FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[zurich_allan]

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.

Nobody is making excuses for idiots Tex - Acosmichippo as already correctly said that nobody is denying that the kid was / is an idiot who deserved to be punished - he now is, by the law, correctly!

What we are saying (correctly) is that idiocy should not be countered with idiocy. That is what happened here.

And no - violence may not have been the motive as such, but in Scots law motive only becomes relevant in mitigation and sentencing. It doesn't define whether a criminal act has actually taken place.

There are two constituent parts to a crime in Scottish Criminal Law - the mens rea and the actus reus. If both are present then the criminal act has taken place. Doesn't mean it'll always be prosecuted or that the person will be found guilty, but these are what are necessary.

The mens rea is the state of mind of the accused and the actus reus is the physical act / result.

In this case, the 'crime' libelled is assault.

The actus reus for assault is that the 'victim' should either be physcally harmed or be placed in a situation where they reasonably believe that they are going to be physically harmed (psychological injury). It doesn't have to be to serious injury - that would likely be some kind of aggravated assault. For simple assault that's all that's necessary. This is unquestionably the case here. The kid doesn't know whether he's being dragged down the aisle to be chucked out, or if the big man is going to knock him out or whatever, but the end result is that it would be reasonable to infer that the kid may have thought he was going to be phsysically harmed. Plus there is evidence of injury as the kid in fact does have some lacerations to his face from when he hit the platform face first having been thrown off by the big man.

The mens rea is that the accused should either have intended the assault or have been reckless in his actions to the extent that he or she showed an indifference as to whether the alleged victim might be physically harmed. Again, in this case it is unquestionable that the second of these took place. The big man was reckless in throwing the kid off the train in the manner that he did (given his size, he didn't have to propel him with force), as he did land face first. The kid could have sustained a concussion, a fractured skull, could have collided with another passenger coming onto the train, could have fallen between the train and the platform etc. etc.

As such, there is more than reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place and once reported, the Police's hands are tied - they HAVE to make an arrest and charge. What happens from there is then up to the public prosecutor. They may decide it's not in the public interest to pursue the case as they might look to the big man's motive - which may well have been a (mistaken) belief that he was entitled to intervene in the manner he did. Or if it did go to court, his defence may manage to have him acquitted on similar grounds. Even if he were found guilty (as the constituent elements of the crime are there), his motive would 100% certainly be taken into account by the judge in sentencing and I can guarantee you right now with complete confidence he'd get at worst a slap on the wrist - either complete admonishment, a £250 fine or such.

And finally again - the kid was NOT holding up the train. The conductor was holding up the train. The correct procedure for Scotrail staff is to phone the transport police to come to the next station (or the following one if they are not close enough), keep the train going and then the transport police eject the troublemaker. Now of course people can argue whether it's a waste of police time etc (it's not, because they are specifically transport police - not police being pulled from the beat, but that's another issue), but that's a different issue. The fact of the matter is that it was the conductor holding up the train by not following his correct procedure - why he chose not to is anybody's guess - poor training, stupidity, stubbornness to not let a 'snot nosed kid' get the better of him? Who knows, but the fact is that he didn't do what he was supposed to.

And nowhere in any of the above am I defending the kid. His actions are separate. What I cannot and will not do (because it is NOT right) is defend the actions of the big man, because proper logic to the situation as a whole makes them incredibly difficult to defend.

[acosmichippo]

Allegedly did?

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.

sorry, I edited my post, but you got the gist of it, or at least the gist was there. Whether you "got it" seems unlikely.

Anyway, I'll just let you guys continue to laugh at and belittle my posts instead of providing logical arguments. Have fun.

[bud]

You mean allegedly belittled and laughed at your posts right?

[zurich_allan]

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.

You see, here's the problem. The answer is no - he can't have been certain - it's impossible. And it's an inappropriate type of offence to get involve in with the actions the big man did because his action is entirely disproportionate with the type of offence that may have been taking place.

There are rules relating to evidence, admissibility, weighting of evidence, burden and standard of proof etc. This is why citizen's arrest and other intervening actions are complicated and should only be carried out in certain circumstances.

