Bike thefts in Wolverhampton, a heads up (ahaha!)

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
piscisvisio

Bike thefts in Wolverhampton, a heads up (ahaha!)

Postby piscisvisio » 1 Oct 2008, 10:58pm

Hi all Had a fun day today, came out of a super market to find some scumbag trying to cut the lock off my bike! This was at two 'o'clock & in the afternoon in full view of the world, I challenged him & recieved a blow to my head with, i think, the bolt cutters he was using. I had to have my head glued back together ( the cut was only two inches long), a tetenus shot & make a statment to the police.
I have to say a huge thank you to the staff of Sainsburys for all their help & concern & thanks to the police for looking after my bike at the station while I went to A&E

The upshot of all this is that, according to one the police officers, bike theft is very bad in Wolvo at the moment. So be extra careful where you park, use a good U lock or better still get the bus :(

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Postby Cunobelin » 2 Oct 2008, 8:06am

Can we clarify this - is the good quality heavy "u" lock for the bike or.................

thirdcrank
Posts: 30793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Oct 2008, 8:42am

piscisvisio

I hope you are OK and recover quickly.

Using a potentially lethal weapon (albeit an improvised one) to wound somebody's head to escape being detained when caught stealing is really at the upper end of seriousness.

workhard

Postby workhard » 2 Oct 2008, 9:34am

surely ABH? Our local JS has CCTV, does yours? If so inspector knacker should have no trouble identifying scrote who assaulted you.

Hope you recover well.

matt_twam_asi
Posts: 290
Joined: 29 Apr 2008, 10:56am
Location: West Sussex

Postby matt_twam_asi » 2 Oct 2008, 10:18am

If I remember my A Level Law correctly, if it broke the skin it's GBH.

Hope they find the little punk, and that you recover soon!

2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Postby 2Tubs » 2 Oct 2008, 12:30pm

Cunobelin wrote:Can we clarify this - is the good quality heavy "u" lock for the bike or.................


Wraping around the head of a bike thief?

I hope the latter >;o)

Once you've knocked the scum out, it could be used to lock him to the bikestand, round the kneck should do it.

Gazza
Why not Look at Sheila's Wheelers E2E Journal
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.

piscisvisio

Postby piscisvisio » 2 Oct 2008, 1:45pm

matt_twam_asi wrote:If I remember my A Level Law correctly, if it broke the skin it's GBH.

Hope they find the little punk, and that you recover soon!


The police wouldn't assign a crime number to the case until they knew what repairs were made at the hospital so I assume that will reflect the level of assult.

I made sure I left the bike in a clear spot, so hopefully there will be CCTV footage.

Thanks for all your kind words :D

thirdcrank
Posts: 30793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Oct 2008, 5:06pm

matt_twam_asi wrote:If I remember my A Level Law correctly, if it broke the skin it's GBH.


There's a whole week's study at least for a junior CID course:-

Does having the bolt croppers amount to going equipped for theft? Yes, but not appropriate to charge if used for the intended offence.

Attempt theft of bike? Probably, but must prove intention deprive owner (joy riding on a bike is only a summary offence)

Robbery? (i.e. theft accompanied or preceded by violence or the threat of violence) No, the violence was after the crime. (Interesting fact: The Great Train Robbery was not a robbery at all. The cowardly assault on Driver Mills was inflicted after the theft of the mail. In order to 'let the punishment fit the crime' they were charged with conspiracy to steal - hence the 30 years in chokey.)

Criminal damage to lock. Presumably, but not an appropriate charge if damage was incidental to main offence.

Do bolt croppers = Offensive weapon? Not 'made' or 'adapted' as such so were they 'intended'? Difficult to prove.

Level of assault? In the text book probably section 18 wounding with intent.

Likely CPS charge? Common assault or s 47 actual bodily harm at a push.

Verdict? The law is a ass.

(And if the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has been replaced since I last paid attention, please send details written on a £50 note....)

IMO Inflicting violence on the human head, particularly with something heavy, is not an exact science and it's one of the things which I feel should attract condign punishment. It's probably just as well they don't consult me.

Glad to know you seem to be OK piscisvisio. There but for fortune...

User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 3333
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 4:20pm
Location: W Mids

Postby DaveP » 2 Oct 2008, 8:27pm

Surely this is aggravated by the use of an offensive weapon?

User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 3333
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 4:20pm
Location: W Mids

Postby DaveP » 2 Oct 2008, 8:31pm

Thanks for the warning piscisvisio. Glad to hear your OK!

There was a video going around a while back in which someone went around stealing his own bike from various locations, using various techniques, just to see what the public response was.
Basically, Nothing :shock: Not even a reaction to the cordless angle grinder.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30793
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Oct 2008, 8:54pm

DaveP wrote:Surely this is aggravated by the use of an offensive weapon?


Of course it is, particularly when the head is the target.

But first you get all the evidence, then somebody has to decide what charge is appropriate and can be proved, given that evidence. The charging decision is now one for the CPS and fair enough, but there is a lot of horse trading, which cannot be called plea bargaining for "legal reasons", which tends to reduce the charge. Following conviction, sentencing is a matter for the judge or bench of magistrates. The court should take everything into account including aggravating factors like the weapon used, while the defence mitigates. The sentence can only reflect the charge proved or admitted, not what the judge might think it should have been.

In 1861, the legislators were obviously living in different times. (They were also busy because as well as the Offences Against the Person Act they also passed the Malicious Damage Act and the Larceny Act, both now superseded.) Section 18 covered wounding with intent. Now, that seems pretty clear.

Section 20 is grievous bodily harm the notorious GBH. This was originally where a criminal action caused serious injury but intention could not be proved. Section 18 carries life and s 20 five years. BUT, s 18 is triable only on indictment - everybody in fancy dress with a jury, while s 20 is triable by magistrates. So, for as long as anybody can remember and even before that, section 18 hasn't been used much.

Section 47 is 'Actual bodily harm' and doesn't sound so bad but it is 5 years max, same as s20.

(Common assault - where no injury need be proved used to have two forms, one under s 47 and the other under s 42 where only the injured person could take action was changed a few years ago when domestic violence was recognised as a serious problem.)

Anyway, when everything has been permed and cross permed, the outcome is something of a lottery.

User avatar
unknown
Posts: 108
Joined: 1 Sep 2008, 10:04am
Location: Manchester

Postby unknown » 2 Oct 2008, 10:15pm

If I ever saw anyone messing with my bike I'd probably go into rage mode and bite their face.

piscisvisio

Postby piscisvisio » 6 Oct 2008, 3:05pm

unknown wrote:If I ever saw anyone messing with my bike I'd probably go into rage mode and bite their face.



:lol: Are you a terrier? :lol:

piscisvisio

Postby piscisvisio » 6 Oct 2008, 3:06pm

Odd, seems the post went up twice!
Last edited by piscisvisio on 6 Oct 2008, 4:17pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dee Jay
Posts: 375
Joined: 7 Jun 2008, 8:07pm

Postby Dee Jay » 6 Oct 2008, 3:49pm

Gosh! I've just seen this!

I hope you are recovering well, Piscisvisio?
Dee