FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[bud]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

[texasmr2]

Txmr2, in that situation, would you have supported a random guy taking the punk's keys and moving his car for him?

No because in Texas that would have been a crime of 'Unauthorized use of a Motor Vehicle' Sec 31.07 subsection 5 "Without the effective consent of the owner". The BMW driver commited the crime of 'Theft of Service - Diverting' section 31.04 subsection B (8) To his/her own benefit and unauthorized parking in a designated handicap space is a $250 fine.

Or would you rather that random guy leave stuff like that to professionals, such as yourself, to handle the situation properly?

Such situations should be left too the professionals simply because we have the law on our side, a citizen has the right to say something but that is where it stops in my situation. As far as the traineack he got what he deserved and the intent (HUGE THING THERE FYI) was to remove a person who's intent WAS theft of service. He was beligerent and disruptive and impeded the process of what could be argued as an official process.

Even before I became a police officer I had issues with lazy people using the handicapped spaces because for some years I was driving my stepfather back and forth each week for therapy after his stroke.

By no means am I trying to be Johnny Badass. I became a police officer to help people and help those who cannot help themselves aswell as taking the bad people off our streets and out of our communitys.

[acosmichippo]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

And yet another ludicrous comparison. Did you not comprehend my risk vs. reward explanation?

[texasmr2]

Did you not comprehend my risk vs. reward explanation?

Maybe you should explain yourself in a more comprehensive manner? It is very easy for ones intent to be taken out of context of ones true intent.

Example:
If you are defending the belligerent actions and behavior of the passenger perhaps you will feel the same wrath eventually? What some of us are eluding too is the fine line between being an idiot or a productive part of society.

[bud]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

And yet another ludicrous comparison. Did you not comprehend my risk vs. reward explanation?

I don't think it's ludicrous, those people were vigilanties in your book. atleast they went out fighting and prevented an attack on another building While the other flights had people sitting back doing nothing, waiting for the authorities to fix it. Got them no where huh!
Your risk vs reward explanation just sounds like the typical PC BS stemming from modern society we hear all too often these days. I find it sickening.

[zurich_allan]

Wow, so many misonceptions and completely untrue comments relating to the law in these past two pages it's ridiculous!

I am always deeply uncomfortable when people who don't have a clue about the law see fit too pass comment based on false 'knowledge'. It's no different whatsoever to people passing comment on medical procedures because they've watched a bit of Casualty or E.R.

1. Relating to RC's comment on the shop that an uninsured driver drove through and their loss of money. The criminal court that the driver will have been in front of can only deal with the criminal issue. Damages in this way cannot be ordered by those judges as they only have the ability to order payments relating to criminal injuries to persons. The shop owners in question can get the compensation that they're entitled to by taking out a civil suit against the guilty party. That's the correct procedure with which to recover money relating to these offences.

2. The 'kid' (actually a full adult, but just looks like a wee pleb!) has been charged under trespass laws.

3. The idea that loads of people are being prosecuted for protecting their property / homes etc. is utter bull. What actually happens is that loads of people are charged by the police - something they have absolutely no choice or discretion but to do as their job is not to pass judgment, but to charge if there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a criminal act may have taken place. In all of those types of cases that reasonable evidence exists. In something like 90% of those cases, the public prosecutor (the fiscal or Lord Advocate in Scotland, Advocate General in England etc.) decides not to pursue these cases on grounds of it not being the public interest. This includes the recent case a few weeks ago where a man killed an intruder in his home in Leeds - he is NOT being prosecuted). The cases that do get through to the prosecution stage (not even saying that they are guilty, but just that there is evidence enough that they should stand trial) ONLY go forward because there is a large amount of evidence that someone has gone way way too far (see Tony Bulimore - the farmer who shot an intruder in the back from distance as they were running away). And EVEN THEN, those cases are heard in front of a jury - members of the public - who decide if the accused is guilty or not. These cases are NOT decided by a Judge alone.

4. In these types of cases, the Judge only usually is able to hand down sentences to a certain level prescribed by the legislation in question - which is designed, created and implemented by the legislature and Executive i.e. Parliament and the Government. If there are flaws in the range of sentences a Judge can hand down it comes from there NOT the judges. If it is a Mala in Se crime (evil act crime) that exists due to case precident / common law and doesn't relate to legislation then the Judges have the full range of sentences open to them usually, and in those cases they usually come down harshly on violent crimes because they are not so heavily restricted.

God there is so much more I could write on this right now based on many of the preceding posts, but I simply don't have the energy. It seems to be the done thing to knock the law even though those that are criticising I can see patently don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about.

It boils down to the fact that the big man has been charged by the police for common assault as he DID unquestionably carry out all of the necessary constituent parts of that offence. He hasn't actually been prosecuted for it yet, nor has he been found guilty. Wait and see what happens. The kid has also been charged for what appears to be trespass (being on the train without having a valid ticket and refusing to leave when lawfully requested to do so). Again, wait and see what happens.

I'd pity anyone that had to live in a society that a great many of you ran if you were ever in the position. Arbitrary punishment, no due process, guilty until proven innocent, vigilante justice - some of the qualities posessed by the worst societies on Earth yet many of you are claiming the 'moral' authority. Pathetic.

[acosmichippo]

[zurich_allan]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

No - because the law allows for:

1. Citizen's arrest under certain and strict circumstances.
2. The use of 'legitimate violence' - at times if it is for the prevention of further criminal action by others - again there are times it is allowable and times it isn't.
3. The use of 'self defence', which in spite of the terminology can be used either in defence of oneself, but also crucially in defence of others if they are in danger of death or great bodily injury.

