| Author |
Message |
Fred Z (Dref)
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |       |
Fingerprints on the gun relevant? (If any.) |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:18 pm: | |
By Fred Z (Dref) on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 11:51 pm:
Fingerprints on the gun relevant? (If any.) No |
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:01 pm: | |
Going back to the gun, if it had been worth, say, 800 GBP* would he have been charged with that difference instead?
*USian keyboards don't have a symbol for pounds, and I don't know the ascii number offhand--I'm posting this from the San Jose Tech Museum (I'm chaperoning my daughter's field trip--they're learning the physics of roller coasters right now so I'm on my own for a bit). |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:37 pm: | |
By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 09:01 pm:
Going back to the gun, if it had been worth, say, 800 GBP* would he have been charged with that difference instead? yes
Hope daughter unit enjoyed the museum. Austin ate that place up while he was visiting with grandma. No doubt he'll be back this summer. |
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 3:21 am: | |
It was my first visit there, and I was impressed--kind of like the Exploritorium in S. F.: they grok that kids like interactive stuff.
And so do dads. Moms too, probably (I didn't ask 'em).
So the gun did make the difference in what they charged him with? Was it to make him cop to the deed (i. e. "We'll take the price of your gun off the top if you'll confess.")? Or did they have a choice? |
(Stuccosalt)
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:47 pm: | |
Have anything to do with whether they could charge him with armed vs. unarmed robbery? Anything at all to do with the extent to which they could prosecute?
Did the bank receive back all money stolen? Would they have gotten less if they charged him w/ the full amount?
f.y.i., on my machine £ is OPT+3, but I use a Mac. |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:16 pm: | |
By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 03:21 am:
It was my first visit there, and I was impressed--kind of like the Exploritorium in S. F.: they grok that kids like interactive stuff.
Yup..I think I went with Austin twice the last time I was out. Grandma takes him several times. he never gets tired of it.
And so do dads. Moms too, probably (I didn't ask 'em).
Funny that. I didn't ask either...
So the gun did make the difference in what they charged him with? Yes Was it to make him cop to the deed (i. e. "We'll take the price of your gun off the top if you'll confess.")?No Or did they have a choice? No...it seems the law was in play here
By (Stuccosalt) on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 01:47 pm:
Have anything to do with whether they could charge him with armed vs. unarmed robbery? No Anything at all to do with the extent to which they could prosecute? No
Did the bank receive back all money stolen? No Would they have gotten less if they charged him w/ the full amount? No |
Ian (Image)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 12:08 am: | |
Does it matter that the weapon was that specific gun? A gun in general? If he had stolen the money with a £1200 knife, would things have happened the same way?
Any other relevent characters/objects?
Did he steal £4400 cold hard cash?
If NO:
Partly cash?
No cash?
Bonds/stocks/whatever?
Specific objects?
If YES:
Form of the money relevent?
Is the amount relevent? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 2:13 pm: | |
By Ian (Image) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 12:08 am:
Does it matter that the weapon was that specific gun? Not really A gun in general? could have been something else, I suppose If he had stolen the money with a £1200 knife, would things have happened the same way? Yes
Any other relevent characters/objects? No
Did he steal £4400 cold hard cash? Yes
If NO:
Partly cash?
No cash?
Bonds/stocks/whatever?
Specific objects?
If YES:
Form of the money relevent? No
Is the amount relevent? the amount stolen? only that it was more than the price of the gun |
Benjamin Moore (Zenith)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 3:52 pm: | |
So if he hadn't stolen any money, would he in fact recieve the £1200 from the bank? Is the £1200 is in fact seperate from the actual proceedings of the court case, bar the fact he has to pay the money?
Is the fact his only punishment seems to be paying back the bank the £3200 relevent?
by the way, If it is any help to USian and Australian keyboard users (using Windows), the £ symbol can be found on the Character Map.
Start > All Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Character Map.
Unicode u +00A3 |
Ian (Image)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 4:00 pm: | |
Did the man have the gun with him when he left the bank?
