leave you, can you pierce the condom to get pregant?

- semen is a something to which the law attaches property, the boyfriend owns his. by piercing the condom the girl will aquire property that is not hers.
- this could lead to either criminal charges of theft or obtaining property by deception, or civil actions for damages.

c) can you say '**** off' to a policeman?

- yes. freedom of speech is integral to english law.
- a few of you mentioned public order offences, the test here would be wether you caused "shock alarm harrasment or distress" just saying **** off would not cross this test.

d) you kiss a girl's hand without asking? consequences?

- no, if the girl wished to press charges under david blunket's new act you would have to prove that she had consented or that you believed she had consented and that your belief was reasonable.
-i'm afraid the consequences would include the sexual offenders register.
- interestingly because of changes in society (ie. hand kissing being now uncommon) the de-minimis rule [below] would not apply to save you.

e) on the tube you need to get out but a man is blocking yourway, can you push him off?

- all forms of physical contact are an assault, however 2 basic rules (not to be confused with a defence) negate this. those rules are 'consent' and 'de-minimis'. with de-minimis a person is said to have consented to the contact even though they may even stand up in court and say they did not.
- everyone in a public place is deemed to consent to all assaults which are usual in the circumstances and which could have been foreseen; these are de-minimis assaults.
- so you can push past someone on the street, or push a commuter onto the platform in order to get off.

f) you see a baby drowning in a puddle, do you have to save it?

- no. the law is reluctant to plant duties on people to positively act in a certain way and thus tries to avoid forcing you to do anything as much as it can.
- this situation is different if you have a special relationship with the baby - one of parental control. but i thought it important to see how the law starts from the general proposition that there is no duty and will afterwards consider imposing a duty on specific and numerically small groups

thank you to those wo participated.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

c) can you say '**** off' to a policeman?

- yes. freedom of speech is integral to english law.
- a few of you mentioned public order offences, the test here would be wether you caused "shock alarm harrasment or distress" just saying **** off would not cross this test.

It's a criminal offence to use offensive language in public. If your in an interview room and you say it, then it's all very well and good. This one doesn't boil down to freedom of speech - it comes down to where you say it.

If you go and say **** off to a policeman in the middle of your town center, he'll arrest you. Many a time have I put someone in the cells for the night for telling me to **** off when I stopped them for minor bollockings.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by skiddy

It's a criminal offence to use offensive language in public. If your in an interview room and you say it, then it's all very well and good. This one doesn't boil down to freedom of speech - it comes down to where you say it.

If you go and say **** off to a policeman in the middle of your town center, he'll arrest you. Many a time have I put someone in the cells for the night for telling me to **** off when I stopped them for minor bollockings.

and you pressed charges for what exactly?

[skiddy]

We didn't, they just spent the night in the cell and were handed back to unit the next day.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by skiddy

We didn't, they just spent the night in the cell and were handed back to unit the next day.

so you arrested them for a non existing offence and imprisoned them illegal over night.

and you wonder why the police are becoming more unpopular

PS if this has happened to anyone then please contact a lawyer, damages for illegal detention start at over £1,000 for a single night

[Stew]

He's military police duder, they've always been unpopular.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Stew

He's military police duder, they've always been unpopular.

they can't arrest civilians so it doesn't matter

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

they can't arrest civilians so it doesn't matter

I don't ever remember mentioning civilians.

(But I think you'll find we can, s.24 PACE)

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by skiddy

I don't ever remember mentioning civilians.

(But I think you'll find we can, s.24 PACE)

the questions and (here's what we call 'logic' for you) hence the answers were about english law applying to the readers of GD (taken to be civilians).
what you do to military personel was not within the ambit of the discussion.
thus; (more of this l o g i c stuff for you)
a) if your reply was that you regularly arrest military personel for saying **** off to you, that's sweet of you to tell us but it doesn't matter
b) if your reply meant you acted under your PACE powers to arrest civilians then you are under the same laws as a regular police officer, in which case you can not arrest civilians for saying **** off to you and if you do you are liabe to disciplinary action and your employers will be liable for compensation.

does that clear it up or were the words i used too big?

[skiddy]

Find somewhere above that states I regularly arrest, or indeed did arrest this person. I simply said he spent a night in the cells.

