Pushed someone a few times - Assault?
Discussion
hora said:
I don't class shoving as assault.
Look at it this way. If someone shoved you and you reacted by punching them once in the face, causing cuts/bruises.
Could you argue that you were in self defence? Is a shove really provocation?
Its provocative and nuisance. IF a serving Police Officer would be willing to follow up and prosecute then he/she needs to triage and start focusing on real crime in his area. It seems that he currently is not.
One early Sunday morning I was on a steep footpath in the woods (not a pavement) riding my mountain bike- I spotted a walker with his dogs in plenty of time so stopped. Got off and moved aside to let them through. The walker saw this as a weakness and started having a go and shoving me at least three times. I asked him three times to stop and calm down. He calmed down, said some more stuff and was then on his way.
Was I assaulted? No. I wasn't winded, injured and didn't fall backwards or over.
Some years back an aquaintance had an altercation outside a nightclub with the doorman. The doorman approached him in an 'aggressive manner' (my words based on his description) and the lad had tried to shove him away. I say tried as the bouncer was a giant of a man and the lad was about 9 stone wet through. In response to the shove the doorman immediately gave him a hefty slap (open hand, with palm). The lad walked off, and soon after he spotted two police officers and decided to report the incident. I didn't see the altercation, but was present when he relayed what had happened to the two officers. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but the reply was along the lines of "if you wish to make a complaint then it is your right to do so, but if CCTV confirms your version of events then I can't see it going any further"Look at it this way. If someone shoved you and you reacted by punching them once in the face, causing cuts/bruises.
Could you argue that you were in self defence? Is a shove really provocation?
Its provocative and nuisance. IF a serving Police Officer would be willing to follow up and prosecute then he/she needs to triage and start focusing on real crime in his area. It seems that he currently is not.
One early Sunday morning I was on a steep footpath in the woods (not a pavement) riding my mountain bike- I spotted a walker with his dogs in plenty of time so stopped. Got off and moved aside to let them through. The walker saw this as a weakness and started having a go and shoving me at least three times. I asked him three times to stop and calm down. He calmed down, said some more stuff and was then on his way.
Was I assaulted? No. I wasn't winded, injured and didn't fall backwards or over.
"you what??!!"
"you just admitted you assaulted him, did you really think he wouldn't defend himself?"
"I gave him a shove and be nearly took my head off"
"by your account you were slapped by a man who outweighs you by a good ten stone, and you appear fine. It's not what would be considered disproportionate"
At this point the situation worsened rapidly, with the lad demanding they do something and the officers advising him to go home, think it over and make a complaint when he was sober. I'm always receptive to good advice, and when advised to move along i did just that. The lad persisted until a van arrived to collect him.
Did the doorman act in self-defence? Personally I'd say absolutely yes he did, a line had been crossed and he ended the situation swiftly and with minimum fuss.
Edited by johnny fotze on Wednesday 10th September 14:00
La Liga said:
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!).
There is no legal definition of assault (defined by statute) as far as I am aware - I stand to be corrected by lawyer types such as the learned Mr Bread of the family Van.Case law is quite straight forward though - the perceived fear of violence must be real, the threat must be immediate (I'm gonna kick your head in next week doesn't count, etc) and unlawful (statutory defence for consent; boxing match, etc).
There is no legal definition of battery either as far as I am aware.
- Disclaimer; I can't be arsed digging my books out so all of the above may be utter b
ks.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 10th September 14:07
Well it was a storm in a teacup. I went to the place today and found Mr. Hi vis.
I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
lord trumpton said:
Well it was a storm in a teacup. I went to the place today and found Mr. Hi vis.
I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
Good for you... sounds like a sensible outcome.I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
lord trumpton said:
Well it was a storm in a teacup. I went to the place today and found Mr. Hi vis.
I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
And you even updated the thread! Good to see there's at least one grown-up on here I walked over and apologised for my tone and my actions. I said it was unacceptable to hit another person's car but equally unacceptable for me to react. He looked a bit relieved to be honest. He said he thought I'd report him and he would lose his job.
i admitted i was worried he would report me to the police.
Anyway we shook hands and left it at that. Lessons learned
Mk3Spitfire said:
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.
Remember many of those civvies are experienced ex cops applying the rules as laid down and often trying to stop under recording and some lazy sods getting out of doing any work to put it bluntly. If not recording and investigating reported crime where would your time be better spent?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.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 10th September 18:05
Bigends said:
Remember many of those civvies are experienced ex cops applying the rules as laid down and often trying to stop under recording and some lazy sods getting out of doing any work to put it bluntly. If not recording and investigating reported crime where would your time be better spent?
until senior management decide there are too many of a certain crime and get everything recorded differently to balance the books Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 10th September 18:05
It really is some time since you were front line isn't it?
It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
Greendubber said:
Bigends said:
Remember many of those civvies are experienced ex cops applying the rules as laid down and often trying to stop under recording and some lazy sods getting out of doing any work to put it bluntly. If not recording and investigating reported crime where would your time be better spent?
until senior management decide there are too many of a certain crime and get everything recorded differently to balance the books Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 10th September 18:05
Mk3Spitfire said:
It really is some time since you were front line isn't it?
