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

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.

Sweetemotion

tomwaterford wrote: »

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?

A caution would do surly not 70 days in jail.

He was arrested and kept in custody for almost a month before the court trial. Does that seem fair to you?

tomwaterford

Sweetemotion wrote: »

A caution would do surly not 70 days in jail.

He was arrested and kept in custody for almost a month before the court trial. Does that seem fair to you?

It deosnt tbf

But reading between the lines here,suggests he's perhaps not mentally stable enough to be released

(Wheter he should be in jail etc is a whole other can of worms)

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

If I thought for a moment that 70 days would actually be served you might have a point, but the Scottish prison system is so overcrowded that people rarely serve much more than a fraction of a short sentence for a non-violent crime.

Your tone seems a little personal, Pete.

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

It deosnt tbf

But reading between the lines here,suggests he's perhaps not mentally stable enough to be released

(Wheter he should be in jail etc is a whole other can of worms)

I wonder if he was sent down so there would be an opportunity to take a psych evaluation? If he was obviously ill and given his homelessness, it's a good point.

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

they will in britain. not in ireland so it won't effect us, but britain is becoming very authoritarian, so watch out.

Ara stop. This kind of mumbo jumbo does nobody any favours.

Grab All Association

He or she could've been humongous

Poor Uncle Tom

ANDREWMUFC wrote: »

He was staring at her ass

Couldn't she have let it outside at least?

Even Jesus tied his ass to a tree when he was heading into Jerusalem!

Sweetemotion

Candie wrote: »

I wonder if he was sent down so there would be an opportunity to take a psych evaluation? If he was obviously ill and given his homelessness, it's a good point.

Would they be allowed to print the story and his full name if that was the case?

Ficheall

Candie wrote: »

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

Just out of curiosity, can someone please find me a pic of someone staring harmlessly vs. a pic of the same person staring in a menacing manner? It can be a couple of selfies, if necessary.

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Would they be allowed to print the story and his full name if that was the case?

I have no idea, I'm just considering the possibilities.

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

If I thought for a moment that 70 days would actually be served you might have a point, but the Scottish prison system is so overcrowded that people rarely serve much more than a fraction of a short sentence for a non-violent crime.

You missed my point by a country mile. Take II:

As an argument against those suggesting the sentence here is too severe, you said:

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.

But if someone said that to you on a thread were you had been complaining that a sentence handed down was much too lenient, would you accept that as a sufficient argument? Of course you wouldn't.

Again, courts fcuk up all the time and comments like 'Well the courts felt the sentence was warranted and they have more information than us' are all but meaningless. Sure we might as well not discuss any case by that measure.

Prune Tracy

end of the road wrote: »

they will in britain. not in ireland so it won't effect us, but britain is becoming very authoritarian, so watch out.

Nobody will be sent to prison for speaking to someone in Britain.

Why are people contextualising this incident as one where a guy has just looked at a woman because he fancies her? Guys do it all the time - women do it all the time. It's no big deal and nobody goes to prison for it.

This is clearly a different type of situation - let's leave sex out of it, it's a person giving the message to another whom they don't know, that they're watching them/have a fixation on them. This is of course threatening behaviour. If I was on the receiving end of that, I'd worry about my safety, about being followed. This is the issue at hand - no amount of "If she fancied him, different story" changes that. By the way, that's some strange logic to draw - if a guy was staring at a woman in a stalkerish manner, just randomly while she's at work (which is weird, off-putting behaviour for anyone) it would be no issue if she fancied him?

That hypothesis (which I agree with Candie can often be used very resentfully - it does happen but it doesn't have to be trotted out *all* the time; nor do all women think that way) only makes sense if the encounter is a mundane/innocent/well meaning one like a guy starting to chat to a woman in a bar... not a stranger staring at her continuously while she's at work.

I do think 70 days in prison seems excessive, but framing it as a "boy meets girl" story is very disingenuous.

The gender of the person being stared at isn't stated in that article. For all we know it's a young lad being intimidated by an apparently unstable person twice their size.

Assumptions, assumptions!

