Bus driver sacked OMG

[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.

 

[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.

 

[noseall]

waffle

Give it up boyo.

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]

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.

stop coaching him..

He's referred to section 3(1). which is:
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.

 

[johnny2007]

OMG, poor pickpocket

Lovely!

 

[King Billy]

not true. It is the same law that allows police to use a baton.

Police cannot immediately resort to the use of a baton, unless other forms of restraint have failed, or there is an immediate threat from the suspect.

And even then indiscriminate use of the baton could result in assault charges, e.g. striking the head or other vulnerable parts.

 

[King Billy]

A piece of scaffolding grabbed in the heat of the moment to lawful pursue a criminal a is none of those things, even if the scaffolding is used on the person while they are running away.

If the act of attempted theft has been averted and the suspect is fleeing, with no sign of violence towards the pursuer, there would be no grounds for further pursuit with a weapon, with an intent to inflict serious injury.

 

[King Billy]

OTOH:

He knew the thief hadn't put up a fight when he retrieved the necklace, but from the thief's POV that was a sudden and unexpected event.

If he was aware of the driver chasing him, it wouldn't have been an unexpected event. If there really was a chase, then the thief must have been unfit to be unable to outrun a 62 year old.
In retrieving a necklace (assuming it was undamaged) the thief would have had to surrendered it easily, to avoid damage to it. Apparently the driver pulled him about a bit. So there was no major struggle.

He also knew that the thief returned to the bus instead of going his own way. It would be natural and reasonable for the driver to think that thief might have violent intentions.

Unless the thief, who earlier, may have voluntarily surrendered the stolen property, was approaching in a conciliatory attitude and expressing his regret.

Do we know that?

It would be assessed form the various sources of evidence and witness statements.
So far we have only the drivers' and the victim's comments, none of which were given under oath.

 

[King Billy]

...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.
....

Sums it up pretty well.
Wielding a scaffold pole can hardly be considered as reasonable force, especially if used against vulnerable parts of the body, viz a viz police judicial use of a baton.
No-one can reasonably consider a scaffold pole used as a weapon as justifiable force against a fleeing potential thief. it is far too heavy handed in respect to the crime that might have been committed.

 

[King Billy]

stop coaching him..

He's referred to section 3(1). which is:
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.

Sums it up pretty well.
Wielding a scaffold pole can hardly be considered as reasonable force, especially if used against vulnerable parts of the body, viz a viz police judicial use of a baton.
No-one can reasonably consider a scaffold pole used as a weapon as justifiable force against a fleeing potential thief. it is far too heavy handed in respect to the crime that might have been committed.

 

[King Billy]

If he's honest, I think he's only just realised that s3(1) applies to Police and civilians. I'm not entirely convinced he knew that civilians had the power to use force to make an arrest.

The hilarios bit is that his AI has generated some text that doesn't exist in any of the sources he keeps posting.

IMO, in preventing a crime or arresting an offender, any potential injury resulting from the use of a weapon would be considered unreasonable if it was more severe than any penalty applied by the justice system, for the offence.
E.g, potential or actual broken bones, life changing or severe injuries for relatively minor offences would be considered unreasonable, if caused through the prevention of minor crimes or detention of petty criminals.

 

[King Billy]

after posting the same AI generated garbage 23 times, nosenout finally realises the text cannot be found anywhere in the source.


It says it in your link dumb-dumb.

This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

Keeping something 'to hand' to be used as a weapon would be legally risky. It would suggest a degree of premeditation.
For instance, a baseball bat kept as a non-sporting item, a scaffold pole kept for no other obvious purpose.

 

[King Billy]

Err....

At no point has the "discussion" between noseall and motorbiking been about the bus driver incident....

I agree. But the two contextually different incidents continue to be debated sise by side in the same thread without obvious indication of which issue is being commented on.

 

[King Billy]

I've just searched this thread for posts by you containing self defence.

There are 20. Obviously including the one I've quoted here, and I've not looked to see how many contain that term via you quoting somebody else, but even so....

It's possible that someone can say, "I have not mentioned self-defence", or "I am not talking about self defence", which would prove the error.