Under s.24 you couldn't arrest them anyway, as simple civilian arrest can only be used to arrest people who have committed, are suspect to have committed or are going to commit / you have reason to suspect they are going to commit an offence punishable by five years inprisonment or an offence covered by statute - which bad language doesn't fall in to.

Come on Yawhe, you're biting awfully easily this evening.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by skiddy

Find somewhere above that states I regularly arrest, or indeed did arrest this person. I simply said he spent a night in the cells.

Originally Posted by skiddy

If you go and say **** off to a policeman in the middle of your town center, he'll arrest you. Many a time have I put someone in the cells for the night for telling me to **** off when I stopped them for minor bollockings.

here. see?

Originally Posted by skiddy

Under s.24 you couldn't arrest them anyway, as simple civilian arrest can only be used to arrest people who have committed, are suspect to have committed or are going to commit / you have reason to suspect they are going to commit an offence punishable by five years inprisonment or an offence covered by statute - which bad language doesn't fall in to.

well at least i have taught you something.
my replies to your 4 posts haven't been wasted since you have now finally understood the answer given in post 1.

some students need 1 on 1 tuition.

[skiddy]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

here. see?

Nope, I don't. I see me saying he spent a night in the cells, I don't see it saying anywhere that we arrested him.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by skiddy

Nope, I don't. I see me saying he spent a night in the cells, I don't see it saying anywhere that we arrested him.

don't undermine all your good work so far.

sleep on it, it'll become clearer.

[skiddy]

That sounds like a good idea, I'm tired.

[Ninja_spammer]

Could swearing or speaking in an abusive manner to a police officer not be used as 'evidence' in and of itself as anti-social behavior/disorder or drunk and disorderly and thus get your ass charged?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Could swearing or speaking in an abusive manner to a police officer not be used as 'evidence' in and of itself as anti-social behavior/disorder or drunk and disorderly and thus get your ass charged?

Anti social behavoir is not a 'charge' you can't be arrested for it.
a court can order what is called an anti social behavior order if it has evidence of a complaint of anti social behavior.
these are ASBOs or david blunkett's curse
if a person is said to have sworn regularly at police officersor others and IF the court considers that to be anti social behavior. that court (and it will be a magistrates or in lawyers speak 'retard' court) has the right to issue an ASBO.
ASBOs have terms so the court would order "not to say offensive words in a public place in england or wales" or some such.
after that if that person was found to be saying '**** off' the police would arrest for breach of that ASBO (it carries 5 years in prison, not because its serious but so police officers can arrest people. played david).

then one of 2 things happen.
either the person gets off at trial (i got someone off for this, bless him) or he gets convicted. if he gets convicted his lawyers appeal and (what we call a 'proper' or Crown) court will strike out the original ASBO thereby letting the chap off.

i have no love of ASBOs. they do not fit within 800 years of english criminal law. they are a punishment you can recieve without ever having been convicted. they are very wrong indeed. but they appear to not be sexy enough for the public to care and of course they don't upset daily mail readers because they are only ever used against the poor.

[Nodrog]

b) is absolutely ridiculous

[furball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

b) is absolutely ridiculous

Not really, its just typical of the law - to achieve the right answer via bad working.

At the end of the day, the just outcome is achieved, so all are happy (except the single mother who just got OMG!!WTFPWNED)

[Ninja_spammer]

I was not refering to ASBO's but just behavior that could be called anti-social/disorderly, breach of the peace would probably be the charge up here I dont know if it is the same in England and Wales.

I think ASBO's can have there uses, mainly in cases with shitty neighbours (Stop being shit or your ass is evicted and we do not care if you have 14 children) which I thought was their intended purpose.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

PS if this has happened to anyone then please contact a lawyer, damages for illegal detention start at over £1,000 for a single night

you mean I could do this weekly by walking up to a policeman, telling him to **** off, getting arrested and then dragging them through court? or would the situation change if I was doing it willingly in order to effectively earn money, in the knowledge that they probably didn't know the law properly?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

At the end of the day, the just outcome is achieved, so all are happy (except the single mother who just got OMG!!WTFPWNED)

If the law is poorly formulated and doesnt appear to be motivated by any particular underlying set of guiding principles, it becomes difficult to predict what will happen in cases which differ slightly in material circumstances from previously seen instances, even if the important moral principles involved are identical.