Did he have it when he was caught?
Did the police confiscate it at the same time he was caught?
Was he returned the gun in the same condition that it was take from him in? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:58 am: | |
By Benjamin Moore (Zenith) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 03:52 pm:
So if he hadn't stolen any money, would he in fact recieve the £1200 from the bank? No Is the £1200 is in fact seperate from the actual proceedings of the court case, bar the fact he has to pay the money? No
Is the fact his only punishment seems to be paying back the bank the £3200 relevent? No....the puzzle is all about why he didn't have to repay the full amount
By Ian (Image) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 04:00 pm:
Did the man have the gun with him when he left the bank? Yes
Did he have it when he was caught? yes, but not relevant
Did the police confiscate it at the same time he was caught? Yes
Was he returned the gun in the same condition that it was take from him in? yes |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:30 pm: | |
HINT: The court (judge) reduced the amount that our theif had to pay back, by the cost of the gun. |
Quintus Marcius (Philippus)
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:43 pm: | |
Did the police/court pay the difference to the bank?
Did Tony pay the police £1200 when they returned the gun to him?
When it passed the law, was the government worried about the potential for having to compensate suspects/criminals if they lost their property while it was being held as evidence?
Is the idea that the law saves the public purse the cost of looking for property lost by the police and any resulting lawsuits? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:30 pm: | |
By Quintus Marcius (Philippus) on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:43 pm:
Did the police/court pay the difference to the bank? No
Did Tony pay the police £1200 when they returned the gun to him? No
When it passed the law, was the government worried about the potential for having to compensate suspects/criminals if they lost their property while it was being held as evidence? No
Is the idea that the law saves the public purse the cost of looking for property lost by the police and any resulting lawsuits? No |
Quintus Marcius (Philippus)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:20 pm: | |
So the bank lost £1200?
Did it gain anything in exchange? such as use of the gun (unlikely, I know)? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:52 pm: | |
By Quintus Marcius (Philippus) on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 11:20 pm:
So the bank lost £1200? Yes
Did it gain anything in exchange? No such as use of the gun (unlikely, I know)? No |
Craig Atlas (Craiga)
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:48 pm: | |
did he steal the 4400 in one go, or on two or more different occaisions? |
Craig Atlas (Craiga)
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:11 pm: | |
did Tony work at the bank?
was the gun broken during the robbery, or at any other time?
"The cops knew he took the 4400 and so did the judge and the jury."
did the bank know he had stolen £4400 cash?
How bout this?
he stole £1200 without the bank knowing,
then bought the gun,
then stole the other £3200,
the bank only knew about the £3200,
so he was only charged with the sealing of £3200? and only during the case it came out that he had stolen the other £1200 as well, thats why he has not been charged with the full £4400? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:15 pm: | |
By Craig Atlas (Craiga) on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 03:48 pm:
did he steal the 4400 in one go, or on two or more different occaisions? Just one
By Craig Atlas (Craiga) on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 04:11 pm:
did Tony work at the bank? No...not in the way you mean
was the gun broken during the robbery, or at any other time? No
"The cops knew he took the 4400 and so did the judge and the jury."
did the bank know he had stolen £4400 cash? Yes
How bout this?
he stole £1200 without the bank knowing,
then bought the gun,
then stole the other £3200, no
the bank only knew about the £3200, No
so he was only charged with the sealing of £3200? No, he was initially charged with stealing the full amount and only during the case it came out that he had stolen the other £1200 as well, thats why he has not been charged with the full £4400? NO...interesting though |
Jens Weber (Sundowner)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:26 pm: | |
Any other case or trial besides the one for robbery relevant?
if so: did the man appear as witness or victim in that other trial?
Did the man need the gun for his job? was he working for the police? for the army? for some security company?
Was the gun his own property? or the property of his employer?
Did the judge consider the cost of the gun as necessary expense/business related expense?