Pero_Bueno

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, the UK is a thug police SS run state.
There was a guy arrested at the 2012 Olympics for not smiling.

mlumley

Hahaha, lived in Liverpool years ago. Out shopping with the woman, she went into top shop, I was outside waiting. Saw the best arse I had ever seen, decided to follow for a few yards. I ended up lost. Had to ask how to get to top shop. She wasnt pleased when I got back. Told her the baby was crying and I went for a walk to quiet her down, LOL, she fell for it.

Prune Tracy

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Not at all, the UK is a thug police SS run state.
There was a guy arrested at the 2012 Olympics for not smiling.

The Gestapo police Britain? :eek: Prime Minister May really has gone too far! :mad:

He was arrested on suspicion of involvement with a group committing public order offences. It was an error in judgment by the police and he deserved an apology but he was not arrested for not smiling!

This comparison of Britain to Saudi Arabia is a bit hysterical.

Pero_Bueno

Pero_Bueno wrote: »

Not at all, the UK is a thug police SS run state.
There was a guy arrested at the 2012 Olympics for not smiling.

It doesn't sound like an offence at all.

Can you specify precisely what he was convicted of? Because I'm sure 99% of posters doubt that there can be an offence of not smiling and the 1% are morons.

Outlaw Pete

Meanwhile, look what gets suspended sentences in the UK:

Student, 22, who stabbed a man in the eye with her stiletto avoids jail

A student who stabbed a man in the eye with a Christian Louboutin stiletto heel leaving him with serious injuries has walked free from court.

Shadiya Omar, 22, of Whalley Range, attacked Justin Lloyd, also 22, after he began arguing with her friend as they both waited for a taxi home after a night out in Manchester city centre.



The court heard miraculously he did not lose his eyesight, but still suffers with stabbing pains and the psychological after effects.

A victim impact statement read out in court said he was forced to quit work as a labourer and has become conscious of his scarred eye.

Mr Savage said: 'Looking in the mirror every day, he would be constantly having a reminder of the pain he has been suffering.

Medical student 'too bright' for prison is spared jail for stabbing boyfriend with bread knife

A promising Oxford University medical student who stabbed her boyfriend during a drunken assault with a bread knife has avoided prison - meaning she could return to her studies.

Lavinia Woodward, (24), received a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, for stabbing her then partner with the knife.



Woodward, a student at the university's Christ Church college, was to be sentenced earlier this year after admitting unlawful wounding, but the judge gave her four months to prove herself and stay out of trouble..

"She is not being treated leniently because she is intelligent - she is a very vulnerable, damaged young woman who will do all she can to put it right.

wakka12

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.

You think 70 days in jail for staring at somebody is maybe excessive?
Being escorted away and told off by a police man would have been more than enough.
I don't know how any of you are supportive of this, staring is not a crime, no matter how menacing you may appear, unless a threat was made then he in no way committed a crime

end of the road

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Meanwhile, look what gets suspended sentences in the UK:

and that's only going to get worse and become the norm i reccan. worrying times ahead for britain.

Heckler

Christ the world really has gone mad. If I was locked up for all the times I scoped out a woman......Alcatraz ultra Max.

Oh and I presume women are immune from this heinous crime of checking out the opposite sex.

Heckler

Hugh Grant/ Brad Pitt/ Take your pick staring at you through the window holding flowers while you work Nandos. OMG how romantic.

Average Joe does it. OMG what a creep. #meetoooooo.

babi-hrse

He won't stare twice that's for sure

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Meanwhile, look what gets suspended sentences in the UK:

Oh dear.

Not the "he should have been treated leniently because I've found some completely different instances where women were, and I'll include a graphic photo to shock you into agreeing" point?

It's so laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

You think 70 days in jail for staring at somebody is maybe excessive?
Being escorted away and told off by a police man would have been more than enough.
I don't know how any of you are supportive of this, staring is not a crime, no matter how menacing you may appear, unless a threat was made then he in no way committed a crime

He pleaded guilty. He accepts he committed a crime.

If you insist he didn't, you should at least set out how you know more about what happened than the person who was there and who accepts he did it knows!

lazybones32

Heckler wrote: »

Oh and I presume women are immune from this heinous crime of checking out the opposite sex.

