deep breath

[Sparx]

thanks tris. where did i say i wanted home service to stop?

Maybe i cant see it please quote me

 

[Ezteq]

why the hell... what the ..... ok why?? why would someone keep a vase in plain view on the mantle shelf clearly marked "Charlie" if it was cocaine? surely all drug users keep their coke in a condom up their bottom?

I just wish i could see their faces when they realised te error of their ways, its nice to know that even though her dog is dead it still got the last laugh on the people wo broke in to her house.

im going to go in to business making signs "Beware of the dead dog!"

 

[old.Tohtori]

why the hell... what the ..... ok why?? why would someone keep a vase in plain view on the mantle shelf clearly marked "Charlie" if it was cocaine? surely all drug users keep their coke in a condom up their bottom?

I just wish i could see their faces when they realised te error of their ways, its nice to know that even though her dog is dead it still got the last laugh on the people wo broke in to her house.

im going to go in to business making signs "Beware of the dead dog!"

And the award for the least observative little tart goes to...*drumroll* Valdamir!!

But Eq you didn't notice it was in a bag? Named charlie. Which means cocaine. Not in a vase. Yet.

 

[Overdriven]

I still find this funny =(

 

[Succi]

Anyway its a ridiculous hyperthetical situation

Not really , that kinda thing has cropped up in many previous law cases

 

[Tilda]

Sparx, part of the test is not what you think, but what the reasonable man would think. The reasonable man would think that its possible that someone comming into your house might eat a sweet. Therefore you should have foreseen it, therefore manslaughter.

 

[Yeke]

Not really , that kinda thing has cropped up in many previous law cases

url please, would love to see where a burgler broke in ate some sweets that were infact poisen and died and the owner was charged with murder.

If indeed you mean where people have shot/stabbed/bludgeoned etc to death someone who broke into there house then yeah ofc thats happened.

in the original scenario theres not a chance in hell you would be charged with murder and not a barister in the world that couldnt get you of a manslaughter charge (if indeed the cps even contemplated charging).

 

[Sparx]

Sparx, part of the test is not what you think, but what the reasonable man would think. The reasonable man would think that its possible that someone comming into your house might eat a sweet. Therefore you should have foreseen it, therefore manslaughter.

i cant imagine that would stand in court tho tbh.

The way our system (UK) works if its not conclusive it gets thrown out

 

[tris-]

im reasonable and what id think is if some man didnt break the law and come into my house, it wouldnt of been possible to eat the sweet.

 

[NikonL]

im reasonable and what id think is if some man didnt break the law and come into my house, it wouldnt of been possible to eat the sweet.

Plenty of people have legal access to your house as far as im aware. Police with a warrant... paramedics etc. Was even a guy in my guild a while back who worked in health services and stuff and was about to get "rights of entry" or whatever it was called, which gave him permission to inspect any premises. That may have only applied to warehouses/restaraunts etc though.

Now of course if one of these people stole a sweet it would be "wrong". But if you claim to be reasonable then it means youd have to recognise the possibility that one of them could ingest a poison-sweet even accidently. And that would mean youre responsible. If you dont accept that responsibility then that assumes you arent a reasonable person and youd maybe have to plead insanity? iunno. i dont actually have a clue what im talking about here its mainly just guesswork

 

[Sparx]

but no reasonable person with right of entry would take a sweet.

Paramedic for example wouldnt touch anything because in a situation where they need to enter a house everythnig would be seen as dangerous and they would be too busy with the casualty

I'm just going with the arguement that its in the privacy of your home and you will to your knowledge have to visitors. Anyone there wouldnt touch your belongings unless they were looking for something specific and even then they aint gonna eat anything

So the same arguement can be said for both sides Reasonable person etc etc

 

[NikonL]

but no reasonable person with right of entry would take a sweet.

Paramedic for example wouldnt touch anything because in a situation where they need to enter a house everythnig would be seen as dangerous and they would be too busy with the casualty

I'm just going with the arguement that its in the privacy of your home and you will to your knowledge have to visitors. Anyone there wouldnt touch your belongings unless they were looking for something specific and even then they aint gonna eat anything

So the same arguement can be said for both sides Reasonable person etc etc

Well like i say i dont know how far this "reasonable person" thing should go.. but as far as im aware a reasonable person is one who can see both sides of something, and i dont think saying "i didnt think it was at all possible that someone could have ingested these sweets" counts as reasonable thought.

 

[Sparx]

have you ever known a loner? i dont mind someone who keeps themselves to themselves, i'm talking about the ones with nest hair and keep muttering to themselves and wear welly boots

 

[NikonL]

have you ever known a loner? i dont mind someone who keeps themselves to themselves, i'm talking about the ones with nest hair and keep muttering to themselves and wear welly boots

heh, well no i havnt :| probably because they were too busy being a loner to hang out with me.. but the law applies to wierd peopel too.

 

[Sparx]

lies!