Pushed someone a few times - Assault?
Discussion
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Exactly - pushing someone is a crime defined by law - so record it. Cops in my lot input their own crimes so no waiting needed. Youre not investigating the crime so why explore defences? The rules are clear - record - you cant pick and choose what you want to record - believe me I spend 8hrs a day applying the rules.
It's not exploring defences, it's considering the lack of information required conclude a crime has occurred or not. The wording says "the police will determine this (whether to record a crime or not) based on their knowledge of law", not "they'll robotically record everything from about 20 words on an incident".
May I ask which force you're in which has officers recording their own crimes? That seems like a forward-step.
You don't need any more information to record - if someone says they've been hit - they've been hit - unles theres some credible evidence to the contrary at the time. If it later transpires through investigation and checking of CCTV etc that they weren't hit - then no crime the report. Don't investigate to record - that's what a number of forces have been criticised for doing. A number of forces self input now - all are QA'd before going onto the main system
La Liga said:
he conviction threshold is, of course, irrelevant, but I disagree with whether or not they wish to take it further is. That changes the information being presented and offered. It depends on the circumstances and risk-based judgements need to be made, too.
Where in the quoted regs does it ask you to include that in your judgement?Risk-based judgements are a requirement in all aspects of policing, and underpin everything. Here they're a reference to depth and thoroughness. A maybe / maybe not common assault between two strangers which is initially reported by one party but retracted may be dealt with in this manner (if the circumstances permit), but if it were domestic in nature you'd want to visit the complainant to reduce the risk of missing anything (that wouldn't really matter in the former example) than what is a) on the incident / b) established (or not) on a phone call.
lord trumpton said:
Thanks for the reply guys. I'll just wait and see then.
Although worried, it's not getting on top of me....got other stuff of a greater priority on at moment
What will be will be etc etc. I'll keep you posted
Good luck with this Trumpton. Could easily have found myself in a similar situation when young.... Only mobiles didn't exist then!Although worried, it's not getting on top of me....got other stuff of a greater priority on at moment
What will be will be etc etc. I'll keep you posted
La Liga said:
Risk-based judgements are a requirement in all aspects of policing, and underpin everything. Here they're a reference to depth and thoroughness. A maybe / maybe not common assault between two strangers which is initially reported by one party but retracted may be dealt with in this manner (if the circumstances permit), but if it were domestic in nature you'd want to visit the complainant to reduce the risk of missing anything (that wouldn't really matter in the former example) than what is a) on the incident / b) established (or not) on a phone call.
A simple 'nowhere' would have sufficed.Will the Police really investigate do you think?
http://news.sky.com/story/1329795/police-asking-vi...
http://news.sky.com/story/1329795/police-asking-vi...
johnny fotze said:
Not legal advice, but advice based on common sense and experience; OP, you shouldn't have touched the guy. In fact you shouldn't have got out of your car. Once you put your hands on someone you've crossed the line. You've escalated a verbal altercation into a physical one. If Mr viz had turned round and slapped you upside the head, he'd have a good case for self-defence. You, on the other hand, by deliberately chasing and making physical contact would have had no such excuse.
Not trolling btw, just pointing out that whatever the provocation, or how heated things become, once you put your hands on someone you've lost any moral (and possibly legal) high ground, and put yourself firmly in the wrong.
This is spot on. Not trolling btw, just pointing out that whatever the provocation, or how heated things become, once you put your hands on someone you've lost any moral (and possibly legal) high ground, and put yourself firmly in the wrong.
Edited by johnny fotze on Wednesday 10th September 08:29
The only downside to this is that the chances of anything happening to the instigator (man in hi-vis) if you had stayed in your car and later reported to the police is probably zero.
Still you getting out achieved nothing except maybe personal satisfaction.
Remember the man who took. Knife and went after his son's mugger? He got prison time for all his trouble.
Sad to say but these days it's hard to know what to do with one force telling you you should investigate crimes of criminal damage against your property and then give them the evidence, yet another prosecuting you for battery when pursuing your lines of enquiry.
Tongue only slightly in cheek...
Tongue only slightly in cheek...
Unfortunately hora, you are clearly not a police officer. Shoving someone IS an assault (technically battery). If I walked up to you and said (and meant it) "I'm going to punch you in the face", that is also an assault.
Of course, sometimes words of advice will suffice, but if you physically shove someone else, and they report it, I have little choice but to investigate it.
It's a fact. If you don't like it speak to the home office.
P.s I'll go out and catch all the murderers, rapists, and burglars (and speeders) as soon as I've finished dealing with the assault.
Of course, sometimes words of advice will suffice, but if you physically shove someone else, and they report it, I have little choice but to investigate it.
It's a fact. If you don't like it speak to the home office.
P.s I'll go out and catch all the murderers, rapists, and burglars (and speeders) as soon as I've finished dealing with the assault.
hora said:
Then can you not deal with it by means of a caution?
Isn't that dealing with it? It's just one potential outcome of investigating a report of assault?Anyhow, if I was the OP, I'd be going back today with a bottle of something nice and apologise. Nothing to lose... if he decides to complain about an assault, he will. If he is still thinking about it then it might persuade him not to. It's a low risk £20 spent?
hora said:
Then can you not deal with it by means of a caution?
No I'm not a Police Officer. However I like to see the Police's time freed up to deal with crime. Not frim-frammory x.
Yes. If the person is eligible, then they can, if the IP is happy, be issued with a caution.No I'm not a Police Officer. However I like to see the Police's time freed up to deal with crime. Not frim-frammory x.
For someone to be cautioned, they still need to be interviewed under caution. The paperwork still needs to be filled in and a caution file submitted.
No problem!
It does seem silly I agree. Even raising your hand to someone could potentially result in you being arrested for assault.
The reality is that things don't normally get that far until someone actually gets hit.
Unfortunately, in a lot of forces, you will have civilians in an office who review every single call that comes in. They will nit-pick the wording, and if they find an offence in the verbatim txt of the initial call, they won't allow the message to be closed until a crime is recorded, or the allegation negated (essentially getting the caller to sign a notebook saying the nasty man never did threaten to hit me after all). A lot of it does appear trivial, and most police officers will agree their time would be better spent elsewhere. It isn't down to us though.
It does seem silly I agree. Even raising your hand to someone could potentially result in you being arrested for assault.
The reality is that things don't normally get that far until someone actually gets hit.
Unfortunately, in a lot of forces, you will have civilians in an office who review every single call that comes in. They will nit-pick the wording, and if they find an offence in the verbatim txt of the initial call, they won't allow the message to be closed until a crime is recorded, or the allegation negated (essentially getting the caller to sign a notebook saying the nasty man never did threaten to hit me after all). A lot of it does appear trivial, and most police officers will agree their time would be better spent elsewhere. It isn't down to us though.
I've never known someone get arrested and charged for the assault without the battery. A battery is charged as "assault by beating" as the wording. I don't even know the wording the former. Can you even be charged with the mere fear of unlawful violence? (Nice knowledge gap, La Liga!).
You're much more likely to have non-battery scenarios covered by public order offences like threatening behaviour (S.4) etc.
You're much more likely to have non-battery scenarios covered by public order offences like threatening behaviour (S.4) etc.
Eclassy said:
The only downside to this is that the chances of anything happening to the instigator (man in hi-vis) if you had stayed in your car and later reported to the police is probably zero.
I disagree. There was damage. An actual offence. Eclassy said:
Remember the man who took. Knife and went after his son's mugger? He got prison time for all his trouble.
"For his trouble" i.e. took a knife out with him and stabbed the attacker to death? As much as I don't mourn the loss of a criminal like that, you can't take revenge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff