recording images in public places

[technodup]

They've done it solely to show how righteously indignant they are.

They'd fit right in here then.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

They probably have strong views about.cycle helmets and insist on telling everyone else they're wrong.

 

[gavinda]

cheap can of spraypaint?

 

[PurpleFrog]

They have reported my someone to the police already because their dog chased their cat! no harm done or anything!

I think you should consider that what they did may actually be pretty reasonable:

- If the dog had caught the cat, it might well have been killed and they want to ***prevent*** this

- Their children might be using that area and if people are letting dogs they can't control run free there, those children might get bitten

How reasonable they were in making a report obviously depends on the exact circumstances - if someone was letting a big dog like a German Shephard off the leash in a children's play area and it wasn't well enough trained to recall when it tried to kill a cat, I'd report them.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Report them for what? There's no crime when a dog kills a cat, unless the owner intentionally sets the dog on it.

Having a dog simply out of control in a public place is not an offence, though that may change. It needs to be dangerously out of control, and to cause fear of injury to a person, or cause an actual injury before the offence is complete.

Simply munching on Tiddles doesn't cut it.

 

[PurpleFrog]

Report them for what? There's no crime when a dog kills a cat, unless the owner intentionally sets the dog on it.

Not true:

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control..

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:

it injures someone’s animal

the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

Note the use of "thinks" and "could" - this gives the court EXTREMELY broad latitude even if the animal is not injured. In fact in general:

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it... makes someone worried that it might injure them

The consequences:

..You can be fined up to £5,000 and/or sent to prison for up to 6 months if your dog is out of control. You may also not be allowed to own a dog in the future.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand things it is a general principle of the legal system that anything that is wrong if you do it deliberately is also wrong - but to a lesser extent - if it occurs as a failure of your duty. If you are walking a dog off the lead, it is your duty to see that it does not cause harm to anyone - i.e. you should release it unless it is reasonably well trained and will respond to a recall order. Failure of this duty is, indeed, against the law.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Now go and read reams of case law so you understand how the courts and CPS interpret the law. Just reading the legislation (and that's overview is not the legislation, it's quite a poor interpretation) won't win you any court cases.

You also need to read the guidelines.for prosecutor's dog.v cat incidents, which basically say its in the nature of dogs to chase cats, so a cat would not normally be considered 'an animal' for the purposes the act. However, if the dog were deliberately set upon it then it would be criminal damage, not Dangerous Dogs legislation that applies.

The case law also clearly defines what 'could' means.

You are right, you're clearly not a lawyer. For criminal law there has to be mens rea, or intent. For certain pieces of criminal law 'recklessness' is sufficient. Just failing in a perceived duty doesn't automatically make the consequences criminal.- you need 'intent', or in some cases 'recklessness', and you need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt - unless you can demonstrate that the failure to control the dog was intentional (or reckless for criminal damage offences) then straight away you have no case.

 

[hamster]

Civil liability v. Criminal offence.
There is no crime, but the cat owner would be able to pursue a civil case against the dog owner, who is supposed to have the dog under control.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

As aforementioned, the guidelines to prosecutors is that cat v dog incidents are not criminal, unless the dog was deliberately set upon the cat. 'Under control' does not apply to these circumstances. In any case, it's DANGEROUSLY out of control that applies, not the opposite 'under control'.

'Under control' is a term not defined in criminal law.

As for civil law you would have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the dog owner was negligent, and balance of probabilities applies the test of 'as perceived by a person of reasonable firmness' - find me a person of reasonable firmness that thinks it's reasonable to never ever walk your dog off the lead.

 

[PurpleFrog]

Now go and read reams of case law so you understand how the courts and CPS interpret the law.

You said there is not an offense. There is! If you meant "There is a law, but in practice I think it never gets applied" then you should say that. Really.

Just reading the legislation (and that's overview is not the legislation, it's quite a poor interpretation) won't win you any court cases.

Whereas telling the court that a law that makes something an offense does not exist is a guaranteed case winner...

You also need to read the guidelines.for prosecutor's dog.v cat incidents, which basically say its in the nature of dogs to chase cats, so a cat would not normally be considered 'an animal' for the purposes the act.

This is very strange - a few moments ago you said there was no such law, now you claim to have read prosecutors guidelines???

You are right, you're clearly not a lawyer. For criminal law there has to be mens rea, or intent. For certain pieces of criminal law 'recklessness' is sufficient.

While I agree I am not a lawyer, I think you should consider that you might be even less of one.

Concerning mens rea, you have made two mistakes:

1. There are such things as "strict liability" offenses where mens rea does not apply.

2. When an offense is defined as being a failure of duty, the only mens rea needed is the intention to fail in that duty - not to perform the actual resulting act. For example, if you deliberately skip on airliner safety and people, then get you have committed a crime - that you didn't want them intend them to die does not remove mens rea for criminal negligence, only for murder. The law I referred to is phrased - according to the government summary - in the same way: failure of responsibility is defined as in itself cuplable.

You might not like this, but that is the law!