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

BillyBobBS

Worlds gone mad.

tomwaterford

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Worlds gone mad.

Any virtue signalling though??

:pac:

Allinall

Plymouth Ale wrote: »

How long is it ok to stare at someone before it becomes harassment, 10 seconds, 20 seconds?

That would be up to a judge.

Ghost Train

If you compare the behavior to that of paparazzi, in most cases they never seem to have a problem stalking people in public places

Allinall

Ghost Train wrote: »

If you compare the behavior to that of paparazzi, in most cases they never seem to have a problem stalking people in public places

If you think about the intention, you'll see the difference .

suicide_circus

Should have been 70 YEARS

Irish Guitarist

I wonder is there more to it. Like maybe he does this on a regular basis or he has previous convictions. It says he started behaving 'oddly'. I wonder what that entails.

Poor Uncle Tom

So, this is the new natural selection!

Ghost Train

Allinall wrote: »

If you think about the intention, you'll see the difference .

I guess one group gets paid for being creepy and probably wouldn't leave if you asked them

What the news story says is "When outside, Yexley put his face to the glass window and stared in at the worker then left". 2 hours later.."he returned and was spotted walking past the pharmacy, again staring in towards the same counter assistant. The police arrived and arrested Yexley, of no fixed abode, for the menacing behaviour"

Just odd that you can be arrested and held for 40 days before trial and then get 30 more for staring. The news story is a bit light on any other details of his intent or what his problem was with the pharmacy assistant. Doesn't say if they asked him to go away or if the police had talked to him before or what the history was. Does say he admitted the charge but that's only described as looking through a window

Ghost Train

Ghost Train wrote: »

What the news story says is "When outside, Yexley put his face to the glass window and stared in at the worker then left". 2 hours later.."he returned and was spotted walking past the pharmacy, again staring in towards the same counter assistant. The police arrived and arrested Yexley, of no fixed abode, for the menacing behaviour"

Just odd that you can be arrested and held for 40 days before trial and then get 30 more for staring. The news story is a bit light on any other details of his intent or what his problem was with the pharmacy assistant. Doesn't say if they asked him to go away or if the police had talked to him before or what the history was. Does say he admitted the charge but that's only described as looking through a window

The answers to both issues raised in the last paragraph are contained in the quote.

People of no fixed abode are often remanded in custody following a bail hearing, before trial. For obvious enough reasons, I would have thought, the difficulty in locating them if they don't turn up.

And the charge is not only described as looking though a window, the charge relates to menacing behaviour.

Ghost Train

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The answers to both issues raised in the last paragraph are contained in the quote.

People of no fixed abode are often remanded in custody following a bail hearing, before trial. For obvious enough reasons, I would have thought, the difficulty in locating them if they don't turn up.

And the charge is not only described as looking though a window, the charge relates to menacing behaviour.

But going on the news story alone the only menacing behaviour mentioned is the staring from outside in the street, it doesnt really say he was stalking or being agressive or making threats or harassing in any other way than the staring these two times, doesn't say he resisted arrest or threatened police. Doesn't say he was an addict or off his head. It's odd if the 70 days was just for staring, it's what the headline implies. Maybe it's just poor journalism to paint it that way if there was more to it.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

it's not the job of the justice system to give messages, it's their job to punish crimes and protect society. it's the job of the education system to give messages.
it's being concerned about sending messages and deterrents that has the justice system the way it is, because it has forgotten what it's job actually is

And yet we often see judges saying that a strict sentence is enforced to send a message to others not to engage in the same crime.

Big Bag of Chips

Ghost Train wrote: »

But going on the news story alone ......

which is just a news story.

He was arrested for "menacing behaviour". The shop managers, police and judge will have had more detail. News stories are usually worded sensationally.