The problem is that I undertook seven consecutive years of legal education - I cannot explain a lot of this theory along with practical examples in a few posts on a thread of an internet forum - it's impossible. You could keep on asking questions or making points and I could keep on rebutting them or highlighting what the reality of the situation and the law is, but we'd be sitting here all night and I simply don't have the time or energy to do that.

I genuinely - and as you said yourself - no offence, find it insulting that people in general (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) see fit to criticise the law without the correct contextual background in which to make that judgement.

People seem to think (and comments such as BS lawyer illustrate my point exactly) that by watching a few episodes of the Bill or CSI, and reading the Daily Mail that they are equipped to make that judgement, and I - to use a phrase already mentioned on this thread - am calling BS on that too.

An example I've already used on this forum in the past and am going to mention again. I am not an engineer and accept that engineers do and always will know more than me relating to engineering. I don't walk into a surgical theatre and say 'right boys - leave it to me - I watched ER last night' and expect I could carry out an operation. Doctors and Surgeons are way more knowledgable and experienced than me with my British Red Cross and St John's ambulance first aid training. Like medicine, for law you need to have the correct contextual and theoretical background, and you then need to know the theory and practical examples of all different areas of the law. A court case is simplar to an operation in that for an operation you have the different systems to think about (respiritory, cardiovascular, nervous etc.) and they all link together - none can be thought of without also thinking about the others - to do otherwise your patient would be dead on the table. When it comes to criminal law, you need to have the skill and experience to dissect past case precident, identify appropriate legislation, have an awareness of appropriate defences, know about theories of criminology, understand and apply theories of and approaches to justice (moral included but also punitive, restorative, educational etc.), and that's in addition to the knowledge of what actually constitutes any of the hundreds of different potential criminal acts. You also have to have a background and know about other linked areas of the law including civil law and reparation, the law surounding obligations etc. It is mind bogglingly naive and ignorant to think that it's either valid or appropriate to heavily criticise without having all of that knowledge.

But hey - the law is easy to criticise because it's a 'soft' subject that people read a lot about without accepting (as they HAVE to) that there's a lot of technical detail that goes into it - you simply cannot do this without looking like an idiot to anyone with formal legal education for the reasons I've noted above. It's NO different to me or you walking into the surgeon's theatre in the manner I've suggested which is patently ridiculous...

[texasmr2]

sorry, I edited my post, but you got the gist of it, or at least the gist was there. Whether you "got it" seems unlikely.

Now you are belittling me, why? I only afforded you another view/opinion and as someone who enforces the law I only wanted to offer another side of the story.

Anyway, I'll just let you guys continue to laugh at and belittle my posts instead of providing logical arguments. Have fun.

When you loose the chip on your shoulder you will realize that I am not belittling you but you are supporting the actions of a thief so what does that say about you and your mentality?? No matter how much you discredit or trash law enforcement we will always be the ones who come to your aid and safety without prejudice.

Your opinion matters brother and it is always a learning experience to hear both sides of the debate and I hope you feel the same way.

[texasmr2]

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.

You see, here's the problem. The answer is no - he can't have been certain - it's impossible. And it's an inappropriate type of offence to get involve in with the actions the big man did because his action is entirely disproportionate with the type of offence that may have been taking place.

There are rules relating to evidence, admissibility, weighting of evidence, burden and standard of proof etc. This is why citizen's arrest and other intervening actions are complicated and should only be carried out in certain circumstances.

The problem is that I undertook seven consecutive years of legal education - I cannot explain a lot of this theory along with practical examples in a few posts on a thread of an internet forum - it's impossible. You could keep on asking questions or making points and I could keep on rebutting them or highlighting what the reality of the situation and the law is, but we'd be sitting here all night and I simply don't have the time or energy to do that.

I genuinely - and as you said yourself - no offence, find it insulting that people in general (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) see fit to criticise the law without the correct contextual background in which to make that judgement.

People seem to think (and comments such as BS lawyer illustrate my point exactly) that by watching a few episodes of the Bill or CSI, and reading the Daily Mail that they are equipped to make that judgement, and I - to use a phrase already mentioned on this thread - am calling BS on that too.

An example I've already used on this forum in the past and am going to mention again. I am not an engineer and accept that engineers do and always will know more than me relating to engineering. I don't walk into a surgical theatre and say 'right boys - leave it to me - I watched ER last night' and expect I could carry out an operation. Doctors and Surgeons are way more knowledgable and experienced than me with my British Red Cross and St John's ambulance first aid training. Like medicine, for law you need to have the correct contextual and theoretical background, and you then need to know the theory and practical examples of all different areas of the law. A court case is simplar to an operation in that for an operation you have the different systems to think about (respiritory, cardiovascular, nervous etc.) and they all link together - none can be thought of without also thinking about the others - to do otherwise your patient would be dead on the table. When it comes to criminal law, you need to have the skill and experience to dissect past case precident, identify appropriate legislation, have an awareness of appropriate defences, know about theories of criminology, understand and apply theories of and approaches to justice (moral included but also punitive, restorative, educational etc.), and that's in addition to the knowledge of what actually constitutes any of the hundreds of different potential criminal acts. You also have to have a background and know about other linked areas of the law including civil law and reparation, the law surounding obligations etc. It is mind bogglingly naive and ignorant to think that it's either valid or appropriate to heavily criticise without having all of that knowledge.

But hey - the law is easy to criticise because it's a 'soft' subject that people read a lot about without accepting (as they HAVE to) that there's a lot of technical detail that goes into it - you simply cannot do this without looking like an idiot to anyone with formal legal education for the reasons I've noted above. It's NO different to me or you walking into the surgeon's theatre in the manner I've suggested which is patently ridiculous...

Are we having fun yet???

Good debate Allan and your points are always valid (atleast to me) and make for good discussion.

[zurich_allan]

Lol, cheers Tex! I don't know if you noticed or not too - but I was actually sticking up for the law enforcement arm too. Often it's also the police being criticised (why did they arrest that person etc.), and I've tried to point out that often the Police have their hands metaphorically tied as it's their job - as you said without prejudice - to take action based on reasonable belief, but not their job to make judgment or state guilt or innocence. That's the job of society (through a jury) or society's representative (through a Judge). As such people often don't realise that the police are just doing the job that they are obliged to do.

The reason that people have such little confidence in the legal system is perfectly exampled in this thread as the majority of the time people don't look at the system as a whole. Instead much of the time people make snap judgements based on the entry point of the system (through criticism of law enforcement), or the exit point of the system (once they hear the actual sentence somebody may have got that they percieve to be either overly lenient or harsh). What they almost NEVER do is criticise based on a proper examination of the WHOLE system - making a balanced viewpoint after looking at a case from the angle of the legislation in question, combined with case precident and the reason that those precident cases exist, the law enforcement, the constuction of both the defence and prosecution, the directions of the Judge(s), any dissenting opinions, evidence given relating to defences, mitigation, reasons why there may be contributory negligence etc. the range of sentencing options actually open to the Judge, additional factors such as recommendations as a result of background checks etc. etc.

I contend that most criticism is often based on initial emotive responses and without the knowledge of all appropriate areas noted above. It's certainly the case here.

[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.

You see, here's the problem. The answer is no - he can't have been certain - it's impossible. And it's an inappropriate type of offence to get involve in with the actions the big man did because his action is entirely disproportionate with the type of offence that may have been taking place.

There are rules relating to evidence, admissibility, weighting of evidence, burden and standard of proof etc. This is why citizen's arrest and other intervening actions are complicated and should only be carried out in certain circumstances.

The problem is that I undertook seven consecutive years of legal education - I cannot explain a lot of this theory along with practical examples in a few posts on a thread of an internet forum - it's impossible. You could keep on asking questions or making points and I could keep on rebutting them or highlighting what the reality of the situation and the law is, but we'd be sitting here all night and I simply don't have the time or energy to do that.

I genuinely - and as you said yourself - no offence, find it insulting that people in general (and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular) see fit to criticise the law without the correct contextual background in which to make that judgement.