It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
I'm still in touch with mates on the 'front line' - only been away 9yrs and still spend time working out in nicks- -that arguement doesnt work I know exactly how busy it is outside - finding a way of not criming something isnt prioritising. I review and monitor workloads daily theyre -generally no higher than I used to carry. What about the person on the other end of Vicky Pollards rant - do you just ignore them and say tough we're not doing anything?. Remember theyre RECORDING rules - not INVESTIGATING rules. If you and your supervisor dont consider further investigation proportionate- then dont investigate it, finalise it and do more important stuff. I remember the pre recording rules days of trying to get a crime recorded and investigated - really was a lottery depending on where you lived . Simple rules were introduced and still some try and get round themIt's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 10th September 18:34
Mk3Spitfire said:
It really is some time since you were front line isn't it?
It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
Indeed. Cutting low-quality rubbish off as soon as possible is essential with diminishing resources. I'm glad to see nearly every force is getting away from the "an officer will visit every crime" mentality. A lot of forces are also running diary appointments for the public to come to the station to give a statement when appropriate. Much more efficient. It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
I welcome direct entry to Superintendent. Perhaps we'll get some further business sense and actually start cutting down on the time wasted on low-risk, exceptionally low detection probability rubbish.
Bigends said:
No point in fiddling now-there are no measures in place by the home office any more
Because they've been replaced by the PCCs who have numerical targets through their Police and Crime plans. PCCs are much more of a threat to CCs than the HO is / was. "What gets measured gets managed."
Here's TVP's:
La Liga said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
It really is some time since you were front line isn't it?
It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
Indeed. Cutting low-quality rubbish off as soon as possible is essential with diminishing resources. I'm glad to see nearly every force is getting away from the "an officer will visit every crime" mentality. A lot of forces are also running diary appointments for the public to come to the station to give a statement when appropriate. Much more efficient. It's not about being lazy, it's about prioritising, and doing the best you can with limited numbers and high work loads. If you really think arresting Vicky Pollard for calling Vicky Jollard a slag and threatening to "have you" is a worthwhile use of limited resources then maybe you should try working a day of modern policing.
I welcome direct entry to Superintendent. Perhaps we'll get some further business sense and actually start cutting down on the time wasted on low-risk, exceptionally low detection probability rubbish.
Bigends said:
No point in fiddling now-there are no measures in place by the home office any more
Because they've been replaced by the PCCs who have numerical targets through their Police and Crime plans. PCCs are much more of a threat to CCs than the HO is / was. "What gets measured gets managed."
Here's TVP's:
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 10th September 18:59
Bigends said:
Thats down to individual PCC's and not the home office - we only have ONE target set in relation to detections and no others
I know it's not the HO. Like I say, their targets have been replaced. Or even worse, as you demonstrate, they aren't even consistent anyone. Forces may have few, forces may have more. Numerical data is an INDICATION, not an end. But it's ultimately easier for the electorate to stomach, which is fundamentally why politics and policing should be as divorced as possible. When you make performance about data, data always loses. This isn't just the police, this is across any large organisation. Public or private.
Bigends said:
I had exactly the same views as the cops on here when I was still in the job. Have a wider view now and understand why we need to record properly and not cuff reports.
I fully understand data accuracy and integrity, but the even-wider view is what degree of inaccuracy are we willing to accept vs the time / cost benefit? 1% for 1000 hours, 5% for 10,000 hours? 10% for 100,0000 hours? Does the risk of a degree of inaccuracy outweigh that of the risk of having officers spending thousands of hours recording low-risk crimes and not doing other things? Some forces with higher precepts (council tax funding) have less to worry about and may have their cake and eat it. Those that operate in more deprived areas where the central funding makes up a higher proportion who are being savaged have to make these touch decisions.
It's easy to think your world is more important than it is (natural human thinking), but those at the top who need to make 20% cuts to an organisation with usually over 85% of its funding on people may see things differently.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Thats down to individual PCC's and not the home office - we only have ONE target set in relation to detections and no others
I know it's not the HO. Like I say, their targets have been replaced. Or even worse, as you demonstrate, they aren't even consistent anyone. Forces may have few, forces may have more. Numerical data is an INDICATION, not an end. But it's ultimately easier for the electorate to stomach, which is fundamentally why politics and policing should be as divorced as possible. When you make performance about data, data always loses. This isn't just the police, this is across any large organisation. Public or private.
Bigends said:
I had exactly the same views as the cops on here when I was still in the job. Have a wider view now and understand why we need to record properly and not cuff reports.
I fully understand data accuracy and integrity, but the even-wider view is what degree of inaccuracy are we willing to accept vs the time / cost benefit? 1% for 1000 hours, 5% for 10,000 hours? 10% for 100,0000 hours? Does the risk of a degree of inaccuracy outweigh that of the risk of having officers spending thousands of hours recording low-risk crimes and not doing other things? Some forces with higher precepts (council tax funding) have less to worry about and may have their cake and eat it. Those that operate in more deprived areas where the central funding makes up a higher proportion who are being savaged have to make these touch decisions.
It's easy to think your world is more important than it is (natural human thinking), but those at the top who need to make 20% cuts to an organisation with usually over 85% of its funding on people may see things differently.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff