Man gets 70 days in jail for "creepily" staring at someone.

Sweetemotion

tomwaterford wrote: »

He was told off by the police and returned just in time for dinner to stare in the window at this person (presumably to catch them going out for food?)


If twoz my sisters/anyone i get on with...he was trying to intimidate I'd not be impressed with this behaviour and be hoping this lad gets checked out by a proper mental health/physiologists.

He wasn't told off by the police.

If there was more to this story surly it would be easy to find.

tritium

Id be fairly certain there are other details the court took into consideration, exactly as they do in every other case.

Unfortunately that won't stop the good folks of AH pilloring the court system for being wrong. Exactly as they do in every other case where they think the sentence was wrong.

Only difference here will be the outraged and the staunch defenders will switch sides since instead of Anto only getting x years this guy got 70 days.

Hmmmm, might be worth getting my popcorn.....

end of the road

Hammer89 wrote: »

I can see why some would find it excessive but, at the same time, I have no problem with the sentence. Staring at someone through a shop window, making her uncomfortable enough to warrant a phonecall to the guards, is abnormal behaviour and such a weird thing to do should be nipped in the bud in my view.

If he got away with it, who's to say he wouldn't have cranked the creepiness up a notch and started following her home, or doing some other weird sh*t like rooting tampons out of her bin and putting them through her letter box. With weirdos like this, I often think they probably start out small and graduate to full-on stalking.

Seventy days can either be seen as extremely harsh, or just harsh enough to make him consider knocking this sort of thing on the head going forward. It's a deterrent and it's not unthinkable to wonder whether the judge spared other women the anguish of this bloke doing more weird stuff in the future. I say fair play.

there is no evidence that it will be a deterrent. chances are it won't be.
it's why there is a crime problem, because the justice system is focused on the deterrent which won't be a deterrent, rather then punishment of the individual and protection of society.

Sweetemotion

tritium wrote: »

Id be fairly certain there are other details the court took into consideration, exactly as they do in every other case.

Unfortunately that won't stop the good folks of AH pilloring the court system for being wrong. Exactly as they do in every other case where they think the sentence was wrong.

Only difference here will be the outraged and the staunch defenders will switch sides since instead of Anto only getting x years this guy got 70 days.

Hmmmm, might be worth getting my popcorn.....

I hope there were other details because going to jail for staring at someone and making them feel uncomfortable is out rages and should be nipped in the bud before it gets out off hand.

He pleaded guilty so evidently he accepted he was behaving in a menacing manner.

Of course staring can be threatening and intimidating. If he spent his time outside a school staring in at kids would we say it was fine?

mzungu

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No it's not a joke.
Poor some guy in Scotland got 70 days in jail for staring at someone.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15622122.Man_jailed_for_creepily_staring_at_Glasgow_pharmacy_assistant_through_window/

Another Glasgow man was in court for the offence of staring in 2012.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24536996

Does anybody else find this insane? :eek:

Not at all, it's proper order IMO. If anything they should have locked him up for longer to act as a deterrent to others. Intimidation and stalking is nasty stuff.

Sweetemotion

Deleted User wrote: »

He pleaded guilty so evidently he accepted he was behaving in a menacing manner.

Of course staring can be threatening and intimidating. If he spent his time outside a school staring in at kids would we say it was fine?

But he wasn't outside a school, he got 70 days in jail for staring in a shop window and making the assistant feel uncomfortable.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

But he wasn't outside a school, he got 70 days in jail for staring in a shop window and making the assistant feel uncomfortably.

No, he got 70 days for menacing behaviour. Which he admitted. In court.

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

No, he got 70 days for menacing behaviour. Which he admitted. In court.

Staring was the menacing behaviour. So yes he got 70 days for staring.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

But he wasn't outside a school, he got 70 days in jail for staring in a shop window and making the assistant feel uncomfortably.

I appreciate he wasn't outside a school, the point I was making was that the act of staring can be menacing. So the mere "how can staring be a crime" holds little water, of course it can. And obviously he himself accepted that, in the particular circumstances that arose, it was menacing. Not sure what the defence is, beyond an objection to the length of the sentence.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Staring was the menacing behaviour. So yes he got 70 days for staring.

Do you not think there's a difference between looking at someone, and staring at them in a menacing manner?

He's not glancing at the recipient, he's not throwing an admiring glance in someones direction, he's standing outside a store staring in the window consistently and in a menacing manner, and admitted it in court.

He himself plead guilty to menacing behaviour, but apparently you think it wasn't.

wingsof daun

I stare regularly - that's me saying "I appreciate your beauty". Women reciprocate usually.

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

Do you not think there's a difference between looking at someone, and staring at them in a menacing manner?

He's not glancing at the recipient, he's not throwing an admiring glance in someones direction, he's standing outside a store staring in the window consistently and in a menacing manner, and admitted it in court.

He himself plead guilty to menacing behaviour, but apparently you think it wasn't.

I'd love to know what the menacing behaviour was and who decided it warranted 70 days in jail.

I just find it bizarre and a little extreme.

Suckit

While this is not the point, 70 days in jail for a homeless man in Scotland is probably a welcome change for November/December/January.