Duh! Gay men must be immune too. I've had some unwanted stares. 70 days in prison might be a fantasy to some though.

Ghost Train

Suckit wrote: »

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.

He was arrested back in mid September, held for about 40 days till the trial in late October, I guess because he's homeless. So 70 days means he will be released at the end of November.

I'd guess there's a bit more to the story than reported, does seem over the top for acting a bit creepy

bodice ripper

If a stranger notices you staring at their arse, you are being an asshole. People's arses are generally on the opposite side to their face. You'd want to be having a prolonged leer at them to get caught at it.

Not that that was what was happening here anyway.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Meanwhile, look what gets suspended sentences in the UK:

Yer man dumped his chips over her friends head
That's usually followed by a few punches etc
She stopped it dead, the little wuss is now gone to hide under his mammy's bed



The other one in your post, the judge said :

Having met a few months before, in October 2016 you [the Defendant] began a relationship with a student from Cambridge University. Sadly, you were still suffering from the effects of a very damaging previous relationship with another who had introduced you to class A drugsving met a few months before, in October 2016 you [the Defendant] began a relationship with a student from Cambridge University. Sadly, you were still suffering from the effects of a very damaging previous relationship with another who had introduced you to class A drugs. You clearly had both drug and alcohol addictions. On 30 December 2016, your partner paid you a visit in your accommodation in Christchurch College in Oxford. It rapidly became clear to him that you had been drinking. He tried to discourage you from continuing your drinking without success. As the evening progressed, you became increasingly volatile. At one stage your partner contacted your mother over Skype in order to seek her assistance over what to do about you. When you discovered this, you became extremely angry, starting to throw objects around. It is clear from the transcript of the 999 call that your partner summoned the help of the police before you picked up a bread knife which was in the room and struck a blow with it to his lower leg. In the course of the incident two of his fingers also received cuts. Your partner managed to partly restrain you, albeit you then started to turn the knife on yourself and he had to further disarm you to prevent further self-harm. When the emergency services arrived it was abundantly clear that you were intoxicated, deeply distraught and mentally disturbed. You were taken to a police station in a very distressed state.

"Fortunately, the wounds that your partner received were relatively minor. The two 1 cm cuts to the fingers were treated at the scene with steri-strips and the cut to the leg was closed with three stitches.
You clearly had both drug and alcohol addictions. On 30 December 2016, your partner paid you a visit in your accommodation in Christchurch College in Oxford. It rapidly became clear to him that you had been drinking. He tried to discourage you from continuing your drinking without success.
As the evening progressed, you became increasingly volatile.
At one stage your partner contacted your mother over Skype in order to seek her assistance over what to do about you.
When you discovered this, you became extremely angry, starting to throw objects around.
It is clear from the transcript of the 999 call that your partner summoned the help of the police before you picked up a bread knife which was in the room and struck a blow with it to his lower leg.
In the course of the incident two of his fingers also received cuts. Your partner managed to partly restrain you, albeit you then started to turn the knife on yourself and he had to further disarm you to prevent further self-harm.
When the emergency services arrived it was abundantly clear that you were intoxicated, deeply distraught and mentally disturbed. You were taken to a police station in a very distressed state.

"Fortunately, the wounds that your partner received were relatively minor. The two 1 cm cuts to the fingers were treated at the scene with steri-strips and the cut to the leg was closed with three stitches.

jimmytwotimes 2013

Ewan Hoosarmi wrote: »

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

Sunglasses in winter will look strange but it's better than Strangeways

retro:electro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh dear.

Not the "he should have been treated leniently because I've found some completely different instances where women were, and I'll include a graphic photo to shock you into agreeing" point?

It's so laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

The real crime here is inconsistency, Conor. In fact the biggest crime of every crime is inconsistent sentencing, don't you know.

Prune Tracy

Heckler wrote: »

Christ the world really has gone mad. If I was locked up for all the times I scoped out a woman......Alcatraz ultra Max.

Oh and I presume women are immune from this heinous crime of checking out the opposite sex.

Heckler wrote: »

Hugh Grant/ Brad Pitt/ Take your pick staring at you through the window holding flowers while you work Nandos. OMG how romantic.

Average Joe does it. OMG what a creep. #meetoooooo.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Duh! Gay men must be immune too. I've had some unwanted stares. 70 days in prison might be a fantasy to some though.

Ye really are just believing what ye want to believe. You know full well "checking someone out" is not the case here.

Prune Tracy wrote: »

Why are people contextualising this incident as one where a guy has just looked at a woman because he fancies her? Guys do it all the time - women do it all the time. It's no big deal and nobody goes to prison for it.

This is clearly a different type of situation - let's leave sex out of it, it's a person giving the message to another whom they don't know, that they're watching them/have a fixation on them. This is of course threatening behaviour. If I was on the receiving end of that, I'd worry about my safety, about being followed. This is the issue at hand - no amount of "If she fancied him, different story" changes that. By the way, that's some strange logic to draw - if a guy was staring at a woman in a stalkerish manner, just randomly while she's at work (which is weird, off-putting behaviour for anyone) it would be no issue if she fancied him?

That hypothesis (which I agree with Candie can often be used very resentfully - it does happen but it doesn't have to be trotted out *all* the time; nor do all women think that way) only makes sense if the encounter is a mundane/innocent/well meaning one like a guy starting to chat to a woman in a bar... not a stranger staring at her continuously while she's at work.

I do think 70 days in prison seems excessive, but framing it as a "boy meets girl" story is very disingenuous.

Prune Tracy

To be fair to Pete, the blatant misrepresentation and dishonesty regarding this case is one thing for me - the inconsistency in sentencing is another. I agree with him that it's a problem. Those two weapons walking free is a sickener.

I don't think he's saying sentences men get should be reduced or suspended - rather that sentences women get should be on a par with them.

retro:electro

Prune Tracy wrote: »

To be fair to Pete, the blatant misrepresentation and dishonesty regarding this case is one thing for me - the inconsistency in sentencing is another. I agree with him that it's a problem. Those two weapons walking free is a sickener.

I don't think he's saying sentences men get should be reduced or suspended - rather that sentences women get should be on a par with them.

There are certain posters who, no matter what the crime is against a male- will scour the internet in search of similar crimes committed by women with more lenient sentencing.
It's almost as if they find the inconsistency more offensive than the crime?

professore

Candie wrote: »

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.

A lot of men act like this with women depending on their hotness.

kylith

professore wrote: »

A lot of men act like this with women depending on their hotness.

Of course they do. Hot woman sits on their knee, happy days. Woman with face like the back of a bus sits on their knee, get lost you munter.

People Find People They Find Attractive Attractive Shocker.

professore

70 days in jail is very excessive especially for a homeless person with mental health issues. The money would have been better spent on treatment. All the other gender wars stuff on here is irrelevant.

wakka12

anna080 wrote: »

There are certain posters who, no matter what the crime is against a male- will scour the internet in search of similar crimes committed by women with more lenient sentencing.
It's almost as if they find the inconsistency more offensive than the crime?

Dodging the question a bit? Its something that needs to be talked about. Women getting shorter sentences for similar crimes committed by men is not a myth, its not one off articles people find by scouring the internet

And that last bit you said really annoys me, I could say it seems almost as if you don't care that women didn't get any jail time for serious crimes

retro:electro

wakka12 wrote: »

Dodging the question a bit? Its something that needs to be talked about. Women getting shorter sentences for similar crimes committed by men is not a myth, its not one off articles people find by scouring the internet

And that last bit you said really annoys me, I could say it seems almost as if you don't care that women didn't get any jail time for serious crimes

Start a thread on it if it bothers you so much. I'm not saying that it's not a problem in some cases- but it's brought into every single relevant thread lately, as if the inconsistency is what's paramount and the actual crime secondary to that.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

If an article has scant information and we wonder at the verdict, it's reasonable to think that there might well be more to it than reported.

If an article has plenty of information about the crime, it's not particularly reasonable to assume there's less to it than reported.

Courts do indeed mess up at times, but we don't know that's the case here.