Bus driver sacked OMG

It's interesting to note that 'disproportionate' force is allowed inside ones home.

However, once out in the street, the guidance become more restrictive. Chasing after someone and attacking them with a weapon, when the fleeing suspect is no longer a threat, is definitely not lawful, nor can chicken biker seem to find a way to demonstrate it.
 
It is the same law that allows police to use a baton.
Hilarious. I didn't realise you'd changed the subject to police pursuits and arrests. :confused:


What is NOT Reasonable Force:

  • Continuing to attack someone after they are no longer a threat (e.g., they are incapacitated or fleeing).
  • Pre-planned violence or traps.
  • Retaliation or revenge.
  • Using a weapon carried specifically for self-defence, as this is illegal in the UK.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to note that 'disproportionate' force is allowed inside ones home.

However, once out in the street, the guidance become more restrictive.
Its almost as if someone told you to read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76.
Doesn't sound like you understood it though.. again.
Chasing after someone and attacking them with a weapon, when the fleeing suspect is no longer a threat, is definitely not lawful,
Nonsense
nor can chicken biker seem to find a way to demonstrate it.

other than the CPS guidance, the opinion of a Barrister, and the statute which clearly says you are talking nonsense... again.
 
Hilarious. I didn't realise you'd changed the subject to police pursuits and arrests. :confused:
Poor nosenout is now showing that he didn't know that section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 applies to both Police and civilians.

The power of arrest for an indictable offence is not restricted to warranted Officers.
What is NOT Reasonable Force:

  • Continuing to attack someone after they are no longer a threat (e.g., they are incapacitated or fleeing).
not relevant to your power under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
  • Pre-planned violence or traps.
  • Retaliation or revenge.
  • Using a weapon carried specifically for self-defence, as this is illegal in the UK.
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.
 
Its almost as if someone told you to read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76.
Doesn't sound like you understood it though.. again.

Nonsense


other than the CPS guidance, the opinion of a Barrister, and the statute which clearly says you are talking nonsense... again.
It is truly cringeworthy now reading nosenowts insane googling. I would love to see him in a court of law defending himself. You can just see the judges face. Very embarrassing.

1770307603094.png
 
The driver was well aware that the thief was unlikely to use violence because he'd already retrieved the stolen goods from the theif with a reasonable degree of force.

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.

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.
 
Poor nosenout is now showing that he didn't know that section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 applies to both Police and civilians
Show it. Show where it demonstrates you can lawfully chase a fleeing scrote that is no longer a threat, with a weapon and attack him. I'll wait...
The power of arrest for an indictable offence is not restricted to warranted Officers.
Different subject and nothing to do with what I said.
not relevant to your power under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
This is though...

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)
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.
More waffle and nothing to do with what I said.

For clarity, I never mentioned or questioned chasing after a suspect because you want to detain or arrest them.

I never mentioned the type of weapon chosen in the heat of the moment.

What I did say was it is not lawful to chase after a suspect that is no longer a threat and attack them with a weapon.
 
Last edited:
From Nosenout's own links Page 3 and 4 :LOL:

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. 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.


Use of Force against Those Committing Crime

The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Prosecutors should have particular regard to:

• the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
• the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
• the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.

So thats Nosenout done up like a kipper from his own links. :LOL:

But lets look at the actual law as I've been trying to get him to do since the start:

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.

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.

Is that governed by the same common law basis for reasonable force in self defence? No
(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.


Then we look the what happens if the person was completely mistaken about the circumstances and used excessive force:

(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top