Could Staying After the Police Arrive Lead to Conviction?

[Pupil]

If the police had been called and he stayed, could he have been convicted of anything?

 

[whitay]

I doubt it. He hasn't actually done anything wrong. Those people were scared on there own accord.

 

[Pengwuino]

There are laws against disturbing the peace though, which this could fall under.

These are some HILARIOUS reactions though. I love it.

 

[Blenton]

Too bad Chasers War on Everything has finished.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am pretty sure there are laws against 'pretending' to rob a place. Depending on the wording he could be charged under the same law. In essence he intentionally made these people believe they were being robbed.

I think at least some of it may have been faked though. I can't imagine so many people freaking out like that just because some weirdo walks in with a stalking on his head. Since they're in england the likelihood that he would have had a gun was pretty slim too.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't try this at home guys. My wife just flattened me with a baseball bat and called 911 with the other hand.

 

[Blenton]

Since they're in england the likelihood that he would have had a gun was pretty slim too.

Ah no. Australia.

 

[fleem]

Most places have laws against faking a crime. That vid is funny but that guy is stupid. He might get shot and if he did, his shooter would most likely be acquitted.

 

[cristo]

Since they're in england the likelihood that he would have had a gun was pretty slim too.

Can you really not tell an English accent and an Australian accent apart?

 

[Huckleberry]

He wasn't faking a crime or pretending anything. He was taking advantage of the absurdity of their reactions by exploiting their fears. The worst he has done is disturb the peace by not conforming socially.

I would think the guy following him around with a camera would be something of a giveaway to his prank.

 

[matt.o]

Since they're in england the likelihood that he would have had a gun was pretty slim too.

Hahaha! No, they're in Australia which, as you probably know, is in Central Europe.

 

[fleem]

He wasn't faking a crime or pretending anything. He was taking advantage of the absurdity of their reactions by exploiting their fears.

Fears of what? A crime?

 

[russ_watters]

He wasn't faking a crime or pretending anything.

Yeah, he really is. Wearing a stocking over one's head is only done by criminals. He might be telling people in the video he does it because its cold and he likes the look, but that doesn't make it true.

It would be a better experiment* if he wore a ski mask, but if it really were cold outside, he might not get the same reaction. And that just wouldn't make for good TV.


*It's not an experiment, it's just a TV stunt.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Can you really not tell an English accent and an Australian accent apart?

Oops. I wasn't paying too close of attention.

 

[negitron]

Can you really not tell an English accent and an Australian accent apart?

Can you tell an American accent from a Canadian one? Be honest; I'll test you.

 

[cristo]

Can you tell an American accent from a Canadian one? Be honest; I'll test you.

Depends where in America. But anyway, that's unfair since the American and Canadian accent are way closer to each other than the British and Australian. The equivalent question would be can you tell an Australian from a New Zealand accent.

 

[negitron]

...the American and Canadian accent are way closer to each other than the British and Australian.

Not to most American ears. See how many think the Geico gecko speaks with an Aussie accent, rather than Cockney as is the actual case.

 

[Pupil]

He might be telling people in the video he does it because its cold and he likes the look, but that doesn't make it true.

Right, but it doesn't make it false, either. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me that one could be convicted of a crime for wearing a stocking over one's head.

 

[Blenton]

Look, he could've been convicted, but they have good lawyers working for them. Its like taking a replica gun to a shop, even though it doesn't actually work, its as bad as taking in a real one.

 

[Pupil]

Look, he could've been convicted, but they have good lawyers working for them. Its like taking a replica gun to a shop, even though it doesn't actually work, its as bad as taking in a real one.

What's wrong with taking a gun into a store? My father took his handgun everywhere when he went out. He never got arrested or had people dive out of the way when he went to buy something.

 

[russ_watters]

Right, but it doesn't make it false, either.

Now you're just playing games. We know it is false.

I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me that one could be convicted of a crime for wearing a stocking over one's head.

I didn't say he should be arrested/convicted, I just said it's a stupid and pointless stunt.

 

[negitron]

Now you're just playing games. We know it is false.

WE know it's false; the people he approached in the stores did not.

 

[matt.o]

... I just said it's a stupid and pointless stunt.

I wouldn't say it was pointless -- I got a laugh out of it.

Here is a stunt they pulled which did end up with them being arrested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdnAaQ0n5-8"

Enjoy!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Can you tell an American accent from a Canadian one? Be honest; I'll test you.

I just rewatched it and it was pretty obvious. I was drunk and tired earlier and not really paying much attention.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Right, but it doesn't make it false, either. I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me that one could be convicted of a crime for wearing a stocking over one's head.

Unless the cops found him a nuisance its not likely he would have actually been arrested. But he was obviously doing this as a prank and not because his ears were cold.

 

[drankin]

LOL, I just watched that video. IT WAS PRICELESS.

 

[russ_watters]

WE know it's false; the people he approached in the stores did not.

Exactly!

