Bus driver sacked OMG

[noseall]

or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime

Which is not a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat.

. 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.

Which is not a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat.

Use of Force against Those Committing Crime

Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

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.

Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

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.

'Making an arrest'? Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

In case you wondered what it was I commented on, here it is for the twentieth time....



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)

I really hope he reads it this time.....

 

[morqthana]

No 1 what?

Crispy Seaweed at our nearest takeaway.

 

[motorbiking]

Which is not a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat.

Which is not a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat.

Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

'Making an arrest'? Which is not a suspect fleeing that is no longer a threat.

In case you wondered what it was I commented on, here it is for the twentieth time....

A person commits a crime and becomes "a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat" can be lawfully, pursued, and the use of reasonable force used in order to stop them fleeing. s3(1) as you've told a dozen times.

 

[noseall]

I person commits a crime and becomes "a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat" can be lawfully, pursued, and the use of reasonable force used in order to stop them fleeing. s3(1) as you've told a dozen times.

Not what I said. You missed the bit where he is being attacked by a civilian with a weapon.

In case you never read it the other 20 times...

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]

Not what I said. You missed the bit where he is being chased by a civilian with a weapon.

with an object to hand as a weapon - still good

btw - do you realise the text you keep posting isn't in the source you've provided?

 

[noseall]

with an object to hand as a weapon - still good

Sorry, you adding bits like a nailed on Trump style sharpie pen addition, does not cut it.

waffle

In case you missed it the other 22 times....
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]

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

Sorry, you adding bits like a nailed on Trump style sharpie pen addition, does not cut it.

It says it in your link dumb-dumb.

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

 

[morqthana]

What a nasty jealous troll you are.

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

Nutcase, you like your own posts written under several different usernames.
We've been seeing this for years, Himmy.
How difficult is for you to understand that you're not fooling anyone and you never did?
How many times do you have to be told that 99% of members here are waaay smarter and more intelligent than you?

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

He's not in his bedroom.
He's in a mental institution's library, glued to a computer, shuffling between accounts on internet forums.

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

Beats me how the forum Dork dares show his ugly mug every day - even until two in the morning - wassup? your russian tart on t'town last night?

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

 

[Highway Man]

Jeeez is he still going on. What a loser this is more obsession than anything, surely he has an oven to clean or a window sill to paint.

 

[motorbiking]

Jeeez is he still going on. What a loser this is more obsession than anything, surely he has an oven to clean or a window sill to paint.

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.

 

[Highway Man]

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 posted.

Somebody needs to use force to shut him up, he isn't satisfied with making himself look stupid but is crossing the line of blatant trolling.

 

[morqthana]

and now he's turned a thread about a bus driver in to yet another Jew hating thread.

No he hasn't - that's a ridiculous assertion.

Let's see if you can quote any post(s) of his where he has expressed hatred of Jews.

I predict you won't even try.

 

[noseall]

some random words with no context

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 boyo.

 

[motorbiking]

You're done boyo. Nobody can find your AI generated nonsense and your claim that it is sourced from the CPS is a lie

 

[morqthana]

Which is irrelevant on this occasion.

Which is relevant on this occasion.

It is the relevant law, if the driver is to be believed.

Err....

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