Bus driver sacked OMG

[pete01]

WRONG he didn't abbreviate it in the same way as me..Think on...

Im done

 

[Highway Man]

Im done

can't remember if that was mine, it probably was

 

[pete01]

can't remember if that was mine, it probably was

It was mine

 

[noseall]

It wasn't the running up the road with a hokey stick and cricket bat which was the issue, it was the beating to an inch of his life once under their control that was the problem.

Read points two and three and see where you have failed to understand UK law.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

Then read this....

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.

 

[motorbiking]

Read points two and three and see where you have failed to understand UK law.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

Then read this....

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.

And still no source. let me help you with the parts that are fact and opinion

 

[motorbiking]

I wasn't aware a weapon had been used. I read he knocked the other guy (who had attacked him) out with one blow of his fist.

Correct. But as is usual with the forum trolls they go off in another direction.

From the tribunal, it’s not clear why the thief came back to the bus after the stolen necklace had been recovered. Plod didn’t seem to have a problem with the force used, doesn’t mean he still can’t be sacked.

 

[noseall]

And still no source.

No source needed. Nothing to prove. They are simply facts not case references. Good old fashioned UK law, rules, truth and facts.

 

[pete01]

Correct. But as is usual with the forum trolls they go off in another direction.

From the tribunal, it’s not clear why the thief came back to the bus after the stolen necklace had been recovered. Plod didn’t seem to have a problem with the force used, doesn’t mean he still can’t be sacked.

In the interview he said the bloke came back to apologise to the woman but she wasn't interested so he got a bit nasty/pushy and that's why he hit him.

 

[fixitflav]

it’s not clear why the thief came back to the bus

I suppose he wanted to renew the fight, and didn't expect to end up on the losing side.

 

[motorbiking]

No source needed. Nothing to prove. They are simply facts not case references. Good old fashioned UK law, rules, truth and facts.

I guess this is why I don't hire lawyers who can normally be found digging holes or collecting supplies from Travis Perkins.

Perhaps this barrister will convince you.

The guidance he is referring to is here:

Householders and the use of force against intruders | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

Hence everything Mottie did was lawful.

 

[motorbiking]

In the interview he said the bloke came back to apologise to the woman but she wasn't interested so he got a bit nasty/pushy and that's why he hit him.

as in "I'm really sorry I got caught, please don't call the police?"

 

[pete01]

as in "I'm really sorry I got caught, please don't call the police?"

Probably

 

[noseall]

Waffle

As per.

Hence everything Mottie did was lawful.

I never questioned whether Motties heroics lawful or not.

I picked up the argument (first time it was posted) when someone mentioned chasing after a scrote with a weapon and I commented that it would be likely be braking the law. That's when you began your misguided quoting of Acts, waffle, irrelevance and nonsense.

Here are some facts again in case you missed them...
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
And here are some more facts...

The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

 

[pete01]

 

[motorbiking]

As per.

I never questioned whether Motties heroics lawful or not.

Ellal did - incorrectly, then you jumped in with a load of irrelevant nonsense relating to self defence and the use of force.

I picked up the argument (first time it was posted) when someone mentioned chasing after a scrote with a weapon and I commented that it would be likely be braking the law. That's when you began your misguided quoting of Acts, waffle, irrelevance and nonsense.

incorrectly of course.

Here are some facts again in case you missed them...

It is funny watching you keep posting the same opinion without source.
everyone who knows anything about the subject has corrected you..even Eminem has tried to walk you through it gently, but on you go.

boyo the builder shares his legal wisdom.