For example, going on Yahwe's property right account, what would happen if the girl impregnentated herself from semen in a condom or tissue that the male had thrown away? If a man spits out poo during buggery and his partner pockets it, would this constitute theft (perhaps allowing a penis in your bum involves 'de-minimis' consent to loss of faeces?). Or, assuming the girl had pierced the condom, would the male be legally responsible for the child after the woman was convicted for 'theft'? There doesn't seem to be any way to answer these questions from a purely property rights perspective, which seems to imply that the property angle is the wrong way deal with the issue in general.

Even if there are actual legal precedents for the things I have listed and Yahwe could explain exactly what the law states in both cases, it would be difficult for someone without a legal background to know in advance what would happen without either conducting a lot of research, or paying for legal advice. The law, ideally, should be based on easily understood principles so that everyone of average intelligence can have a relatively good idea of where they stand, and know (to a sufficient degree of precision), which actions are and are not prohibited. Allowing concepts to go on holiday, and find application in cases which have absolutely nothing in common with those they were originally designed to cover, flies directly in the face of this principle. If you hadn't devoted a great deal of time to studing the law, how could you possibly guess that piercing a condom is illegal because of cumburglary? The essential principle by which piercing a condom is considered wrong has nothing whatsoever to do with loss of property. If a girl 'stole' her partner's cum from a used condom and kept it in a box beside her bed as "something to remember him by", it would be insane to convict her for theft, and yet this scenario appears legally identical to the case of the pierced condom. The essential factor isnt that she is 'stealing' semen - it is what she intends to do with it.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

snip

Perhaps Yahwe can help me here, I'm just a lowly first-year law student


This is the problem with not having any clear law on the issue, it means that often, judges will find some other law (e.g. Yahwe's suggested law of property) and attempt to apply it to the issue. Unfortunatly you then get other cases (such as the examples you suggested) attempting to claim on similar grounds, but where the end result wouldn't be just.

I've had a look on some of the legal databases to try to find either cases or journal articles on the issue, but I can only find stuff about sperm donation. There's no statues on the issue (from personal memory anyway, although the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act definatly doesn't cover it). Probably any case on it (either criminal, via the Child Support Agency pursuing the father, or a civil action for damages) would end up in the House of Lords.

So really, its a hard case, and it'd depend on what judges heard a case on it. Those looking for justice for the father would probably extend the law of property, but those taking literal interpretations of the law would find against the man.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

For example, going on Yahwe's property right account, what would happen if the girl impregnentated herself from semen in a condom or tissue that the male had thrown away?

that's exactly the same, surely you can see the method of acquiring someones property does change whether it is theft or not.

as a side point one of the laws general principles is that there's no such thing as divestment of a property right by abandonment. you can throw away the property but not your rights to it.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If a man spits out poo during buggery and his partner pockets it, would this constitute theft (perhaps allowing a penis in your bum involves 'de-minimis' consent to loss of faeces?).

faeces is not considered property.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Or, assuming the girl had pierced the condom, would the male be legally responsible for the child after the woman was convicted for 'theft'?

yes under family law. the theft conviction wouldn't change that.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

There doesn't seem to be any way to answer these questions from a purely property rights perspective, which seems to imply that the property angle is the wrong way deal with the issue in general.

yes there is and i'm trying to teach it to you.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The law, ideally, should be based on easily understood principles so that everyone of average intelligence can have a relatively good idea of where they stand, and know (to a sufficient degree of precision), which actions are and are not prohibited. Allowing concepts to go on holiday, and find application in cases which have absolutely nothing in common with those they were originally designed to cover, flies directly in the face of this principle.

the law is made up of a collection of relatively simple concepts which fit together to achieve a result.
its not 'going on holiday' its the inter relationship between these concepts which you see.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nonentity

Those looking for justice for the father would probably extend the law of property, but those taking literal interpretations of the law would find against the man.

there is no 'extension' of the law of property.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

you mean I could do this weekly by walking up to a policeman, telling him to **** off, getting arrested and then dragging them through court? or would the situation change if I was doing it willingly in order to effectively earn money, in the knowledge that they probably didn't know the law properly?

yes.

of course being in the cells is not a fun as you think

[furball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there is no 'extension' of the law of property.