Full time served he will get out late January.

The Legend Of Kira

Berserker wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Last time I was in Dublin July 2016, remember getting something to eat in Burger King on O Connell street sat near the doors as weren,t many tables available that afternoon, some fellow clearly under the influence of something kept walking up & down outside talking to himself , he,d stop every few minutes & stare in at customers eating then proceed to walk up & down again talking to himself, guess what though I didn,t go ringing the Guards to complain about some fellow staring in at customers at burger king.

That's a non-event in that part of the city. You'll find lots of very interesting characters around O' Connell street and Abbey street lower. Temple Bar has a completely different set of odd balls again. Why didn't you chose to go to Burger King instead of McDonalds, as a matter of interest?

Lets just say I prefer Burger King over Mcdonalds.

The Legend Of Kira

Hammer89 wrote: »

I can see why some would find it excessive but, at the same time, I have no problem with the sentence. Staring at someone through a shop window, making her uncomfortable enough to warrant a phonecall to the guards, is abnormal behaviour and such a weird thing to do should be nipped in the bud in my view.

If he got away with it, who's to say he wouldn't have cranked the creepiness up a notch and started following her home, or doing some other weird sh*t like rooting tampons out of her bin and putting them through her letter box. With weirdos like this, I often think they probably start out small and graduate to full-on stalking.

Seventy days can either be seen as extremely harsh, or just harsh enough to make him consider knocking this sort of thing on the head going forward. It's a deterrent and it's not unthinkable to wonder whether the judge spared other women the anguish of this bloke doing more weird stuff in the future. I say fair play.

I think he should of been given a caution/warning by the police first before bringing him before a court, still some stuff we don,t know if he was under the influence of drugs or if he as mental health problems .

Fr_Dougal

retro:electro

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'd love to know what the menacing behaviour was and who decided it warranted 70 days in jail.

I just find it bizarre and a little extreme.

The staring?
Seriously, what are you not getting here?

The Legend Of Kira

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I think he should of been given a caution/warning by the police first before bringing him before a court...

Unless he had previous and had already used his caution/free pass.

Sweetemotion

anna080 wrote: »

The staring?
Seriously, what are you not getting here?

I'm not getting. That, staring at someone and making them feel uncomfortable can get you 70 days in jail.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'm not getting. That, staring at someone and making them feel uncomfortable can get you 70 days in jail.

Would you get it if it happened to a school kid?

If so, then you get that it can happen, you just disagree that it happened here on these facts, although the perp accepted that it did.

retro:electro

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'm not getting. That, staring at someone and making them feel uncomfortable can get you 70 days in jail.

But he admitted to doing it in a menacing manner. He stood outside this persons workplace- twice- and stared in the window with a purpose to intimidate. It wasn't an oopsie poopsy I was just browsing the window your honour- he admitted to being menacing. I'm glad this is being taken seriously. We could do without weirdos like this walking the streets thank you very much

Sweetemotion

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you get it if it happened to a school kid?

If so, then you get that it can happen, you just disagree that it happened here on these facts, although the perp accepted that it did.

Have you ever seen a case where a perp was jailed for staring before.
In all your court appointments?

Sweetemotion

anna080 wrote: »

But he admitted to doing it in a menacing manner. He stood outside this persons workplace- twice- and stared in the window with a purpose to intimidate. It wasn't an oopsie poopsy I was just browsing the window your honour- he admitted to being menacing. I'm glad this is being taken seriously. We could do without weirdos like this walking the streets thank you very much

Lets lock up all the weirdos so.

retro:electro

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Lets lock up all the weirdos so.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

This again.

It's basically used to put women down, while handing a neat excuse to every man who's ever behaved in a way that makes someone uncomfortable - "If I looked like Tom Hardy, she'd think my staring in the window at her while she works in menacing and intimidating way romantic instead of worrying" while painting the woman in an unflatteringly shallow light.

I'm sure it happens sometimes with particularly vacuous people, but it's not a rule of thumb the way some think. Sometimes it really is the mans fault and not the womans, believe it or not.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

well, britain is going that way so you may have to get used to it.
it will be "he spoke to me" soon enough.
granted it sounds like this particular chap was a bit of a creep.

Nobody is going to go to jail for simply speaking to someone. Ever. Calm down.

tomwaterford

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I'm not getting. That, staring at someone and making them feel uncomfortable can get you 70 days in jail.

Would yous prefer it went unpunished??

He pleaded guilty to menacing behaviour....if someone turning up and staring in the window and trying to un-nerve someone isn't menacing behaviour. ..what is?

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

The court obviously thought it was menacing enough to warrant the sentence, and I assume they were privy to more information than the scant article.

I'll remember that Candie next time you feel a man gets too lenient a sentence.

'Ah well now in fairness, the courts obviously thought the sentence was warranted and sure they have more information to hand than we do, so who are we to argue'.

Yeah, I can imagine that going down well with you. Come on, courts fcuk up all the time.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Have you ever seen a case where a perp was jailed for staring before.
In all your court appointments?

No. But saying something is rare is not one and the same as saying it's impossible. We both agree that someone staring at school kids should be in trouble, but I've never seen that either.