Drunk Pothead urinates on dying woman to make it "YouTube Material"

[EGarrett]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7002627.stm

That's a lovely story. I wonder what they will charge him with? They did attempt to revive her first.

[Bell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7002627.stm

That's a lovely story. I wonder what they will charge him with? They did attempt to revive her first.

I hope you are trying to be sarcastic :confused:

These is even worse than posting a YouTube video where people are falling out of the WTC with the song "it's raining man" in the background.

Talk about pissing on someone's grave. Literary.

[Civilized Worm]

Not literally, she wasn't buried.

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7002627.stm

That's a lovely story. I wonder what they will charge him with? They did attempt to revive her first.

From the article:

Miss Lakinski, who suffered a number of medical conditions, died from natural causes, an inquest found.

Is urine inundation a natural cause, or was this just salt in the wound?

DR

[Bell]

From the article:

Miss Lakinski, who suffered a number of medical conditions, died from natural causes, an inquest found.

Is urine inundation a natural cause, or was this just salt in the wound?

DR

Also from the article:

Lynne Dalton, prosecuting, said: "Although his actions did not contribute to her death it was appalling behaviour that robbed her of any dignity in the last hours of her life."

ETA: Bolded for clarity.

[Ian Osborne]

Is urine inundation a natural cause, or was this just salt in the wound?

The prosecutor said the bastard's actions did not contribute to her death, but robbed her of her dignity in the last few moments of her life. He pissed on a dying woman for fun.

Thankfully, the magistrates sent him to the Crown Court for sentencing, which means he'll get more than the maximum they can impose, which is six months.

[Darth Rotor]

Also from the article:

Lynne Dalton, prosecuting, said: "Although his actions did not contribute to her death it was appalling behaviour that robbed her of any dignity in the last hours of her life."
Did you not get the joke? Yes, 'twas a sick joke, but the ref to urine and salt was one I hoped might register.

Oh, and this fellow is a right prick for doing this.

DR

[Bell]

Did you not get the joke? Yes, 'twas a sick joke, but the ref to urine and salt was one I hoped might register.

Oh, and this fellow is a right prick for doing this.

DR

Nope, sorry, didn't get the joke. Should have looked at your custom title first ;)

But in all seriousness, I'm not on the same level of intelligence as a lot of other members on this board (yes, you can quote me on that), so I suck at rational discussions (see my 'YouTube' thread) and on 'science 'n stuff' :(

ETA: I tend to reply emotional, instead of rational.

[EGarrett]

The prosecutor said the bastard's actions did not contribute to her death, but robbed her of her dignity in the last few moments of her life. He pissed on a dying woman for fun.

Thankfully, the magistrates sent him to the Crown Court for sentencing, which means he'll get more than the maximum they can impose, which is six months.Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.

[Darth Rotor]

ETA: I tend to reply emotional, instead of rational.
Oh dear, that would make you the only poster on this forum who ever does that. :D

(Uh, except me, and maybe one or two or a hundred others)

DR

[Bell]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.

Yeah, fantastic [/sarcasm]

[Darth Rotor]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.
EG, I am not sure about UK law, but one can probably make a case of battery or assault out of this. (There is a thread running about regarding a rapist who is being charged for both the rape, and the fact that he did so while HIV positive.)

"Assault with a stream of urine" or "Assault and battery with bodily waste" may well be within the criminal code. Our UK readers can help us here.

DR

[geni]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.

Assault. Might be able to get him for indecent assault.

[Bell]

Assault. Might be able to get him for indecent assault.

Maybe also an ASBO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order).

[dudalb]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.
I guess the idea of common decency sort of passed you by.

[tracer]

These is even worse than posting a YouTube video where people are falling out of the WTC with the song "it's raining man" in the background.

Actually, that is kinda funny.

[Bell]

Actually, that is kinda funny.

How so?

[EGarrett]

Yeah, fantastic [/sarcasm]Um, I think you're missing something.

I guess the idea of common decency sort of passed you by.I don't think you can charge someone with lack of common decency either. Seriously though, the idea here is to discuss. Try it.

EG, I am not sure about UK law, but one can probably make a case of battery or assault out of this. (There is a thread running about regarding a rapist who is being charged for both the rape, and the fact that he did so while HIV positive.)

"Assault with a stream of urine" or "Assault and battery with bodily waste" may well be within the criminal code. Our UK readers can help us here.

