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.Did I mention a car?

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!

Now that made me smile……………………

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:

An assault may be constituted by threatening gestures sufficient to produce alarm
—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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

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?

In the real world ie. away from the namby pamby fluffly cloud that some people on STW seem to inhabit……………..absolutely IMO !

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:

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.

Sorry, that pretty much ends the discussion!

may be removed from the railway by an authorised person 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).

may be removed from the railway by an authorised person 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 much more sensitive 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:

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.

By the way – the scrote himself:

http://www.facebook.com/sammain16?sk=wall

(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.