Bus driver sacked OMG

[Highway Man]

Did you report Odds by the way? last I looked his insult was still there.

Good as gone

 

[MNW67]

lock the thread as MBK has won the case. (about 30 pages ago)

I don't think anyone's a winner here.

But seriously, they are talking about slightly different things. So, they are both right.

 

[noseall]

Its a complete lie.

Take it up the the CPS. I care not

In case you missed the rest of the facts...
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)

 

[motorbiking]

Grow up.

how would you like it if someone called your wife a tart?

 

[Highway Man]

Grow up.

Irony

 

[noseall]

how would you like it is someone called your wife a tart?

 

[Highway Man]

how would you like it is someone called your wife a tart?

Russian tart at that. Racist too.

 

[motorbiking]

made up lies

as expected

 

[noseall]

as expected

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)



The facts are not going to change boyo, no matter how much you sulk.

 

[Highway Man]

I don't think anyone's a winner here.

But seriously, they are talking about slightly different things. So, they are both right.

MBK is, he was leading nosenowt to his conclusion by throwing him a rope. Unfortunately Nosenowt hung himself with it.

 

[motorbiking]

The context is clear

#46 #47 #49 #51 #52

we were only ever discussing s3(1). all the discussions about the common law right to use reasonable force was, as has been said many times the wrong law.

 

[noseall]

But seriously, they are talking about slightly different things. So, they are both right.

I've not claimed anything different. MBK has tried to throw in all kinds of deflective waffle, in an attempt to bolster his argument. I have been succinct from the outset and in continuation from a previous thread.

I said that - to go on chasing (pursuing) and attacking suspect, once the threat is over, with a weapon - is not lawful. No mention of recovering goods. No mention of pursuing in the name of arrest. No mention of further threats of violence from the suspect.

Cut and dried right here....

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)


He can waffle and deflect all he likes.

 

[johnny2007]

So this is more than just acceptable to you - you actually thanked him for writing it:


This is more than just acceptable to you - you actually thanked him for writing it:


But this makes you call Odds a "nasty jealous troll":


Do you have genuine problems with applying the same standards of behaviour to everybody, or are you deliberately choosing to be biased?

It's time for your meds, mate.

 

[motorbiking]

I've not claimed anything different. MBK has tried to throw in all kinds of deflective waffle, in an attempt to bolster his argument. I have been succinct from the outset and in continuation from a previous thread.

I said that - to go on chasing (perusing) and attacking suspect, once the threat is over, with a weapon - is not lawful. No mention of recovering goods. No mention of perusing in the name of arrest. No mention of further threasts of violence from the suspect.

Cut and dried right here....

You literally say you made no mention of recovering goods, pursuing in the name of arrest and then you quote ..

The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states:

which entirely about the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

and then you keep quoting a load of made up boll@x that your AI generated and you pretend its in the source that you've posted 2 dozen times. I've told you its not there, filly has told you its not there. Not only are you making a complete fool of yourself you have resorted to lying. Boyo the builder's pants are well and truly alight.

 

[MNW67]

I said that - to go on chasing (pursuing) and attacking suspect, once the threat is over, with a weapon - is not lawful. No mention of recovering goods. No mention of perusing in the name of arrest. No mention of further threats of violence from the suspect.

I agree that if you chase someone with a weapon, with no intention of arresting them, but purely to mete out punsihment, then that is unlawful.