Just went and re-read your answers, understand what you mean now. Agreed, no extension of the law of property.

[roadrunner_0]

oh, and by the way, your wrong about c

154. In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

4A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

so the copper could have you under that amendment to the public order act.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

oh, and by the way, your wrong about c

154. In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

4A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

so the copper could have you under that amendment to the public order act.

"with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress" I suppose one might argue the case over what the intent was. if the intent was to get locked up in a cell in order to make some money sueing the police, then they aren't really guilty.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

oh, and by the way, your wrong about c

154. In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

4A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

so the copper could have you under that amendment to the public order act.

The efforts you'll go to to prove Yahwe wrong

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Stew

The efforts you'll go to to prove Yahwe wrong

well, i work with an ex copper, and knew yahwe was wrong, i just needed to know which legislation proved it

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

"with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress" I suppose one might argue the case over what the intent was. if the intent was to get locked up in a cell in order to make some money sueing the police, then they aren't really guilty.

yeah, but it doesn't matter, as if he was proved of being guilty of the offence, then he would be changer, and couldn't sue anyway, so the point would prove moot

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

oh, and by the way, your wrong about c

154. In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—

"Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.

4A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

so the copper could have you under that amendment to the public order act.

as i believe i pointed out, saying **** off would not pass the test.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

yeah, but it doesn't matter, as if he was proved of being guilty of the offence, then he would be changer, and couldn't sue anyway, so the point would prove moot

my point is that simply saying **** off does not appear to be enough. If it went to court and he said that he did not say it to cause offence or harass or whatever, but did it with the specific intent of screwing the police over for a couple of grand, then he hasn't broken the law... depending of course on whether the court believes him or not.

what's "changer"

[roadrunner_0]

bollocks, that was meant to say charged, damn typo's

and it doesn't matter if he used that as his defence, the policeman would still be well within his rights to arrest him, wether he was subsequently charged or not.

the shock/alarm/distress would depend entirely upon the person.

ALSO: you at no point said gain a conviction, you just said arrest, and under the strict interpretation of the act, you could be arrested for saying **** off to a policeman.

as with everything else, the law is open to interpretation


EDIT: ffs, saying **** off to a copper, if he had anything about him at all, he could claim it caused him alarm as he didn't know what you were going to do next or suspected that you were going to cause a breach of the peace.

[Radical Edward]

aah right. well lets drop the being charged thing, you are right that I never mentioned gained a conviction, that would rely on the magistrate or jury disagreeing with you anyway wouldn't it? .... I thought the point was that the police have no grounds on which to arrest you anyway.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

aah right. well lets drop the being charged thing, you are right that I never mentioned gained a conviction, that would rely on the magistrate or jury disagreeing with you anyway wouldn't it? .... I thought the point was that the police have no grounds on which to arrest you anyway.

exactly! and as i said, they would be able to charge you, they would probably even be able to get a conviction, just depends on exactally how they charged you and what with etc

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

exactly! and as i said, they would be able to charge you, they would probably even be able to get a conviction, just depends on exactally how they charged you and what with etc

so I can't do the earning a grand thing then? shame

[roadrunner_0]

nope, wouldn't work, shame though cos it would be a nice little earner
(although if the law was worded like it is in yahwe's world, they would just screw you on a wasting police time offence anyway)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

the shock/alarm/distress would depend entirely upon the person.

EDIT: ffs, saying **** off to a copper, if he had anything about him at all, he could claim it caused him alarm as he didn't know what you were going to do next or suspected that you were going to cause a breach of the peace.

Aren't these laws supposed to be mildly objective? If someone ran up to me and said "a-wizzle-wuzzle-woso" I'd be rather alarmed and would wonder what they were going to do next. As well as this I've also said **** off to many people and not done anything else illegal afterwards. Personally I find the idea of making up excuses so the police can arrest people highly suspect.

