Intention to cause harm

[AdamW]

I was watching one of my favourite genres of programmes this evening, the "Police arrest drunken chavs whilst a TV crew films it" type of programme. I love seeing chavs getting arrested, it makes tax almost seem worth it.

One thing struck me: In a situation where a brother and sister were arguing in the street, the man was arrested and fined for "threatening behaviour", but with the lady it was just drunk and disorderly. I have noticed similar things happening on these programmes: man is charged with threatening behaviour, lady charged with d&d. It sounds to me like threatening behaviour is a worse charge.

But surely threatening behaviour is threatening whether the person is a pipsqueak or a heavyweight boxer? The INTENTION is to behave threateningly, or even cause bodily damage.

I wouldn't have a clue about hotwiring a car, but surely if the police found me trying to jimmy the locks in someone else's car they wouldn't take my lack of TWOC'ing knowledge into account?

 

[Big_Spark]

That's the Bill for you matey, Biased, Myopic and stupid...

 

[Thermo]

all depends firstly if they are drunk or not. Threatening behaviour is a worse charge, but they normally get dealt with in the court the same way. There has to be some alarm, harasssment or distress by the victim (ie the police officer) so if he is a burly 6 foot copper, then he may feel a complete lack of imntimidation by the small peson, compared to the large bloke going for it. It doesnt really matter what they are arrested for, it is all looked at in the calm of the custdy block, where the most appropriate charge is selected given all the evidence.

FWL- yeah they are all biased, myopic and stupid, just like those ones working below kings cross in conditions you wouldnt even want to have nightmares about.

 

[Steve]

my fave cop shows are road wars on sky one and street crime uk 1/2/3/4 on bravo, both brill shows, but more chavs getting arrested in street crime uk

 

[AdamW]

IIRC this was Street Crime 4. Tis great, isn't it

Thermo, I was thinking along those lines. If I squared up to a 7-foot tall ex-rugby player-turned-cop then he probably wouldn't feel too threatened. His main injuries might be split sides But if I squared up to a 5'4 female PC then she might feel pretty shaken by it all.

However, surely crime is about absolutes? You either assaulted someone or you didn't. You either murdered someone, or you didn't. The sentence might be adjusted accordingly, for instance if you murdered someone 2 minutes after walking in to find them in a menage a trois with your wife and your mum, then you are going to be sentenced more leniently than if you killed a stranger for no reason.

But the accusation should surely be down to the intention to threaten. I agree with the man being arrested for threatening behaviour, but I think that the woman also should have been, even if she was unlikely to succeed in beating up the policeman.

I do have an interest in this: whilst I have never been in trouble with the police (I'm far too polite! ), I have been told that on the 2 occasions when I have been absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth livid (both times have been in the afternoon whilst sober, I should add), my physical appearance and size makes it scary for those around me. Now, I wouldn't hurt a fly, but the policeman would not know that, and would, for his own safety, be justified in plopping a set of handcuffs on me. I wouldn't argue with that.

However, it really wouldn't be fair for me to be charged with "threatening behaviour" simply because of the way I look to a stranger. I reckon it is a "male bovine excrement" charge that bears as much relevance to crime as that sketch in "Not the nine o'clock news" when Griff Rhys-Jones is pulled up in front of his Sarge for making arrests on the grounds of "thick lips and fuzzy hair".

My view is that the charge should be scrapped, unless new guidelines are released that make it applicable to anyone intending to be intimidating. But, that would be thought crime, wouldn't it?