I wouldn't say it was pointless -- I got a laugh out of it.

Ok, if his intent was humor only, then he succeeded. If his intent was to make a point about profiling, he failed.

 

[rootX]

He could have hurt someone or himself.

 

[Flat]

Yes you can, although it is most likely from local laws. I think it is for inducing panic.

My friends and I were in a goofy mood a few years ago and decided to dress up as super heros and go about our town. We ended up running into a sheriff in a mini mart who warned us about inducing panic (I can't remember what the exact term was, but that is the jist of it).

 

[AUMathTutor]

That was great.

He probably could have been arrested, but that's because people are dumb and people make the laws.

P.S. The Geico gecko doesn't speak with an Australian accent? What? You just blew my ****ing mind, dude.

 

[rootX]

That was great.

He probably could have been arrested, but that's because people are dumb and people make the laws.

I don't know what kind of world you want to be in.

 

[AUMathTutor]

It's actually a blessing and a curse to be surrounded by people who are, for the most part, dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[mXSCNT]

The people in the shops made an incorrect snap judgment about the comedian with the stocking on his head. They assumed he was a robber, but he was actually just making a TV show. That is exactly the problem with profiling--false positives, when no crime has been committed.

Now, it might not have been that wise to do what he did, because somebody could have overreacted and hit him over the head or shot him thinking they were preventing a robbery. He was endangering himself, but luckily there were no mishaps and the result is very funny.

 

[AUMathTutor]

Personally, I thought it was funny too.

In Australia, do they train store owners to run away from robbers? I thought it was common here in America, anyway, to just comply with robbers. Surely you're safer that way.

 

[russ_watters]

The people in the shops made an incorrect snap judgment about the comedian with the stocking on his head. They assumed he was a robber, but he was actually just making a TV show. That is exactly the problem with profiling--false positives, when no crime has been committed.

Ok, could we please try to use some logic on this? Racial profiling is said to be wrong because it unfairly discriminates on a group of people based on their skin color. What group of people does judging based on a stocking over a person's face discriminate against? Comedians?

 

[NeoDevin]

They were running away from the TV camera, not the guy with the stocking on his head. Duh!

 

[Huckleberry]

Yeah, he really is. Wearing a stocking over one's head is only done by criminals. He might be telling people in the video he does it because its cold and he likes the look, but that doesn't make it true.

It would be a better experiment* if he wore a ski mask, but if it really were cold outside, he might not get the same reaction. And that just wouldn't make for good TV.


*It's not an experiment, it's just a TV stunt.

A stocking cap isn't only worn by criminals. Actors wear them when they are roleplaying criminals. I have no idea how common it is for criminals to wear stockings, but I can't remember ever having seen or heard of a particular case of it. My only experience with that fashion is from movie and television actors from numerous films. It seems much more reasonable to me to assume that the comedic actor in the video was pretending to be an actor that looked like a criminal, especially given that there was a guy following him around with a camera, the man was not intimidating or making demands and he never presented a weapon.

One of the store employees in the video came to the same conclusion. He told the guy to take his stocking off. He tried to remove it from him. Then he pushed him out the door. It was mostly an angry response to a bad joke. It wasn't entirely a fear response to being robbed.

The fear response is mostly irrational here. The initial thought is stocking cap = robber. If people questioned that belief and allowed rational thought they would easily realize that it is not enough information or irrelevant information. There must be assumptions made, but they can't choose wisely if they default to a mind-numbing fear response at any provocation. I mean, even without the introduction to the skit would anyone really believe that this guy was looking to rob anyone? That seems unlikely to me given the circumstances. He looks like a duck, but clucks like a chicken, walks like a chicken and pecks like a chicken. Pavlov says it is a duck. On closer examination it is easy to see he is a chicken disguised as a duck.

This is no experiment. I'm uncertain if it has any relevance to discrimination at all. This is just a bad TV stunt, and the comedian knew it before he began. He upset people for kicks.

 

[seerongo]

There are no statutes against being an idiot, unless there are some particularly enlightened jurisdictions out there. However the theory of evolution will take over eventually, since if this idiot continues, he will be rendered a moot (and mute) point.

 

[Danger]

Yeah, he really is. Wearing a stocking over one's head is only done by criminals.

Untrue. I don't know about in the US, or Australia, or anywhere else, but up here victims of severe facial burns wear an elastic mask that looks almost identical to the stocking things (but a bit more opaque).
We do also have a law, though, that makes it a crime to wear a disguise. That's never enforced, though, since it would screw up Hallowe'en and make transvestites' lives a living hell. Wearing a disguise while committing a crime, however, seriously adds to the severity of the charge.
In this case, the guy went out of his way to assure everyone that he meant no criminal intent. They just didn't believe him.

 

[lisab]

In this case, the guy went out of his way to assure everyone that he meant no criminal intent. They just didn't believe him.

Some people are bad liars; this guy is a bad truth-teller .

 

[Danger]

Too right!