[roadrunner_0]

i never said it waasn't suspect, but, its a consequences thing, no one would objectively walk up to a copper, say **** off and then walk away again.

basically, yahwe's initial question, as posed, was crap, and took no notice of the fact that there would be a legitimate claim that a public order offence had been commited, thus resulting in an arrest, and possibly a conviction

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

aah right. well lets drop the being charged thing, you are right that I never mentioned gained a conviction, that would rely on the magistrate or jury disagreeing with you anyway wouldn't it? .... I thought the point was that the police have no grounds on which to arrest you anyway.

a police officer would have no grounds under which to arrest a person who had simply said **** off to him.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

i never said it waasn't suspect, but, its a consequences thing, no one would objectively walk up to a copper, say **** off and then walk away again.

Stalin agrees with those sentiments.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

i never said it waasn't suspect, but, its a consequences thing, no one would objectively walk up to a copper, say **** off and then walk away again.

basically, yahwe's initial question, as posed, was crap, and took no notice of the fact that there would be a legitimate claim that a public order offence had been commited, thus resulting in an arrest, and possibly a conviction

do you imagine for a moment that i was unaware of the public order act?

as i stated initially. as i shall continue to state. saying **** off is not enough to pass the test.

i know that you do not understand this. if you want i will explain it to you on irc if you pm me.
otherwise, please stop trolling my thread.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

a police officer would have no grounds under which to arrest a person who had simply said **** off to him.

what??? wtf??? so, as i can't be bothered to go through all of my posts again, i will sum them up for you:

if you walked up to a police officer in the conduct of his duty, and told him to **** off, he could arrest you under a public order offence. depending upon circumstances, you may or may not be convicted of said public order offence, this doesn't matter refering to the question 'as posed'.

i would certainly hope you do know the public order offence, your still wrong about its application though


EDIT: (for clarity as my point doesnt seem to be able to get through your smugly superior attitude) you are forgetting that such terms as 'alarm and offence' are subjective rather than objective.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by skiddy

I don't ever remember mentioning civilians.

(But I think you'll find we can, s.24 PACE)

Can you arrest officers? That is, if Field Marshal the Lord Bramall told you to f*** off could you have him locked in the cells for a night?

[skiddy]

Look what I started!

Originally Posted by Proteus

Can you arrest officers? That is, if Field Marshal the Lord Bramall told you to f*** off could you have him locked in the cells for a night?

Yes, as long as you have due reason and authorisation from another officer of equal or higher rank to perform the request - a slight technicality with Field Marshal would be that there is no higher rank in the British Army, although I suppose the Queen could ask me to arrest him...

[roadrunner_0]

now how funny would that be

[skiddy]

As far as I'm concerned, I think its pretty much unanimous that people are well within their rights to tell me to **** off, as many do all the time.

In an attempt to seriously answer Proteus' question - if Officer X (Maj) broke the law in a way which warranted arrest, I would be required to gain authorisation from an RMP Major or above to arrest him - a 2Lt / Lt / Capt could not give me the authorisation. If no equal or higher ranking officers were available I would have two choices.

One - arrest him under s.24 of PACE as a Citizens Arrest - if his crime allowed such action

Two - arrest him anway, making the decision at the time to do so based on the likelyhood of an equally or higher ranking officer authorising it post-arrest - this would again depend on the crime.

The good thing is, an officer being arrested tends to spell end of career for that officer, so it very very rarely happens and when it does its usually SIB making the arrest after investigation of said officer. s.74 of the Army Act 1955 allows those acting under authority of the Provost Marshal (essentially all RMP JNCO's and above) to lawfully arrest any other military rank up to and including Warrant Officer without prior authorisation and without warrant.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

b) you're a girl and have a boyfriend you feel is going to leave you, can you pierce the condom to get pregant?

- semen is a something to which the law attaches property, the boyfriend owns his. by piercing the condom the girl will aquire property that is not hers.
- this could lead to either criminal charges of theft or obtaining property by deception, or civil actions for damages.

I was just doing an essay on a case like this, except the guy had HIV, he knew, didnt use a condom and didnt tell the women, she got pregnant, and she became HIV + as did her child, so she took him to court and won. He was sent down, and I think she got some money.

[pig]

oh ye another thing are u so bored that u are taking notes from ure lectures and writing them on GD?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by pig

oh ye another thing are u so bored that u are taking notes from ure lectures and writing them on GD?

no.