Sunday, June 21, 2009

Mentality of Mr Plod blindsided by criminal's age

Senior Sergeant Fred van Durren said it was a huge leap to say the 3-year-old had stolen the bike

Excuse me?

A brat walks into a shop, walks out with a brand new bike without paying and the Senior Sergeant suggests a crime has not been committed.

At what point does theft become crime, Snr Sgt?

One does wonder if the man has all his marbles.


Alf Grumble said...

And how come the parents haven't brought the bike back? This failure makes them parties to the crime.

KG said...

I thought the crime of stealing was established when it could be proved the person taking the goods had the 'intent to permanently deprive the owner of the goods'?
In which case, Plod needs to put his reality goggles on.

Anonymous said...

In this case the line for theft is if the parents bring the bike back. It is plausible that a 3 year old mind could devise such an idea and it not seem wrong. But such a mind would take the bike home and then the parent would naturally think, hmmm, where did this come from? But if the child ditched the bike so as not to be found out then they would have to have known the act was wrong, so then it falls into the basket of theft.