There are various times and circumstance in which it is perfectly legal to use force or violence. This is NOT one of them. It is as simple as that.

[texasmr2]

There are various times and circumstance in which it is perfectly legal to use force or violence. This is NOT one of them. It is as simple as that.

Umm that is only your perception but then again I'm unfamiliar with your laws in the UK. If that sort of behavior as bud eludes to is unacceptable in the UK maybe the laws should be adjusted?

The force used against the dumbass was NOT violent in its intent,violence would have been knocking that arsehole out cold. Why should he be defended while he was clearly in the wrong and holding up the progress of countless other people who where not braking the law??

I wish people would stop making excuse for idiots.

[bud]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

No - because the law allows for:

1. Citizen's arrest under certain and strict circumstances.
2. The use of 'legitimate violence' - at times if it is for the prevention of further criminal action by others - again there are times it is allowable and times it isn't.
3. The use of 'self defence', which in spite of the terminology can be used either in defence of oneself, but also crucially in defence of others if they are in danger of death or great bodily injury.

There are various times and circumstance in which it is perfectly legal to use force or violence. This is NOT one of them. It is as simple as that.

You said the kid was charged... The guy kicking him off the train prevented further criminal action by said kid no?

[zurich_allan]

Well accos, for example it appears you'd be one of the people sitting back letting terrorists crash your plane into a building. As opposed to flight 93. I'm down with those passengers.

No - because the law allows for:

1. Citizen's arrest under certain and strict circumstances.
2. The use of 'legitimate violence' - at times if it is for the prevention of further criminal action by others - again there are times it is allowable and times it isn't.
3. The use of 'self defence', which in spite of the terminology can be used either in defence of oneself, but also crucially in defence of others if they are in danger of death or great bodily injury.

There are various times and circumstance in which it is perfectly legal to use force or violence. This is NOT one of them. It is as simple as that.

You said the kid was charged... The guy kicking him off the train prevented further criminal action by said kid no?

No - this is why the law in that area is quite specific. When being used to prevent the commission of a crime that person should be able to make a reasonable (actually near certain according to precident) assumption that there is actually a crime taking place. The 'big man' was not having the conversation with the kid. He had not examined the kid's tickets and had not personally questioned the kid. He was sitting a couple of rows behind, not in full view without proper evidential basis for taking any action. Anything he heard was hearsay. As such it is literally impossible for him to have been near certain or have a reasonable belief that a criminal act was taking place.

[bud]

See no offence but that just sounds like bs lawyer talk to me.
It didn't take a psychic to understand what was taking place, if I the viewer of the video can understand I'm sure anyone in the vicinity at the time would have understood. The ticket inspectors manner suggested the kid had not paid, the kids defensive disrespectful attitutude back suggested he had not paid. The big man asked the inspector "do you want me to kick him off for you" the inspector didn't say "no I was making a false assumption he actually did have a ticket"

So the big man can categorically say he was certain a crime was being committed and used his power of the citizens arrest to stop it happening.

[acosmichippo]

Did you not comprehend my risk vs. reward explanation?

Maybe you should explain yourself in a more comprehensive manner? It is very easy for ones intent to be taken out of context of ones true intent.

Example:
If you are defending the belligerent actions and behavior of the passenger perhaps you will feel the same wrath eventually? What some of us are eluding too is the fine line between being an idiot or a productive part of society.

I'm not sure that I can explain it any differently than I have in my many posts in this thread. But I'll try one last time below.

There are various times and circumstance in which it is perfectly legal to use force or violence. This is NOT one of them. It is as simple as that.

Umm that is only your perception but then again I'm unfamiliar with your laws in the UK. If that sort of behavior as bud eludes to is unacceptable in the UK maybe the laws should be adjusted?

The force used against the dumbass was NOT violent in its intent,violence would have been knocking that arsehole out cold. Why should he be defended while he was clearly in the wrong and holding up the progress of countless other people who where not braking the law??

I wish people would stop making excuse for idiots.

Please don't mistake criticism of manhandling the kid for defending him. No one is defending or "making excuses" for what he (allegedly) did or how he acted. My official positions in their simplest form are as follows:

1) The kid is at the very least a douchebag, and at worst a theif; I am not at all defending his actions.
2) The ticket collector handled the situation poorly by encouraging the passengers to get involved instead of taking care of the situation himself or through official means.
3) Physical intervention with the beligerent youth could have escalated into further violence, therefore it should have been left to professionals to handle.

[bud]

Allegedly did?

[texasmr2]

No - this is why the law in that area is quite specific. When being used to prevent the commission of a crime that person should be able to make a reasonable (actually near certain according to precident) assumption that there is actually a crime taking place. The 'big man' was not having the conversation with the kid. He had not examined the kid's tickets and had not personally questioned the kid. He was sitting a couple of rows behind, not in full view without proper evidential basis for taking any action. Anything he heard was hearsay. As such it is literally impossible for him to have been near certain or have a reasonable belief that a criminal act was taking place.

This is a perfect example of why I appreciate your input so much but......when did you become an attorney? In your last sentence you stated "it is literally impossible for him to have been near certain or have a reasonable belief that a criminal act was taking place" but in reality the train had gone silent and I'm certain other passengers could/would corroborate the defense of the gentleman who said enough is enough.

Please don't mistake criticism of manhandling the kid for defending him. No one is defending or "making excuses" for what he (allegedly) did or how he acted. We just don't think it justified physical intervention by a random civilian.

That is what seperates the followers from the leaders in society, some are just not cut out to be leaders and protect their individual rights.