- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 16,235
- Reaction score
- 9,877
- Country
Only way to deal with these savages, they only understand violence, no point trying to reason with them.
Bus driver sacked OMG
- Thread starter pete01
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
Are you suggesting the same rules for reasonable force are applied? yes or no. This seems to have been your argument thus far.
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."
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
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.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
I’m assuming the cctv is not public or have people seen it?
Yes.
Nor have I argued differently. Nor is that anything to do with chasing someone with a weapon after the threat has passed.
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.
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)
I've not been able to find it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
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.
...and bus drivers get your daughters home safe.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 28
- Country
And a few civilian bystanders in the process. I believe it's called collateral damage.
Vigilante collateral damage wouldbe far worse.
I'm still baffled by your 'wrong law' gibberish.
Earlier in the thread you started with your wrong law nonsense, and was asked to define. You stated the The Criminal Law Act 1967 applies. You even went on to belittle and told folk you'd explain both paragrphs etc.
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.
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)
Then you started waffling about common law. The same threshold applies regards reasonable force, here too.
So, I ask again, in relation to it being unlawful (across the board) someone chasing after a suspect with a weapon, after the threat has ceased - how does this become 'wrong law dummy'
It make no sense.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
OK last time, for the extremely hard of thinking:
The use of force as it relates to self defence (common law) is different to the use of force for making an arrest (statute).
- Self defence: threat over / no more force
- Making an arrest: perpetrator still at large / reasonable force can still be used, even if they are running away.
Surely you can see the difference?
This common law right to use reasonable force is entirely different to the statutory power to use reasonable force to make an arrest as per section 3(2).
Good answer, it is of course incorrect.
The use of force as it relates to self defence (common law) is different to the use of force for making an arrest (statute).
- Self defence: threat over / no more force
- Making an arrest: perpetrator still at large / reasonable force can still be used, even if they are running away.
Surely you can see the difference?
This applies to the common law excuse of self defence only. With regard to making an arrest - There is no obligation to cease the use of reasonable force, just because the person is running away or the immediate threat of violence passed. As has been said by BB barrister, your own link and the actual CPS guidance, as well as me. Further, nothing prevents you from using an object as a weapon, when pursuing a criminal who you suspect is probably tooled up, so long as this is based on a reasonable belief and you goal is to catch them before they get away and the police arrive.
There is nothing that prevents you from pursuing a suspect and using reasonable force to apprehend them including the use of an object as a potential weapon
the right to use force to defend yourself is common law, sorry you don't seem to understand that. If you read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76 its in black and white.
This common law right to use reasonable force is entirely different to the statutory power to use reasonable force to make an arrest as per section 3(2).
But will they continue do so in future if they are at risk of losing their job?
Nothing in your post makes any sense in regards to what I wrote.
Common law, statute, or otherwise, there is no lawful provision which allows you to peruse a fleeing suspect once the threat has passed, using a weapon and attacking him with it.
Last edited:
Only if they are daft enough to leave the keys in it with the engine running and loaded with passengers. It’s a pretty high bar there fboy. Most bus drivers spend their entire careers, not doing it.
