Every now and then the police come up with a charge which makes me wonder what the people who wrote the law were thinking [1].
The local youth was charged with possess dangerous thing with intent to injure and intimidate police.
“Possess dangerous thing”? Not an “implement”, “object” or “item”, but a “thing”. It’s just not the sort of language you expect law writers to use is it?
Mind you, the rest of the press release was bizarre as well:
About 1:20pm, the male allegedly entered the police station and threatened staff with a bottle containing a concoction of chemicals.
After allegedly attempting to ignite the contents, the teenager was arrested and in the interests of public safety an exclusion zone was established around the premises.
Trying to ignite a “bottle containing a concoction of chemicals” to what end? And do we have any idea what sort of chemicals they were…do we even know if they were dangerous? Is it possible that the male merely was being threatening and had a bottle on non-dangerous stuff?
It’s such a shame that this case went to the Children’s Court, because the actual details of it would have been fascinating.
Samuel
Comments Disabled To "Possess Dangerous Thing"
#1 Comment By legshagger On July 14, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I wonder if the authorities could charge someone with being in possession of a dangerous website!