[Closed] just been assaulted

I'd have decked them both of course

I'd have done all three of them

Blimey you've made it on to the Jeremy Vine show.

And just been on ITV News too !

Of course its an assualt.

yes you can use reasonable force to prevent a crime - it must be commensurate, proportionate and reasonable - and a non voilent crime means that manhandling him is not reasonable.

Teh crime of not having a ticket and refusing to move is of less gravity thaqt the assult therefore it fails the test.

am i wearing my sexy hat?

[img] [/img]

Reasonable force TJ. The little guy actually had a clenched fist so he would have been justified in giving him a dig but to his credit merely restrained and ejected him..

Its not reasoanble. Where was the threat that meant he had to be manhandled?

Your opinion only. We'll see if there are any proceedings brought against the big guy.

Are you just defending the little turd to show how 'right-on' you are, or do you really believe that ejecting him was wrong?

I would far rather that it was brought to a speedy end in the way that it was than inconvenience the other passengers.

TJ: would you not agree that [i]"whit ye gonnae dae abit it?"[/i] is a pretty standard lead up to a fight and is at least threatening behaviour?

personally i think ejecting him was right, but not the way in which he was ejected. if it was that big of a deal then the police or some kinda scottish transport authority could have met him at the next stop and dealt with the situation using the policies and procedures that had been written after (hopefully) carefully considered risk assessments.

thats pretty much the only sensible thing i want to say on this thread.

[img] [/img]

In his statement on the radio it sounds like the little guy does not intend to press charges.

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

I very much doubt the will be prosecuted for the assault. I do find it interesting how many people think this is justified tho

To lay hands on someone is a big step and to do so in this situation is clearly an assault. It cannot be otherwise. if the big man had not intervened what would have happened? Nothing. Therefore the assault is not justified. You can only commit a crime to prevent a more serious one.

I am quite happy to see him ejected and applaud public spirited citizens - and I have actually done similar including laying on of hands myself - however be under no illusions its an assault to do this. teh police had been called, no one was in any danger. No need to commit the assult

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

Throwing stuff at someone is also assault.

Would that be a justifiable response to someone littering?

TJ: would you not agree that "whit ye gonnae dae abit it?" is a pretty standard lead up to a fight and is at least threatening behaviour?

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

and I have actually done similar including laying on of hands myself - however be under no illusions its an assault to do this

Can't be arsed..................

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

Yes it is. You don't have to wait for someone else to throw the first punch.

Waht about if it was a woman? A child? An OAP?

🙄

Yep. Play the emotive card if you like but if any one of them is travelling without a ticket, is caught but refuses to leave the train or buy a ticket and then starts shouting, swearing and getting aggressive with the conductor then yes, they should be put off the train or the police called.

That actually sounds like posturing and is more of a lead up to no fight,

Well YMMV but in Glasgow that's the point where you start looking for either the door or something heavy.

Teh police had already been called. There was no need to assault the guy - what would have happened if the big guy had not put him off? Nothing.; therefore no justification

Graham - you have to have a genuine fear of assault to lay on hands- and yo still commit an assault if you do so

Guys - dress it up anyway you want but its a clear assault with no defense as no crime was prevented by the assult

Threatening behaviour is not justification for laying on of hands.

Great, can you tell that to every bouncer in the country please.

TJ thinks everyone on the train should have been delayed whilst the BTP attended (plus potentially train company would have been fined for causing delays on the line by Network Rail). Others are quite happy little scum was ejected, small minority feel that scum was assaulted and big man should be charged.

Well YMMV but in Glasgow that's the point where you start looking for either the door or something heavy.

TJ -

druidh - Member
Throwing stuff at someone is also assault.

Would that be a justifiable response to someone littering?

bigyinn - Member

TJ thinks everyone on the train should have been delayed whilst the BTP attended

I said that where?

Its an assult - there is no doubt. An assault occurs when you put your hands on someone without their consent.

You can claim a defence that it was justified by the need to prevent a crime. I cannot see that washing in this case as the crime prevented is lessor than the assault.

You cannot go around manhandling people simply because you have been inconvenienced

Teh police had already been called

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

If that was the case then surely the big man was doing the wee scrote a favour? Better to have a bit of a walk home than a criminal record.

Graham - you have to have a genuine fear of assault to lay on hands- and yo still commit an assault if you do so

It may be [i]technically[/i] "assault" (as is any form of unwanted touching I believe), but it would never be prosecuted and I seriously doubt the CPS would be remotely interested in it. (Although they might be forced to now its made the BBC News).

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.

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