[Closed] just been assaulted

GrahamS - Member

"Teh police had already been called"

How do you know? That isn't mentioned in the video.

I thought it was

TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - pretty marginal I would say. Was it handed back to them or thrown at them or thrown into the car?

Don't know is the answer. Handed back - no assault, thrown at them - probable assult, thrown into eh car - no assault

Not that its relevant.

TJ, maybe its time to step back from the thread? 🙂 you've clearly made your point, not much point arguing/repeating yourself!

i think its possible that as nurses our understanding of assault it a much more sensitive definition than the average person on the street. i can see where your coming from and understand what your saying 🙂

I have no idea what you are on about then Druidh - I thought you were referring to the incident I had a while ago.

you've clearly made your point, not much point arguing/repeating yourself!

TJ - do you actually know what the definition of an assault is in Scottish law?

Yes Zulu I do.

Just thought I'd check 🙂

ScotlandIn Scots Law, assault is defined as an "attack upon the person of another".[15] There is no distinction made in Scotland between assault and battery (which is not a term used in Scots law), although, as in England and Wales, assault can be occasioned without a physical attack on another's person, as demonstrated in Atkinson v. HM Advocate[16] wherein the accused was found guilty of assaulting a shop assistant by simply jumping over a counter wearing a ski mask. The court said:

[b]An assault may be constituted by threatening gestures sufficient to produce alarm[/b]
—Atkinson v. HM Advocate (1987)
Scottish law also provides for a more serious charge of aggravated assault on the basis of such factors as severity of injury, the use of a weapon, or Hamesuken (to assault a person in his own home). The mens rea for assault is simply "evil intent",[17] although this has been held to mean no more than that assault "cannot be committed accidentally or recklessly or negligently" as upheld in Lord Advocate's Reference No 2 of 1992 where it was found that a "hold-up" in a shop justified as a joke would still constitute an offence.

It is a separate offence to assault on a constable in the execution of his duty, under section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 which provides that it is an offence for a person to, amongst other things, assault a constable in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty.

Interesting...

So, if what no-fare did was potentially assault then what big man did (also assault) was ok because it was done to prevent further assault... maybe 😉

TJ, I think you need to re-iterate your point at least another 10 times to reach your thread standard quota.

"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/new-tram-experience-video

So is the guy in this video also guilty of assault? [serious ? and pls focus on the use of force - this is not a race ? at all]

The original video is very interesting - I agree with TJ (for a change) that the big guy is frankly guilty of assault while at the same time supporting him for doing what he did. Hmm, not very consistent!! Need to think about this one. Categorical or consequential imperative?

My impressions of that video....

Jeez that firefighter needs to start cycling to work a bit more!

The rail guard was attempting to eject the scrote from the train, in law he is able to use reasonable force to do so,

The big man was:

i) assisting him in this lawful task, as a good citizen, at the request of the train guard
ii) exercising his own common law right and duty to intervene to prevent the commission of a crime (fare dodging) and
iii) exercising his additional common law right to prevent a breach of the peace.

So TJ, I've given you three reasons why he he did not commit an assault, as to be an assault under Scottish law, the use fo force must first be shown to be unlawful.

Is this you?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fare-dodger-train-tussle-internet-hit-043334186.html

TJ. You said you have done a very similar thing as "Big Man" in the vid.

Was it OK when you did it ?

And if not, then please stop bleating about this, until you have handed yourself in at the local nick for yours*

.
You just sound like one of those sanctimonious moaning ex smokers otherwise 🙄

(* and nothing will happen. Just like nothing will happen to "Big Man" so other than arguing for the sake of belligerence, who gives a flock wether this was "technically" assault !!!)

Zulu

Does the guard have the right to use force? I doubt it. a cop does. a train guard?

The use of force in this case is not legal for the reasons I outlined above. commensurate, proportionate and reasonable

Z11 - I think, "at the request of the guard" is debatable. He was already looking as if he knew what he was going to do, then briefly asks the guard before proceeding. As much as the physical force used seems appealing (especially if we were stuck on the train) does that make it justified?

On SWT, the guard is not allowed to fine anyone without a ticket. It has to be a Revenue Collection person (not sure of exact title). This seems absurd and it always annoys me that people who have made no attempt to go and find the guard are not fined on the spot. They are thieving - pure and simple. If you cant hand out a fine I doubt you are allowed to manhandle someone.

does that make it justified?

TJ, I think you need to re-iterate your point at least another 10 times to reach your thread standard quota.

That's 1

What about if someone parks on the pavement - is that justification for assault? Or if they pass to close to you on your bike?

Can I just go and thump any car driver who annoys me?

if not explain the moral / legal difference

Woody - I pose the question out of interest and I am certainly not taking any moral high ground!! But I think we might find that the namby pamby fluffy cloud is actually the real world of the courts!!

At what point, would you stop people acting in this way, if at all?