DRAssault. Might be able to get him for indecent assault.Which definition of assault are you referring to...Wikipedia has a ton of them, and many of them are very unclear.

[Bell]

Um, I think you're missing something.

Gotcha! (I think)

I don't know how the English law works, but afaik in The Netherlands the guy could at least be charged with insult or dissorderly behaviour in a public place (and maybe even urinating in public), maybe some others as well.

ETA: From your OP it wasn't very clear to me - and the other members as well it seems - what you wanted to discuss in this thread. Looked to me like you thought the guy pissing on a death or dying woman was funny.

[Puppycow]

He should be charged with every conceivable crime. Throw the book at him. Assault, exposing oneself in public, negligent homicide, anything and everything that might possibly apply.

[The Atheist]

There is no specific national offence of urinating in the street. Infringement of local authority byelaws can result in police caution or prosecution in the courts. Courts may impose a fine. Nationally, this behaviour may in appropriate circumstances be dealt with as an incident of being drunk and disorderly under section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress under section five of the Public Order Act 1986.

link (http://www.michaelwills.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=17998)

[ponderingturtle]

How so?

Gallows humor. I don't think the video would be funny but a reference to it certainly can be.

[Darat]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.

Well consider me cynical but I don't think "He tried to rouse her by throwing a bucket of water over her," was actually an attempt at reviving her.

[richardm]

link (http://www.michaelwills.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=17998)

Despite what Fiona MacTaggart says there, you may also find yourself charged with indecent exposure. Being convicted of that these days means you'll have to sign on the Sex Offender's Register, and much hilarity will ensue when you next try to get a job.

[billydkid]

Just when you think humanity can sink no lower.

[ponderingturtle]

Just when you think humanity can sink no lower.

So this really lowers your view of humanity when campaigns of rape and maiming people happen on large scales?

[Ian Osborne]

It was a revolting and gratuitous act. There's not much point playing the 'but this was even worse' card.

[ponderingturtle]

It was a revolting and gratuitous act. There's not much point playing the 'but this was even worse' card.

But when you make a claim like "Just when you think humanity can sink no lower." If this really lowers your view of humanity then either 1 you do not pay attention, or 2 you think that people in industrialized countries could not do something like this.

And there are plenty of worse actions in britian every day.

Sure it is a horrible thing to do, but if this really effects his view of humanity he needs to get out more.

[Darth Rotor]

Um, I think you're missing something.

I don't think you can charge someone with lack of common decency either. Seriously though, the idea here is to discuss. Try it.

Which definition of assault are you referring to...Wikipedia has a ton of them, and many of them are very unclear.
EG, I can only reference with any comfort the statutes in my state, and from the UCMJ, neither of which are British statutes. Given the roots of US law in a lot of British legal law and custom, the approach is likely to be similar.

I will refer to Section 22 of the Texas Penal code:

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.
I think sub para three, if a similar law in the UK is so structured, would be a valid charge for this event.

I will leave further comment on the laws and assault in question to our British colleagues.

DR

[Safe-Keeper]

Sentencing him for what though? That's what I'm curious about. He didn't contribute to her death. In fact they tried to revive her. He just pissed on her afterwards.And you see, it's In Good Fun™! Anything goes these days if it's in meant for humor, apparently, even if it's disgusting or even in violation of the law. And if anyone reacts, they are the intolerant ones.

Luckily most people here seem to be above that level. Note that I say 'most'.

Anderson had smoked a cannabis joint and been drinking when he and two friends spotted her. He tried to rouse her by throwing a bucket of water over her, before urinating on her and covering her with shaving foam. The incident was filmed on a mobile phone.Yeah, really, what should he be charged with? What about declining to offer first aid or call for help (although admittedly it's possible the idiot didn't realize she was dying and thought she was just drunk and passed out or something)? What about indecent exposure? What about urinating on another person?

It's illegal enough to simply whip out your [rule something] in front of another person, and you have no problem with this? Please.

[Darat]

The full story is even more sickening: http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Man-who-urinated-on-dying.3217486.jp

So we have someone who collapsed and they admit to kicking her feet, to throwing a bucket of water over her and they have tried to portray this as an attempt to "revive" her. And no one thought to call the emergency services until almost an hour later, but did apparently have the ability to use a mobile phone to video him urinating on her.

