Bus driver sacked OMG

[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.

 

[King Billy]

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.

Then there are degrees of what is unreasonable.
For instance, chasing, or reacting to a criminal with a hand brush (as in the jewelry heist), is hardly going to be in the public interest to prosecute.
Chasing a criminal with a hammer, baseball bat or scaffold pole would merit more serious consideration.
And finally chasing someone with a firearm would undoubtedly result in a prosecution.

 

[morqthana]

Brown?

My new fave:

Sriracha Super Hot Chilli Sauce | Flying Goose

Take the spiciness to the next level with extra-hot Sriracha sauce. Flying Goose’s Super Hot chilli sauce brings a new meaning to intensely spicy.

www.flyinggoosebrand.com

 

[King Billy]

I think the bar for reasonable force is quite high.
Even locking a suspect in a room to detain them is legally risky.

In the UK, locking a suspect in a room while waiting for the police to arrive can be lawful, but it is extremely risky and must meet strict legal criteria. It is generally treated as a "citizen's arrest" or lawful detention, which is permitted under Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
If your actions do not strictly adhere to these legal requirements, you could be guilty of false imprisonment, kidnapping, or assault.

 

[morqthana]

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

He may have been. IMO it would be an odd thing to do, rather than leg it, as there had to have been a fair chance that one of the passengers had called the police. But he may have been.

In the driver's shoes I would have been very wary of him, and hypervigilant.

 

[King Billy]

I would agree there are a lot of issues about the whole episode that are odd and almost contradictory.
Some have already been mentioned in this forum and some haven't, e.g. how come the driver retrieved the necklace so easily, assumingly without damage? Was it damaged? The age and mentality of the thief is unknown. Would a thief of sound mind returned to the scene of the initial crime, probably being aware that the police had been called? The driver had already overpowered the thief once when he retrieved the necklace, was the additional force really warranted? We know the bus driver was a bit impulsive.
I think without the full facts we're just speculating.