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

Sweetemotion

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:

Sin City

Was he fapping while staring ?

ANDREWMUFC

He was staring at her ass

fergiesfolly

Excessive. Maybe.
But you know what...F#¢k him.
Acting like an arsehole, scaring some girl trying to do her job. He might re-think his behaviour and a few more might learn from it.

Sweetemotion

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Excessive. Maybe.
But you know what...F#¢k him.
Acting like an arsehole, scaring some girl trying to do her job. He might re-think his behaviour and a few more might learn from it.

I can see the thanks this post will get.

Excessive. Maybe you think? It's fecking crazy. He was staring for gods sake.

Ewan Hoosarmi

You mean I'll have to curtail my staring activities?

lazybones32

I'm always staring at women's a$$es. I guess i should be on death row for it.

"Staring creepily" - who decides what passes as creepy? Does the offender have to show the court the face they made while looking?

Church on Tuesday

Yup, the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

retro:electro

Oh come on now. It's a little more than "just staring at her". He had his face pressed up against the glass in her place of work- twice. Imagine how intimating that would be? The UK are starting to take cases of stalking/intimidation very seriously. Maybe the sentence is a little excessive but he'll think twice next time he takes a notion to be a creepy weirdo.

Edited to say I realise I've said "her" when the article doesn't specify a gender.

GritBiscuit

He stared at a particular shop assistant through the window. Came in asking for something not stocked by the pharmacy and then proceeded to act strangely. He left then came back later to stare through the window again at the same assistant. That's not glancing a second too long while checking someone out.

He also admitted the charge...but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

The Legend Of Kira

First question comes to mind is, was he on anything or under the influence of anything ? 
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.

Sweetemotion

GritBiscuit wrote: »

He stared at a particular shop assistant through the window. Came in asking for something not stocked by the pharmacy and then proceeded to act strangely. He left then came back later to stare through the window again at the same assistant. That's not glancing a second too long while checking someone out.

He also admitted the charge...but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Do you think staring twice at somebody deserves 70 days in jail?

TerrorFirmer

In fairness it is far more accurate to say he was jailed for intimidation and sinister behavior....which it was. Imagine how unnerving that would be, you'd be terrified. I don't think it's excessive given the actual circumstances.

He wasn't arrested and hauled before the courts for just 'staring' at some random person. All the ass connoisseurs on this thread are safe.

GritBiscuit

Sweetemotion wrote:

Do you think staring twice at somebody deserves 70 days in jail?

Depends what constitutes staring. In order to get a conviction there would need to be evidence of more than a couple of glances. There would need to be multiple witness testimony that he was making a nuisance of himself.

The man was of no fixed abode and may be a regular through the courts, he may have a drug issue and he able to avail of a programme behind bars, we just don't know the details beyond the usual red top clickbait...

Church on Tuesday

It's excessive. Put him in for, say, a month. That should teach him a lesson, but for all we know, there could be underlying mental health issues at play.

There is worse antisocial behaviour that would deserve 70 days or more for that matter.

Allinall

It's the middle of winter.

I'd say he's disappointed the sentence wasn't longer.

Homeless person gets a couple of months inside with warmth, three meals a day and a nice Christmas dinner thrown in.

What's not to like?

Outlaw Pete

The problem here is consistency. Quite often I read about far more serious crimes getting community service in the UK, so why is that not good enough here.

IamtheWalrus

When a tidy girl goes past me in the street, I sometimes give an inconspicuous sniff to smell her fragrance. Should I hand myself in?

Captain Obvious

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Do you think staring twice at somebody deserves 70 days in jail?

Nobody thinks that. Can you point me to the offence of staring in the Scottish statute books? I notice all the stories on this seem to omit the actual charge. I'm guessing it's because it includes words such as distress, threatening or menacing.

Sweetemotion

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody thinks that. Can you point me to the offence of staring in the Scottish statute books? I notice all the stories on this seem to omit the actual charge. I'm guessing it's because it includes words such as distress, threatening or menacing.

Ok man gets 70 days in jail for staring menacingly at someone.

Nothing wrong with that right? Maybe next time he will know better. :rolleyes:

Captain Obvious

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ok man gets 70 days in jail for staring menacingly at someone.

Nothing wrong with that? Maybe next time he will know better. :rolleyes:

One would hope so. At least them some young one won't have to worry about what he's gonna do next.

GritBiscuit

Church on Tuesday wrote:

It's excessive. Put him in for, say, a month. That should teach him a lesson, but for all we know, there could be underlying mental health issues at play.

There is worse antisocial behaviour that would deserve 70 days or more for that matter.

We don't know if this was a first-time conviction or not. It may be one of many and the last may have come with the threat of a custodial sentence for the next offence.

He would have been entitled to legal representation and had he made the successful defence of mental incapacity, he would have been referred to a suitable facility. He pled guilty, that's all we know.

Mister Vain

He was arrrested for "menacing behaviour." Holy jasus.

Big Bag of Chips

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The problem here is consistency. Quite often I read about far more serious crimes getting community service in the UK, so why is that not good enough here.

Often community service is offered in lieu of prison time. Maybe he opted for prison time.

Hammer89

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.

IamtheWalrus

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

When a tidy girl goes past me in the street, I sometimes give an inconspicuous sniff to smell her fragrance. Should I hand myself in?

Yes

Jimbob1977

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

When a tidy girl goes past me in the street, I sometimes give an inconspicuous sniff to smell her fragrance. Should I hand myself in?

Yes, Dr. Lecter

Stick to the Chianti and fava beans

Berserker

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?

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 can see how someone staring intently through the window as someone works and doesn't move can be very concerning.

Also the article doesn't state the gender of the person being subjected to this, so perhaps it wasn't some poor slob stealing a quick glance at a hot girls butt, but a person with some unfounded grudge against a guy who works in the pharmacy, being deliberately intimidating.

Sentenced to 70 days, but almost certainly out much much sooner given the overcrowding.

selectamatic

Double cheeked up on a Thursday afternoon...

tomwaterford

Mister Vain wrote: »

He was arrrested for "menacing behaviour." Holy jasus.

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.

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.