[Darth Rotor]

The full story is even more sickening: http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Man-who-urinated-on-dying.3217486.jp
[QUOTE]Later still, he admitted he had smoked cannabis, drunk a litre of wine and half a bottle of sherry and described himself as "merry but not fully drunk".
I'd say he was "breathig, but not fully aware that a brain was to be used as other than a site for braincell genocide."

Interesting that he admits he was wrong.
"Mr Anderson wishes to apologise at this stage for the distress caused to the family and Christine and is awaiting the appropriate punishment."
Seems to have both sobered up and realized that he's gonna pay the piper for his behavior.

DR

[EGarrett]

Gotcha! (I think)

I don't know how the English law works, but afaik in The Netherlands the guy could at least be charged with insult or dissorderly behaviour in a public place (and maybe even urinating in public), maybe some others as well.

ETA: From your OP it wasn't very clear to me - and the other members as well it seems - what you wanted to discuss in this thread. Looked to me like you thought the guy pissing on a death or dying woman was funny.No, if it clears it up...I don't think it's funny. It's sickening. I'm curious about how the situation will be handled. It seems to be an interesting legal situation...in terms of what crime the guy actually committed.

He should be charged with every conceivable crime. Throw the book at him. Assault, exposing oneself in public, negligent homicide, anything and everything that might possibly apply.I suppose indecent exposure might count. I don't know about negligent homocide, the woman may have already been dead.

Well consider me cynical but I don't think "He tried to rouse her by throwing a bucket of water over her," was actually an attempt at reviving her.It could've been if they thought she was drunk.

EG, I can only reference with any comfort the statutes in my state, and from the UCMJ, neither of which are British statutes. Given the roots of US law in a lot of British legal law and custom, the approach is likely to be similar.

I will refer to Section 22 of the Texas Penal code:

I think sub para three, if a similar law in the UK is so structured, would be a valid charge for this event.

I will leave further comment on the laws and assault in question to our British colleagues.

DRSection 3 seems to say that the other person would interpret it as aggressive etc. If the other person is unconscious I don't think they're going to interpret anything, let alone if they're dead.

And you see, it's In Good Fun™! Anything goes these days if it's in meant for humor, apparently, even if it's disgusting or even in violation of the law. And if anyone reacts, they are the intolerant ones.

Luckily most people here seem to be above that level. Note that I say 'most'.This is a critical thinking board. The whole point is to broach topics that might be difficult or controversial. Just because someone plays Devil's Advocate on a difficult topic does not mean they actually believe that position. You have to grant others that privilege for the sake of the discussions.

Yeah, really, what should he be charged with? What about declining to offer first aid or call for help (although admittedly it's possible the idiot didn't realize she was dying and thought she was just drunk and passed out or something)? What about indecent exposure? What about urinating on another person?Indecent exposure I can see. If they thought she was drunk and passed out though, or if the guy was drunk and thus unaware that her life was in danger...it becomes extremely difficult to stick him with not calling for help. I doubt that being drunk is illegal in the UK.

It's illegal enough to simply whip out your [rule something] in front of another person, and you have no problem with this? Please.How does it apply if the person in question is unconscious or dead?

[fuelair]

So this really lowers your view of humanity when campaigns of rape and maiming people happen on large scales?

Fortunately, I was very young when I realized an amazingly large number of persons (using the word in it's most general sense) enjoyed doing that kind of thing. At pretty much the same time, I realized that there was a reason for machine weapons (and started making the other kids aim if they planned for me to fall in war games) (this was way before those "get rid of toy guns" sillinesses). (5th grade for the curious)

[geni]

I doubt that being drunk is illegal in the UK.


Drunk and Disorderly
Drunk and Incapable

[whiteyonthemoon]

I guess it's agreed then that "you tube material" is not the new "Mentos"

[Darth Rotor]

Section 3 seems to say that the other person would interpret it as aggressive etc. If the other person is unconscious I don't think they're going to interpret anything, let alone if they're dead.
Interesting take on the language. ;)

Are you willing to test that "seeming" in a court of law by pissing on an unconscious person? (Probably not, I doubt that's your cup of pee, sorry, tea.)

Here is how I think it would play out.

intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
The DA would be able to show that a person so peeing would be able to believe that the other (were she awake) would consider being peed on as being offensive, and perhaps would show (don't know) that person being peed upon being asleep or otherwise unconscious, is a matter of aggrivation on the part of the pisser. The pee target being other than conscious does not mitigate the act of peeing on fellow citizen.

