Fighting Theft...!

Topical debate, moral dilemmas and quirky questions. Join fellow shareholders in civilised discussions of issues of interest
Constantine
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jul 02 2010 1:04pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Constantine » Mon Aug 19 2019 9:18pm

I'm puzzled. Doesn't this just mean that every self respecting van thief will need to invest in a pair of electrical insulating gloves?

£19.99 on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/E2O-Tech-Insul ... 3TR1WZWMB6
Thanked by: blythburgh

Boro Boy
Posts: 5048
Joined: Mon Sep 15 2014 6:05pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2013 times

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Boro Boy » Tue Aug 20 2019 12:04am

pabenny wrote:
Mon Aug 19 2019 4:36pm
It's the outcome, not the intent that determines liability.

Tasers are deployed by trained officers who are required to make warn before use, can make judgements on the setting and juration of the voltage and can ensure that urgent medical attention is provided if necessary.

As compared with a high voltage administered from an unattended vehicle. Much more likely to result in death or serious injury.
As previously stated; it's the Ampage not the Voltage that would result in a delivery enough to kill. The level we are talking about here would not kill. :wtf:
Thanked by: blythburgh

pabenny
Posts: 2732
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 5:21pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2177 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by pabenny » Tue Aug 20 2019 6:59am

Boro Boy wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 12:04am
..it's the Ampage not the Voltage that would result in a delivery enough to kill...
Let's knock that inaccuracy on the head. It is the combination of the two that does the damage.

It's true that high voltage alone is rarely fatal - static electricity can be 20,000v but is harmless because the current is minimal. But 50V is enough to drive a lethal current through the body.
Thanked by: blythburgh

BeautifulSunshine
Posts: 26721
Joined: Tue Sep 14 2010 8:23pm
Location: [The Finest City in the World: London]
Has thanked: 192 times
Been thanked: 3686 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by BeautifulSunshine » Tue Aug 20 2019 8:53am

Constantine wrote:
Mon Aug 19 2019 9:18pm
I'm puzzled. Doesn't this just mean that every self respecting van thief will need to invest in a pair of electrical insulating gloves?

£19.99 on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/E2O-Tech-Insul ... 3TR1WZWMB6
LOL.

Business opportunity:
How To Be A Successful Thief
[imutual Cashback Investment Club]

Boro Boy
Posts: 5048
Joined: Mon Sep 15 2014 6:05pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2013 times

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Boro Boy » Tue Aug 20 2019 9:11am

pabenny wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 6:59am
Boro Boy wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 12:04am
..it's the Ampage not the Voltage that would result in a delivery enough to kill...
Let's knock that inaccuracy on the head. It is the combination of the two that does the damage.

It's true that high voltage alone is rarely fatal - static electricity can be 20,000v but is harmless because the current is minimal. But 50V is enough to drive a lethal current through the body.
Now lets get this straight for once, this thread has nothing to do with a deadly threat but more of a deterrent and highlighting that the Police don't like the public taking the DIY route to defending themselves even when the Police didn't usually attend the robbery but would attend when the DIY route is chosen! It is not intended to be a technical discussion on electric current as it was made obvious in the original video that the current used is a deterrent and not deadly...

Constantine
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jul 02 2010 1:04pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Constantine » Tue Aug 20 2019 7:41pm

Well, the chap involved is an electrical contractor so I'd presume he knows the difference between lethal and non lethal shocks, and knows more about amps and volts than all of us put together.
Thanked by: blythburgh

Boro Boy
Posts: 5048
Joined: Mon Sep 15 2014 6:05pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2013 times

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Boro Boy » Tue Aug 20 2019 10:24pm

Constantine wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 7:41pm
Well, the chap involved is an electrical contractor so I'd presume he knows the difference between lethal and non lethal shocks, and knows more about amps and volts than all of us put together.
Great, that concludes the obvious; now what about the Police's screwed up position? :crazy:
Thanked by: blythburgh

Chadwick
Posts: 2435
Joined: Mon Jul 05 2010 4:21pm
Has thanked: 1234 times
Been thanked: 2583 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Chadwick » Wed Aug 21 2019 11:36am

Boro Boy wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 10:24pm
Great, that concludes the obvious; now what about the Police's screwed up position? :crazy:
Choose your own adventure

You are a local chief of police. You receive two calls requiring your attention, but you only have the resources to deal with one. Which do you respond to?

1) Another van burglary. Damage to and loss of property, but no risk of personal injury. The culprits are long gone and there is unlikely to be any evidence to trace them. You could issue some standard advice about security measures as a stopgap and review nighttime patrol routes/frequency in the area.

2) A potentially dangerous booby-trapped vehicle. Risk of injury. The culprit is identifiable and accessible. The man is clearly angry and taking the law into his own hands. A standard email or letter may just antagonise him. A personal visit may stop someone getting hurt.
Thanked by: pabenny

Boro Boy
Posts: 5048
Joined: Mon Sep 15 2014 6:05pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 982 times
Been thanked: 2013 times

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by Boro Boy » Wed Aug 21 2019 12:21pm

Chadwick wrote:
Wed Aug 21 2019 11:36am
Boro Boy wrote:
Tue Aug 20 2019 10:24pm
Great, that concludes the obvious; now what about the Police's screwed up position? :crazy:
Choose your own adventure

You are a local chief of police. You receive two calls requiring your attention, but you only have the resources to deal with one. Which do you respond to?

1) Another van burglary. Damage to and loss of property, but no risk of personal injury. The culprits are long gone and there is unlikely to be any evidence to trace them. You could issue some standard advice about security measures as a stopgap and review nighttime patrol routes/frequency in the area.

2) A potentially dangerous booby-trapped vehicle. Risk of injury. The culprit is identifiable and accessible. The man is clearly angry and taking the law into his own hands. A standard email or letter may just antagonise him. A personal visit may stop someone getting hurt.
The only illegal action carried out in No. 1 whilst No. 2 is a possible Health & Safety issue - simple: attend No. 1 with the possibility of accessing some evidence to track down the culprits and communicate with HSE regards No. 2 if necessary, having viewed it as I am already attending site due to No. 1...

expressman33
Posts: 12468
Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 10:36pm
Location: stockport
Has thanked: 3006 times
Been thanked: 10641 times
Contact:

Re: Fighting Theft...!

Post by expressman33 » Wed Aug 21 2019 4:22pm

I have seen theft from vans with CCTV evidence VERY clearly showing the culprits and the police still won't attend

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests