買嘢唔比錢->盜竊
偷完嘢後比錢要求扮冇事發生->防礙司法公正
唔懲處警員犯法->公職人員失當
有片：有警員問OK 職員 頭先防暴拎左幾多支水 我宜家俾返錢你
馬仔
604 回覆
777 Like
54 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁
即係承認左冇比錢！
我係藍絲 下次去ok係咪唔洗俾錢
偷完野俾返錢就可以冇事了
曼德拉好似曾經可能講過
Ok既水特別甜
尤其是唔駛錢
Ok既水特別甜
尤其是唔駛錢
Ceo@ceo.gov.hk
Com-office@icac.org.hk
Csbcomp@csb.gov.hk
Enquiry@ombudsman.hk
Rc@ops.icac.org.hk
Kwongchunyu@dphk.org
投訴警務人員干犯cap.210盜竊罪條例
敬啟者：
本人從網上片段得知2020年5月24日有警務人員於銅鑼灣強搶私人財產，事態嚴重，本人特此致函，促請有關部門從速從嚴處理。
相關資料如下：
https://twitter.com/williamyang120/status/1264444637709660162?s=21
本人留意到香港警務處在其Facebook專頁狡辯「警方澄清，警方已經向店舖付清相關樽裝飲品的費用。」此澄清即是承認該警員當下一刻並無付款。
本人現嚴肅詢問政府相關部門，如果市民在任何便利店先強行拿取商品享用再留待自己方便時才付費，是否不構成任何犯罪？如否，本人現強烈要求政府相關部門從速從嚴處理該警員的偷竊、爆竊及公職人員行為失當行為，因為該警員的劣等行徑已對香港的自由市場及私有產權構成極大負面影響。
Cap. 210《盜竊罪條例》:
3.Dishonestly (不誠實地)
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
[cf. 1968 c. 60 s. 2 U.K.]
本人要求政府相關部門回應是否會對該警員立即採取紀律行動，包括調查、停薪、停職、革職、迫令退休及檢控。
此致
你個名
Com-office@icac.org.hk
Csbcomp@csb.gov.hk
Enquiry@ombudsman.hk
Rc@ops.icac.org.hk
Kwongchunyu@dphk.org
投訴警務人員干犯cap.210盜竊罪條例
敬啟者：
本人從網上片段得知2020年5月24日有警務人員於銅鑼灣強搶私人財產，事態嚴重，本人特此致函，促請有關部門從速從嚴處理。
相關資料如下：
https://twitter.com/williamyang120/status/1264444637709660162?s=21
本人留意到香港警務處在其Facebook專頁狡辯「警方澄清，警方已經向店舖付清相關樽裝飲品的費用。」此澄清即是承認該警員當下一刻並無付款。
本人現嚴肅詢問政府相關部門，如果市民在任何便利店先強行拿取商品享用再留待自己方便時才付費，是否不構成任何犯罪？如否，本人現強烈要求政府相關部門從速從嚴處理該警員的偷竊、爆竊及公職人員行為失當行為，因為該警員的劣等行徑已對香港的自由市場及私有產權構成極大負面影響。
Cap. 210《盜竊罪條例》:
3.Dishonestly (不誠實地)
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
[cf. 1968 c. 60 s. 2 U.K.]
本人要求政府相關部門回應是否會對該警員立即採取紀律行動，包括調查、停薪、停職、革職、迫令退休及檢控。
此致
你個名
push
高層震怒
偷野係講意圖
事後有人比返錢唔代表當時果個警察冇意圖喎
點都應該拉咗佢先
事後有人比返錢唔代表當時果個警察冇意圖喎
點都應該拉咗佢先
明明就係100%便利店偷野、搶野，黑警居然唔係去捉賊而係去包庇個賊！
偷完俾錢就得?
你咪綠帽王陳x佳而家道歉可以當冇事發生過??
執行公務 為所欲為
死仆街
想講呢我覺得入唔到 theft 最多係 blackmail (theft ordinance s23) 或 misconduct in public office
Theft 裏面 dishonest 呢個字係 keyword 係Common law concept而現時criminal 嘅 dishonesty 係用 Ghosh directions (R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 approved in SJ v Cheng Ka Yee [2019] HKCFA 9; Mo Yuk Ping [2007] HKCFA 52) 嚟定義 marginal cases on defendant 's belief (HKSAR v Lam Hin Fai [2015] CFI 1166]):
(1) was the act one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest (applying common sense and ordinary moral standards) (objective test )
(2) the defendant, having realised what he was doing, by the moral standards in (1), must have realised that the act is dishonest) (subjective)
返去段片度 見到佢拎起水 頓咗一下 再拎出去飲 期間同店員應該有眼神接觸 明顯係篤住個鼻 咁點話 dishonest (就算用英國新case Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 嘅1 stage objective test 都唔得 何況（1）嗰個係 civil context (2) 香港冇approve過 in any context)
於是我建議用勒索取代盜竊 保留公職人員行為不當 （反正黃冠豪又入 洗錦華又入 又唔一定要貪污先入嘅 see HKSAR v Shum Kwok Sher [2002] HKCFA 27; R v Dytham [1979] QB 722) 咁樣我哋投訴個 legal basis 會強少少
我係廢物 所以都未必啱 但歡迎討論
Theft 裏面 dishonest 呢個字係 keyword 係Common law concept而現時criminal 嘅 dishonesty 係用 Ghosh directions (R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 approved in SJ v Cheng Ka Yee [2019] HKCFA 9; Mo Yuk Ping [2007] HKCFA 52) 嚟定義 marginal cases on defendant 's belief (HKSAR v Lam Hin Fai [2015] CFI 1166]):
(1) was the act one that an ordinary decent person would consider to be dishonest (applying common sense and ordinary moral standards) (objective test )
(2) the defendant, having realised what he was doing, by the moral standards in (1), must have realised that the act is dishonest) (subjective)
返去段片度 見到佢拎起水 頓咗一下 再拎出去飲 期間同店員應該有眼神接觸 明顯係篤住個鼻 咁點話 dishonest (就算用英國新case Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 嘅1 stage objective test 都唔得 何況（1）嗰個係 civil context (2) 香港冇approve過 in any context)
於是我建議用勒索取代盜竊 保留公職人員行為不當 （反正黃冠豪又入 洗錦華又入 又唔一定要貪污先入嘅 see HKSAR v Shum Kwok Sher [2002] HKCFA 27; R v Dytham [1979] QB 722) 咁樣我哋投訴個 legal basis 會強少少
我係廢物 所以都未必啱 但歡迎討論
俾人發現咪俾返錢囉，冇俾人發現咪當冇事發生囉
原來可以咁
巴打 多謝你,
你可以將中間內容改做你既見解,
等政府無得一次過TEMPLATE REPLY!
全部懷疑控罪都要回應
你可以將中間內容改做你既見解,
等政府無得一次過TEMPLATE REPLY!
全部懷疑控罪都要回應