This raises an interesting thought: do two people, in the privacy of their own homes, who like to indluge in "the golden shower" bit commit an assault by so doing? Probably not, since the recipient, if this is a mutually enjoyed pastime, would not regard the contact as offensive, nor provocative, but essentially, a good time being had by both parties.

DR

[Cleon]

This raises an interesting thought: do two people, in the privacy of their own homes, who like to indluge in "the golden shower" bit commit an assault by so doing? Probably not, since the recipient, if this is a mutually enjoyed pastime, would not regard the contact as offensive, nor provocative, but essentially, a good time being had by both parties.

Well, two things come to mind:

1. Yuk.

2. I'd imagine not, otherwise there'd be a lot of BDSM fans out there would be constantly worried about the cops. (Not to mention anyone who just enjoys a good spanking.) IANAL, but I believe that "assault" is defined as non-consensual acts.

[Ian Osborne]

2. I'd imagine not, otherwise there'd be a lot of BDSM fans out there would be constantly worried about the cops. (Not to mention anyone who just enjoys a good spanking.) IANAL, but I believe that "assault" is defined as non-consensual acts.

I remember when I was back at school, we had a talk from the police, and was told under UK law, you can't consent to be assaulted. His point was about a fight behind the bike sheds rather than pissing on each other for pleasure, but it would seem to apply here. Not sure why it doesn't outlaw boxing, though...

[quixotecoyote]

I remember when I was back at school, we had a talk from the police, and was told under UK law, you can't consent to be assaulted. His point was about a fight behind the bike sheds rather than pissing on each other for pleasure, but it would seem to apply here. Not sure why it doesn't outlaw boxing, though...


If the government gives you a permit its ok. See war for an extreme example.

[Ian Osborne]

If the government gives you a permit its ok. See war for an extreme example.

I'm not so sure. I also remember one of the country's top unlicensed boxers claim unlicensed boxing isn't illegal, just not recognised by the British Boxing Board of Control. I've no idea whether he was right or not - is there a UK lawyer in the house?

[sphenisc]

Anthony Anderson, of Raby Road, who admitted outraging public decency


The offence is clearly specified in the report - where's the problem?

[richardm]

I'm not so sure. I also remember one of the country's top unlicensed boxers claim unlicensed boxing isn't illegal, just not recognised by the British Boxing Board of Control. I've no idea whether he was right or not - is there a UK lawyer in the house?

Yes. Unlicenced boxing is legal, but because it's unregulated it's thought to be rather less safe - there is no requirement for the usual safety precautions you'd expect to see at a BBBC fight (no doctors, no limits on rounds/round length). Bareknuckle boxing is illegal, though, which would cover your fight behind the bike sheds ;)

Edited to add link: BBC on BBBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/sport/boxing/unlicensed.shtml) :p

[logical muse]

... IANAL ...

You do? :D

[Ian Osborne]

You do? :D

That's what crosses my mind every time I see that extremely unfortunate internet abbreviation... :D

[SomeGuy]

Nope, sorry, didn't get the joke. Should have looked at your custom title first ;)

But in all seriousness, I'm not on the same level of intelligence as a lot of other members on this board (yes, you can quote me on that), so I suck at rational discussions (see my 'YouTube' thread) and on 'science 'n stuff' :(

ETA: I tend to reply emotional, instead of rational.

Normally I try to respond rationally rather than emotional, I don't think I'll bother this time around:

What a [some rule] piece of [some rule] that should be [some rule] while getting [some rule] by midgets*,**

Meanwhile, if I were this guy's attorney I would play the: In my religion we believe being urinated on while dying eases the transgression into the spirit world, I saved her from having to haunt the porch she died in for the next two decades.


* I apologize to any vertically challenged person that felt insulted by this sentences
** No actual midgets (or gerbils) were hurt in the writing of this post.

[geni]

Well, two things come to mind:

1. Yuk.

2. I'd imagine not, otherwise there'd be a lot of BDSM fans out there would be constantly worried about the cops. (Not to mention anyone who just enjoys a good spanking.) IANAL, but I believe that "assault" is defined as non-consensual acts.

Not under UK law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

[ponderingturtle]

This raises an interesting thought: do two people, in the privacy of their own homes, who like to indluge in "the golden shower" bit commit an assault by so doing? Probably not, since the recipient, if this is a mutually enjoyed pastime, would not regard the contact as offensive, nor provocative, but essentially, a good time being had by both parties.

