Bus driver sacked OMG

[King Billy]

Is this statute, guidance, case law?

What case law?
The cases that you haven'r presented?

 

[King Billy]

speaks volumes.

Like your refusal to present the relevant sections of the legislation or the cases that you keep referring to. titter

 

[King Billy]

Sometimes you've just got to do the right thing

And suffer the consequences for his judgement of 'the right thing'
But the whole story is about him not accepting responsibility and being discontent with the consequences.

 

[noseall]

What case law

Who knows.

 

[King Billy]

Every bond you break, every step you take

I'll be stalking watching you.

 

[fillyboy]

Who knows.

You don't.

 

[motorbiking]

You don't.

Posts a link about household intruders

 

[motorbiking]

Who knows.

Wrong law dummy.

 

[Odds]

I have asked multiple times for you to present the relevant section of the law that you refer to, yet still you resist. There can be only one explanation.
How about presenting some case law, to which you have now switched, that supports your interpretation of the relevant law.

Welcome to 'bikings legalese roundabout - a tale in the round which goes around and around til nobody can remember what the point of it is.
Dante's fifth circle of Hell.

 

[motorbiking]

Welcome to 'bikings legalese roundabout - a tale in the round which goes around and around til nobody can remember what the point of it is.
Dante's fifth circle of Hell.

I’m not the one denying what the law says. It’s only two sentences. It can’t be that hard even for the usual trolls… like you Himmy, Nosenout and troll mod.

We can talk about self defence and home invasion if you want. But it’s not relevant.

 

[MNW67]

It all comes down to the individual facts of each case. In the heat of the moment, a defendant isn't expected to weight the niceties of the situation precisely.

 

[noseall]

Posts a link about

Reasonable force, dummy.

 

[noseall]

Wrong law dummy.

Nonsense. It's UK criminal law dummy. The case tested the 'reasonable force' threshold, dummy.

 

[Highway Man]

Nonsense. It's UK criminal law dummy. The case tested the 'reasonable force' threshold, dummy.

titter

 

[motorbiking]

Always.

This is still true though and why chicken bikers is so embarrassed...

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.

unless the use of a weapon is not disproportionate. Belief that the suspect is armed, weapon was something readily available, rather than a specific prohibited weapon etc.

And this....
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.

isn't true because:

It all comes down to the individual facts of each case. In the heat of the moment, a defendant isn't expected to weight the niceties of the situation precisely.

which is correct.

So when you keep posting about the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself as per:

Nonsense. It's UK criminal law dummy. The case tested the 'reasonable force' threshold.

which is a case almost entirely about the common law defence of reasonable force to defend yourself in a home intrusion. It doesn't address the statutory defence that a person has under Sec 3,1 Criminal Law Act 1967 giving power to use reasonable force :

(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.

and just in case you were confused about how common law applies there is a helpful subsection 2 which avoids any doubt or ambiguity around common law:
(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.

Nothing requires a person to cease, just because the criminal has stopped committing the crime or is running away.