Bus driver sacked OMG

[noseall]

law established through decided cases and custom, rather than specified in statute. The statute in question specifically states the common law rights are replaced. That is because at the time, common law had not established the right to strike first in self defence, making it difficult to use force to stop a crime.

Waffling again. Reasonable force rules are defined and applied across the board, common law statute or otherwise...

Reasonable force' guidance has been tested against and applies to:

Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3)*
Common Law
Children Act 1989 & 2004
Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93)
Use of Reasonable Force in Schools – DfE Guidance
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Sections 5–6)
Human Rights Act 1998
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Equality Act 2010


YOU quoted the CLA 1967. Have you changed your mind on that now?

 

[Odds]

Waffling again. Reasonable force rules are defined and applied across the board, common law statute or otherwise...

Reasonable force' guidance has been tested against and applies to:

Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3)*
Common Law
Children Act 1989 & 2004
Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93)
Use of Reasonable Force in Schools – DfE Guidance
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Sections 5–6)
Human Rights Act 1998
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Equality Act 2010


YOU quoted the CLA 1967. Have you changed your mind on that now?

not with only 31 pages down.

 

[MNW67]

Not entirely, the credibility of the account given by the accused carries a fair degree of weight.
The injuries received and any other recorded or witnessed or physical evidence is also taken into account.
An accused can't simply say, "he came at me first".

Of course. That goes without saying.

A jury in a criminal trial would have to decide whether the 'honest belief' was genuinely held.

But once the jury has established that the 'honest belief' is genuinely held, they use that as the basis for determining whether the force was reasonable. Even if the defendant was mistaken in his honest belief

 

[Highway Man]

OMG, poor pickpocket

Only way to deal with these savages, they only understand violence, no point trying to reason with them.

 

[King Billy]

Trouble sleeping last night?

Maybe I'll sleep better tonight knowing you're watching over me.

 

[motorbiking]

Waffling again. Reasonable force rules are defined and applied across the board, common law statute or otherwise...

Reasonable force' guidance has been tested against and applies to:

Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3)*
Common Law
Children Act 1989 & 2004
Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93)
Use of Reasonable Force in Schools – DfE Guidance
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Sections 5–6)
Human Rights Act 1998
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
Equality Act 2010

Are you suggesting the same rules for reasonable force are applied? yes or no. This seems to have been your argument thus far.

YOU quoted the CLA 1967. Have you changed your mind on that now?

It remains a fact that your rights to stop a crime/criminal are defined in sec 3 as I have been saying all along, rather than the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, which is the "wrong law."

 

[King Billy]

Of course. That goes without saying.

A jury in a criminal trial would have to decide whether the 'honest belief' was genuinely held.

But once the jury has established that the 'honest belief' is genuinely held, they use that as the basis for determining whether the force was reasonable. Even if the defendant was mistaken in his honest belief

And they would use other evidence and actions leading up to the incident, such as retrieving the stolen property then letting the thief go, or the potential thief legging it without the stolen property, and the CCTV evidence to assess the credibility of the accused's version.

 

[MNW67]

And they would use other evidence and actions leading up to the incident, such as retrieving the stolen property then letting the thief go, or the potential thief legging it without the stolen property, and the CCTV evidence to assess the credibility of the accused's version.

I am only trying to explain the legal principles involved.

I haven't really tried to apply them to this particular case.

 

[pete01]

Maybe I'll sleep better tonight knowing you're watching over me.

Whats your address?

 

[motorbiking]

I am only trying to explain the legal principles involved.

I haven't really tried to apply them to this particular case.

I’m assuming the cctv is not public or have people seen it?

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting the same rules for reasonable force are applied? yes or no. This seems to have been your argument thus far.

Yes.

It remains a fact that your rights to stop a crime/criminal are defined in sec 3 as I have been saying all along

Nor have I argued differently. Nor is that anything to do with chasing someone with a weapon after the threat has passed.

, rather than the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, which is the "wrong law.

Which is wholly irrelevant to the Criminal Law Act 1967 and irrelevant to and nothing to do with the fact that it is not lawful to chase after a suspect with a weapon once the threat has ceased. Nor will you be able to show otherwise. Nor have I mentioned common law, I don't know why you keep motioning it being the 'wrong law' either nor is relevant to 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.
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.

What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.



Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)

 

[fillyboy]

Whats your address?

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

 

[MNW67]

I’m assuming the cctv is not public or have people seen it?

I've not been able to find it.

 

[King Billy]

I am only trying to explain the legal principles involved.

I haven't really tried to apply them to this particular case.

There seems to me to be a conflation of two cases.
1. The bus driver, and 2. Mottie chasing a failed potential thief.
In the first instance, the bus driver had already used reasonable force to apprehend the thief, and recover the stolen property.
During that process it's reasonable for the bus driver to have assessed the thief's probability to resort to violence, which appeared to be low.
Indeed the thief returned to apologise. I'm sure he didn't do that in total silence.
Any court case would hang on the credibility of the bus driver's account, compared to the CCTV recordings, events leading up to the incident, and any witness statements, as to whether reasonable force was employed in self defence.

On the Mottie incident, it sounds to me as though Mottie went above and beyond the protection of any property and the attempt at apprehending the suspect. There was never any suggestion of self defence. I suspect that had the 'crack on the elbow' resulted in broken bones, Mottie might have found himself charged with assault, and even carrying a weapon.

 

[King Billy]

Whats your address?

SW1A 1AA, of course.

But all the court jesters are already booked, thanks.