DR

This is possible, as such stances that permission does not remove the crime are often used to criminalize BDSM activities. It is a general interesting position of how one keeps BDSM legal and dueling illegal.

[Darth Rotor]

This is possible, as such stances that permission does not remove the crime are often used to criminalize BDSM activities. It is a general interesting position of how one keeps BDSM legal and dueling illegal.
IMO, formal duelling ought to be legal.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

IMO, formal duelling ought to be legal.

DR

So you honnestly think that in say this course of events nothing illegal should have happened?

It all occurred on Friday, April 20, 2007, when Dana "Boo" Martin was using his ATV to help a woman move. He had, apparently, driven past Simpson's home many times and the noise disturbed Simpson so much that he confronted Martin in the road, where an altercation ensued, according to witnesses. That is when the two departed the scene to retrieve handguns. Upon returning, a shootout occurred and Martin, 39, received a torso wound. He was pronounced dead at Welch Community Hospital shortly thereafter.

McDowell County, WV prosecutors have charged Simpson, 47, with "murder by duel" on April 30. The law is older than the state of West Virginia and was written in 1849 by Virginia. WV State Code: 61-2-18 reads, "If a person fights a duel in this State, and in so doing inflicts a mortal wound, he shall be deemed guilty of murder. And if a person resident in this State, by previous agreement made within the same, fights a duel without the State, and in so doing inflicts a mortal wound, he shall be deemed guilty of murder in this State." West Virginia received statehood status in 1863.



Link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/236525/unusual_murder_by_duel_charges_filed.html)

[Darth Rotor]

So you honnestly think that in say this course of events nothing illegal should have happened?



Link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/236525/unusual_murder_by_duel_charges_filed.html)

Given that the article described an ad hoc duel gunfight, described as a shoot out, no, I would not think that. The "so you ________?" strawman construction is noted.

Formal duelling, with seconds, a formal etiquette, ritual offering of redress before weapons chosen, etc.

See Burr and Hamilton for an example.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

Given that the article described an ad hoc duel gunfight, described as a shoot out, no, I would not think that. The "so you ________?" strawman construction is noted.

Formal duelling, with seconds, a formal etiquette, ritual offering of redress before weapons chosen, etc.

See Burr and Hamilton for an example.

DR

It is also interesting that you do not make any statement about what laws if any you think should be broken in such a situation.

[TX50]

The guy was sent to crown court because "outraging public
decency" is an indictable only offence in UK Law. This means
that he goes straight there instead of getting a preliminary
hearing in a magistrate's court. Indictable offences exist to
speed up the flow of cases through the legal system. It's
got nothing at all to do with him going there to get a heavier
sentence. I am not a lawyer.

If that outrage happened to a member of my family some of
us would be organising a surprise party for Mr Pisshead up some
alley on a dark night.

[richardm]

The guy was sent to crown court because "outraging public
decency" is an indictable only offence in UK Law. This means
that he goes straight there instead of getting a preliminary
hearing in a magistrate's court.

Apparently not - he appeared in front of magistrates first, but they referred him to the Crown court because they're able to specify a longer sentence. He's just gone down for three years. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm)

[workout_girl]

Not that it matters but I wonder if these two knew each other, or were complete strangers:confused: Sad either way.

[Darth Rotor]

It is also interesting that you do not make any statement about what laws if any you think should be broken in such a situation.
PT, if formal duelling were legal, then no laws would be broken in a formal duel, held under said laws.

Do you get it now?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Apparently not - he appeared in front of magistrates first, but they referred him to the Crown court because they're able to specify a longer sentence. He's just gone down for three years. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm)

At this point, I suspect he might have said "It's a fair cop."

He might also have slapped himself on the forehead, and exclaimed:

"I could have had a V-8!"

DR

[shuize]

It appears he got popped on a heavy duty U.K. version of what would have been likely referred to as "Disorderly Conduct" in the U.S.

I was thinking about the charges had this taken place in the U.S. Disorderly Conduct fits. But, as misdemeanor, he could not have been sentenced to 3 years. Also, although it's been a while, Assault or Battery, as I recall, usually needs a victim to show up to court and testify to having been assaulted.

I wonder if U.K. prison justice works anything like it does in the U.S. If so, this guy'd probably be better off lying about his charges than telling any of his fellow inmates he's in prison for pissing on a dying old woman.

ETA: Why is there a stupid green smiley on the top of my post? I certainly did not want it there.