TJ - railway byelaws:

[i]24. Enforcement
(2) Removal of persons
(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
(iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.
[/i]

Sorry, that pretty much ends the discussion!

may be removed from the railway by [i][b]an authorised person[/b][/i] using reasonable force.

i think its possible that as nurses our understanding of assault it a much more sensitive definition than the average person on the street.

The missus is quite often slapped/punched/bitten by confused/disorientated/delirious patients. She's usually nimble enough to avoid it but every now and then she doesn't see it coming or just can't get out the way. 😕

I've proposed that the NHS should be allowed to use a tranquilliser dart fired from a blowpipe to knock such patients out before treating them, in the same way a vet might treat a lion.

But apparently that is against NICE guidelines (probably because the darts are too expensive).

[img] [/img]

may be removed from the railway by [b]an authorised person[/b] using reasonable force.

Who does the authorising?

The guard could have "authorised" the Big Man when he said "I need a hand" 😉

Z11 - thanks for that, interesting. So how do you read, "authorised person" - would that include the big guy, if he had been given the consent (my interpretation) of the guard? Or is it only an official employee?

i think its possible that as nurses our understanding of assault it a [b][i]much more[/i][/b] [b][i]sensitive [/i][/b]definition than the average person on the street.

This just perpetuates the notion that all male nurses are gay

the big guy, if he had been given the consent (my interpretation) of the guard

I'd be surprised if the guard were allowed to authorise people to use force. Be a bit like a sheriff, deputising people on the spot

This just perpetuates the notion that all male nurses are gay

While, for balance, TJ's dress sense and hair style proves otherwise 😉

😕

So TJ if you have also "assaulted" someone, should you not be disbarred from practicing law.

Only if convicted, presumably...

what language where they talking in?
I found it hard to follow.

Can he be convicted by the court of STW?

THM - see my previous comment

Regardless of whether the guard could "sub contract" the power (and bearing in mind we would not think twice about the legality of assisting a police officer who was using force to detain a suspect)

the other two powers would stand on their own:

[i]ii) exercising his own common law right and duty to intervene to prevent the commission of a crime (fare dodging) and
iii) exercising his additional common law right to prevent a breach of the peace.[/i]

By the way - the scrote himself:

(might have known he was a bloody student!)

200.

200.

200

200.
EDIT: Conclusive proof that if you repeat yourself enough you'll eventually be right.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2143 [/img]

what language where they talking in?
I found it hard to follow.

It's English, but it is hard to follow once the 'big hitters' get here.

But I think we might find that the namby pamby fluffy cloud is actually the real world of the courts!!

The line between STW and reality gets more blurred each day..................

*hic!*

ii) exercising his own common law right and duty to intervene to prevent the commission of a crime (fare dodging) and

Taking your interpretation of this I could legally kill somone if I thought they were going to step on my toes

thought for the day:
train fair?

wow there's some shite spouted on this forum

Taking your interpretation of this I could legally kill somone if I thought they were going to step on my toes

You may laugh now Woody - but one day..........................

Yes TJ - thats what I'm saying, the logical extrapolation of someone being thrown off the train for not paying the fare is that you can kill someone for treading on your toes, absolutley, 100%, spot on, you got it 🙄

So the days of freebie tickets are done it seems- the internet/big guys and STW forums have sorted oot the numpties of this world. Not to say the vid has gone viral as well, so if any o youse scrotes out there are gettin ideas - BEWARE!

TJ, I think you must have missed my Question earlier.

When you said you had done a similar thing to the bloke in the video,

[u][b]Was it OK when you did it ?[/b] [/u]

(if not, doesn't banging on about this as much as you are, just make you look like an argumentative timewaster ?)

Zulu - according to you you have an absolute right to do anything you want to prevent a crime being committed.

that appears to be your justification for the big chap assaulting the scrote.

Please let me know what the difference is? Or do you agree it has to be reasonable force commensurate with the crime and proportionate to the risk?

In which case the big chap has committed assault - you cannot have it both ways

TJ, I think you must have missed my Question earlier.

When you said you had done a similar thing to the bloke in the video,
[b]
Was it OK when you did it ?[/b]

(if not, doesn't banging on about this as much as you are, just make you look like an argumentative timewaster ?)

TJ - Where did Z11 say that?

Neal - that would be for others to decide. I have been involved in a few situations like that because I will not stand idly by. I guess some would be seen as justified and some disproportionate.

Militant - on the preivous page - he completely ignores the need for the force used to be resonable and proportionate

Zulu-Eleven - Member
Regardless of whether the guard could "sub contract" the power (and bearing in mind we would not think twice about the legality of assisting a police officer who was using force to detain a suspect)

the other two powers would stand on their own:

ii) exercising his own common law right and duty to intervene to prevent the commission of a crime (fare dodging) and

So Zulu is claiming a crime of no violence - fare dodging it is OK to assault the criminal.

The crime has already been committed - you are not preventing it and there is no threat of violence here.

TandemJeremy - Member
Neal - that would be for others to decide. I have been involved in a few situations like that because I will not stand idly by. I guess some would be seen as justified and some disproportionate.

So you are quite happy to do the same thing yourself then.

But when someone else does it, you feel the need to argue about it online, to prove you know the law.

Even though you apparently don't respect it enough to actually obey it yourself 🙄

TJ - He quotes 'reasonable force' NOT 'absolute right to do anything you want'.

The force used was reasonable, the police would've probably maced him. And he's lying about having a proper ticket. He didn't.

Chuck Norris doesn't obey laws. They obey him.

Militant biker - but the big chap does not use reasonable or justifiable force, he is not preventing a crime ( as it has already been committed) nor is their any threat of violence to justify the use of force.

So Zulu is ignoring the need for the force to be reasonable. proportionate and commensurate.

If the big chap had left the scrote alone would there have been violence? No. the train would merely have been delayed further. Tran delays is no justification for the use of force

If the big chap had left the scrote would there have been violence? No. the train would merely have been delayed further.

yes. someone else would have smashed him for delaying the train and we may have had a less proportionate response.

No, I didn't say that did I TJ, you're being entirely disingenuous to suggest otherwise, its obvious to everyone here that reasonableness comes into it.

The crime has already been committed - you are not preventing it

i) he was still on the train, and had repeatedly refused to leave when lawfully requested to do so by a person enacted with the power to do so - clearly the only way of preventing the continuing commission of the crime (fare evasion) was to remove him from the train - ergo, the use of force was reasonable.

ii) clearly if the, fairly elderly, guard had tried to remove him, as he was lawfully empowered to do, there would have been a imminent significant breach of the peace - and there was also likely to be a breach of the peace if the train waited there for half an hour for the police - as such, again the use fo force was reasonable.

Don;t forget, just a few minutes ago TJ you were telling me that train guards had no power to use force, that was until I pointed you to the bye-laws that say they do 🙄

you're wrong - just accept it TJ!

TJ - FWIW, I'm not into debating the ins and outs of who did what to whom. What I'm getting at is that you've jumped from him quoting 'reasonable force' to him apparently justifying 'absolute right to do anything you want'. He hasn't said such a thing, as far as I can see.

As you complain when you feel people have attributed opinions to you, that you don't hold, I'd have expected better from you 🙂

Edited out a random extra 'put' in there... 😳

Taking a step back here...

Why was "No Fare" unable to use logic and human reasoning if he indeed had a valid ticket. Why swear and act like a numpty? Would you not ask other passengers for help if you indeed believe the guards eyesight was suspect. Least of all act like an adult and a human about it. If you don't have a ticket or money do the right thing and get off.

If I knew I was pushing my luck by not paying and got booted off like that then I wouldn't be too uspet.

One way or another MTFU 😀

But its ok for someone to be caught bang to rights dodging their fare, then inconvenience hundreds of people, (and the delays extended to much more than that one train) by refusing to accept the easy way out and just get off the dam train. Even if the police had got him, scotrail will never recover the cost of the delay he caused because its hundreds of pounds. Then he comes on here and posts his "version" of the story implying that the guard is incompetent and he'd been assaulted. What a ****, I'm embarrassed that he's a mountain biker.

j-cru - Member
Then he comes on here and posts his "version" of the story implying that the guard is incompetent and he'd been assaulted. What a ****, I'm embarrassed that he's a mountain biker.

.... or mine does. 🙂

j-cru - Member
But its ok for someone to be caught bang to rights dodging their fare, then inconvenience hundreds of people, (and the delays extended to much more than that one train) by refusing to accept the easy way out and just get off the dam train. Even if the police had got him, scotrail will never recover the cost of the delay he caused because its hundreds of pounds. Then he comes on here and posts his "version" of the story implying that the guard is incompetent and he'd been assaulted. What a ****, I'm embarrassed that he's a mountain biker.

I'm embarrassed for you, j-cru 😉

j-cru - I might be wrong, but I think the OP was joking about it being him. Just trying to get the old thread resurrected I thought. But could well be wrong!!

j-cru - there's still time to edit your post 😉

Bllx - 2nd cross post on here today. need a speed typing course!!

No there isn't, militant biker 😉

What a ****, I'm embarrassed that he's a mountain biker.

What a ****, I'm embarrassed that he's a mountain biker.

is this an official 'TJ-thread' now?
i can't decide if it's worth reading or not?

[img] [/img]

i wasnt even trying to resurrect a thread, i started it before the other one got closed. figured there's no harm in entertaining a different perspective on things, for the record its definitely not me in the video. i'm much more sexy and i wouldn't dream of not paying a fare.

no harm in being embarrassed that i'm a mountainbiker though, even if you haven't met me/seen me throw myself over the bars!

is this an official 'TJ-thread' now?

TJ with hints of Mungus. A fine vintage.

MrSmith - Member
is this an official 'TJ-thread' now?

All thread are official TJ-threads. It's just that some haven't become them yet.

Ha, good joke. 😳 Googled irony detector and got nothing. Where can i procure one of these items?