People seem to think (and comments such as BS lawyer illustrate my point exactly) that by watching a few episodes of the Bill or CSI, and reading the Daily Mail that they are equipped to make that judgement, and I - to use a phrase already mentioned on this thread - am calling BS on that too.

An example I've already used on this forum in the past and am going to mention again. I am not an engineer and accept that engineers do and always will know more than me relating to engineering. I don't walk into a surgical theatre and say 'right boys - leave it to me - I watched ER last night' and expect I could carry out an operation. Doctors and Surgeons are way more knowledgable and experienced than me with my British Red Cross and St John's ambulance first aid training. Like medicine, for law you need to have the correct contextual and theoretical background, and you then need to know the theory and practical examples of all different areas of the law. A court case is simplar to an operation in that for an operation you have the different systems to think about (respiritory, cardiovascular, nervous etc.) and they all link together - none can be thought of without also thinking about the others - to do otherwise your patient would be dead on the table. When it comes to criminal law, you need to have the skill and experience to dissect past case precident, identify appropriate legislation, have an awareness of appropriate defences, know about theories of criminology, understand and apply theories of and approaches to justice (moral included but also punitive, restorative, educational etc.), and that's in addition to the knowledge of what actually constitutes any of the hundreds of different potential criminal acts. You also have to have a background and know about other linked areas of the law including civil law and reparation, the law surounding obligations etc. It is mind bogglingly naive and ignorant to think that it's either valid or appropriate to heavily criticise without having all of that knowledge.

But hey - the law is easy to criticise because it's a 'soft' subject that people read a lot about without accepting (as they HAVE to) that there's a lot of technical detail that goes into it - you simply cannot do this without looking like an idiot to anyone with formal legal education for the reasons I've noted above. It's NO different to me or you walking into the surgeon's theatre in the manner I've suggested which is patently ridiculous...

I don't think I've claimed to be a lawyer or even say I know the ins and outs from watching some tv show. Quite the contrary, but you talk as though you need to be a lawyer to live in society to fully understand what's right and what's wrong. That's bs! I know what is right and wrong, but for gods sake must we take authority and the laws put forth without having a right to question them? Must we walk through life without questioning things? Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right morally!

[texasmr2]

Basically it seems we all agree it was an offense but disagree on the tactics used too remove him which is understandable as we all adhere to different idea's etc etc.

I'll close my opinion with I support the actions taken.

Merry Christmas all,
tex

[What's Burning?]

Will someone please post a video of the kid when he's sentenced by the judge? It will help to bring closure to it all. Thank you.

[racechick]

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.


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.

Well I'll just shut up then and bow to greater kbnowledge. I know that more than the judge is involved...but the judge passes sentence. I may be stupid Joe public but I'm a law abiding Joe public and I can see why a lot of people get pissed off.

[andrew]

It's harder to believe that as I see more of your posts.

I've told you before, don't read them then if they cause you so much upset.

And in the same post, you say 'as expected, Big Yin (the guy you're defending) has been charged'.....whatever you do, please don't go into law.

Why not? The guy committed common assault so it was pretty obvious that he would be charged. Unfortunately the law does not look at the bigger picture of the little s*** getting thrown off benefiting a whole train full of people.

[Hammer278]

It's harder to believe that as I see more of your posts.

I've told you before, don't read them then if they cause you so much upset.

And in the same post, you say 'as expected, Big Yin (the guy you're defending) has been charged'.....whatever you do, please don't go into law.

Why not? The guy committed common assault so it was pretty obvious that he would be charged. Unfortunately the law does not look at the bigger picture of the little s*** getting thrown off benefiting a whole train full of people.

I'm not upset one bit, on the other hand your posts just reek of ridiculousness, though sometimes hilariously so. Anyway, my last post in this thread...there's a serious discussion going on here so I'd prefer to put the full-stop here and switch to 'observation' mode.

[texasmr2]

Well I'll just shut up then and bow to greater kbnowledge.

[zurich_allan]

Well, just thought it might be appropriate to post a wee update.... Some excerts of what I said at the time:

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.

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.

Update: As I predicted he is not going to be prosecuted: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16954147.