Was there any other reason to assume that the man bought the gun with some other intention than committing a crime? |
Kapil Kapur (Dinkie)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:56 am: | |
was the bank manager corrupt ?
was he in on the crime ?
is Tony related to any of the bank staff ?
was Tony a security guard at the bank ? |
(Stuccosalt)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:15 pm: | |
Not sure if this was asked: would something negative happen to the bank or anyone working there if the robber was charged for stealing the full amount? Would there be other costs to pay? Would there be any different trial processes involved?
If they charged for the full amount, would the man have been convicted? Would anybody have been convicted? Would the bank have received less money (net) if they charged for the full amount?
Was the gun originally owned by the robber (prior to the robbery)?
Would the crime for which the robber was charged be the same if prosecuted for the full amount (i.e., maybe it's 'armed robbery' for the smaller amount vs. a lesser charge for the full amount for some reason)? |
(Stuccosalt)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 8:34 pm: | |
Also - during any part of this puzzle, did the robber do any type of good deed? |
Neil Gummow (Dodgyken)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:48 am: | |
Was he paid by the bank to test security. The amount he stole he gave back minus a deduction for expenses - in this case the gun? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 8:07 pm: | |
By Jens Weber (Sundowner) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 06:26 pm:
Any other case or trial besides the one for robbery relevant? No
if so: did the man appear as witness or victim in that other trial?
Did the man need the gun for his job? yesish..what job? was he working for the police? for the army? for some security company? None of these
Was the gun his own property? Yes or the property of his employer? Yes
Did the judge consider the cost of the gun as necessary expense/business related expense? Yes
Was there any other reason to assume that the man bought the gun with some other intention than committing a crime? No
By Kapil Kapur (Dinkie) on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:56 am:
was the bank manager corrupt ?
was he in on the crime ?
is Tony related to any of the bank staff ?
was Tony a security guard at the bank ? No to all
By (Stuccosalt) on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 01:15 pm:
Not sure if this was asked: would something negative happen to the bank or anyone working there if the robber was charged for stealing the full amount? No Would there be other costs to pay? No Would there be any different trial processes involved? No
If they charged for the full amount, would the man have been convicted? no Would anybody have been convicted? No Would the bank have received less money (net) if they charged for the full amount? No, see above
Was the gun originally owned by the robber (prior to the robbery)? Yes
Would the crime for which the robber was charged be the same if prosecuted for the full amount (i.e., maybe it's 'armed robbery' for the smaller amount vs. a lesser charge for the full amount for some reason)? Yes
By (Stuccosalt) on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 08:34 pm:
Also - during any part of this puzzle, did the robber do any type of good deed? No
By Neil Gummow (Dodgyken) on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 05:48 am:
Was he paid by the bank to test security. No The amount he stole he gave back minus a deduction for expenses - in this case the gun? yes, see above
Can someone put it all together, now? |
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:45 pm: | |
Wakey-wakey!
Wad there some legal loophole, by which he claimed the price of the gun as a cost of doing business as a professional bank-robber? |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 9:01 pm: | |
By Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 04:45 pm:
Wakey-wakey!
Wad there some legal loophole, by which he claimed the price of the gun as a cost of doing business as a professional bank-robber?
Correct!!!.....at long last....$poyler on the way |
Barbara Johannessen Bailey (Rabrab)
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 9:04 pm: | |
No credit to me. The answer was in Sundowner's and StuccoSalt's last sets of questions. It just didn't look like anyone was inclined to finish it off. |
Chuck Raby (Wildcard)
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 9:08 pm: | |
******* SPOILER ***********
In January, a judge in Breda, Netherlands, officially ruled that a 46-year-old bank robber, who stole money worth the equivalent of US$8,400, could only be charged with a crime worth about US$6,100 because the court had to let the man offset the equivalent of US$2,300 that he paid for his gun, as a legitimate business expense. [Daily Telegraph (London), 1-26-05]
Go figure.... Thanks all. Sorry this one dragged out so long. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page