Bus driver sacked OMG

[motorbiking]

It is truly cringeworthy now reading nosenowts insane googling. I would love to see him in a court of law defending himself. You can just see the judges face. Very embarrassing.

View attachment 406773

Boyo the builder realises why Google AI and a Travis Perkins trade card isn't enough..

 

[Highway Man]

Thanks I would like to be able to do it myself one day

You won't be able to, sorry about that.

 

[MNW67]

For clarity, I never mentioned or questioned chasing after a suspect because you want to detain or arrest them.

I think that's an important distinction.

If you are chasing the culprit simply to boink them on the head with your weapon/object, then that is just revenge or punishment.

 

[motorbiking]

I think that's an important distinction.

If you are chasing the culprit simply to boink them on the head with your weapon/object, then that is just revenge or punishment.

you know I blame you, for introducing him to AI.

 

[MNW67]

you know I blame you, for introducing him to AI.

Just as an aside, another reason that I experimented with posting Google AI results, was to encourage transparent debate. Rather than everyone Googling stuff and then pretending they already knew it, I thought posters might appreciate somebody being honest about what they were doing.

 

[pete01]

You won't be able to, sorry about that.

OMG why?

 

[pete01]

Just as an aside, another reason that I experimented with posting Google AI results, was to encourage transparent debate. Rather than everyone Googling stuff and then pretending they already knew it, I thought posters might appreciate somebody being honest about what they were doing.

OMG

 

[motorbiking]

OMG why?

we can do it for you if you want? Just before... You know.. to give you time to read it... n' all

 

[MNW67]

OMG

Exactly

 

[pete01]

Exactly

OMG Ai knows who you are

 

[MNW67]

OMG Ai knows who you are

Hilarious. And a bit scary.

 

[morqthana]

Yes. So basically, self-defence.

Unless the CCTV disproves his version.

The bus company and the police came to different conclusions -

"Ms Gioroc concluded that the Assault Allegation was found. She explained
why she disagreed with the police review and why she found that the
claimant was guilty of physical assault as opposed to acting in self-defence"

But the police conclusion might have been influenced by considerations of likely success of a prosecution, and in the round was it in the public interest to prosecute a bus driver for preventing a crime loss and thumping a known offender. It might be that the police and the bus company actually agreed on what the driver had done but the police decision was "We're calling it self defence. Can I go now, Inspector, got some villains to catch".

 

[noseall]

From Nosenout's own links Page 3 and 4

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 judgements 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.


Use of Force against Those Committing Crime

The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Prosecutors should have particular regard to:

• the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
• the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
• the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
• whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.

So thats Nosenout done up like a kipper from his own links.

But lets look at the actual law as I've been trying to get him to do since the start:

Criminal Law Act 1967

An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Use of force in making arrest, etc.
(1)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 or of persons unlawfully at large.

So thats any person, not just a police officer, can use reasonable force, irrespective of the person running away or being a threat, while they are not under the persons control.

Is that governed by the same common law basis for reasonable force in self defence? No
(2)Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.


Then we look the what happens if the person was completely mistaken about the circumstances and used excessive force:

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...

www.legislation.gov.uk

(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

I see you have typed just about everything except the scenario which I have repeatedly posted and which you seem to repeatedly ignore, which is to do with a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat,...

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)

Keep dithering waffling and deflecting boyo. The facts speak for themselves. You won't find a scenario, law, rule or caveat which makes attacking a fleeing suspect with a weapon, that is no longer a threat - lawful.

Ever.

 

[morqthana]

It's reported that he was employed for about 2 years.
A full investigation during suspension is much fairer than summary dismissal.

The investigation lasted 3 weeks. Seems a full enough amount of time to look at some CCTV footage.

 

[motorbiking]

I see you have typed just about everything except the scenario which I have repeatedly posted and which you seem to repeatedly ignore, which is to do with a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat,...

Come on boyo, lad, isn't it time to admit that your AI summary confused you when it connected different legal concepts to giving you an incorrect summary? The source you reference doesn't even have the text in it that you keep posting.

For the avoidance of doubt:
a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat,.. can still be pursued in accordance with

sec 3(1) 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 or of persons unlawfully at large.