Taking the law into your own hands

[TooMany2cvs]

WinstonWolf said:

What can the law do about a seven year old...

Nothing. They're below the age of criminal responsibility.

[anonymous-user]

jaf01uk said:

La Liga said:

Love the employment link due to enforcing the law against adults assaulting kids.

remkingston said:

vonhosen said:

It's OK for you to act within the law in dealing with matters yourself, it's not OK for you to act however you like outside it.

Evidently not obvious enough for someone people whom support what the chap did.

Yet (same) people yesterday were saying that a bloke should have intervened and prevented a guy pushing his other half because it was the responsible thing to do, so where do you draw the line? These little scrotes owners obviously think they are old enough to run riot on a train on their own but not ok for them to be chastised for it!? I echo the fact that society is broken!!

As has been answered, using reasonable force to prevent a crime is a whole different world from using force in 'revenge'-type scenarios.

cmaguire said:

La Liga said:

"Punch" doesn't suit so I'll doubt the credibility with 'it makes a better story'...

Punch obviously suits the rest of you, I'm less inclined to believe a newspaper report that quotes an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are frequently unreliable and prejudiced.
It was probably a poke in the ribs. A punch implies significant force.

I don't care what wording is used. It's the best information we have to comment, regardless of what it says.

You're critical about the eyewitness accounts of a 'punch' to disregard it, but seemingly don't apply the same standards to the accounts of the childrens' behaviour which you're ready and willing to accept justified the man's behaviour.

roofer said:

Digby said:

Feel free to educate me.

Me too please.

The law of decency and common sense does not exist anymore it appears.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

otolith said:

InitialDave said:

otolith said:

Indeed. Low level antisocial behaviour is perfectly acceptable. So long as it's legal, do as you please.

Just be prepared to get smacked for it if you do it to the wrong person.

Being legally in the right won't fix a broken nose.

Ah, but then you can expect the police to deal with the person who has broken the law by reacting to your antisocial behaviour. That's what they're there for, to protect your right to be an ahole.

Yes, because it's a much better solution to have people punch people for 'low-level anti-social behaviour'.

The New Labour government extensively legislated around ASB so there are legal power to address it.

TooMany2cvs said:

WinstonWolf said:

What can the law do about a seven year old...

Nothing. They're below the age of criminal responsibility.

'About' - there are things: https://www.gov.uk/child-under-10-breaks-law

[Digby]

Well, seems pretty clear, folks. Don't help anyone ever again. Walk on by, look away, run..

The merest touch will be classed as assault and it's better to watch someone tremble in fear than to help them out and then have charges brought against you for doing so by the very person you were trying to help.

In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious why people don't bother.

Well done to all those who help contribute to this sorry state of affairs.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

Well, seems pretty clear, folks. Don't help anyone ever again. Walk on by, look away, run..

The merest touch will be classed as assault and it's better to watch someone tremble in fear than to help them out and then have charges brought against you for doing so by the very person you were trying to help.

In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious why people don't bother.

Well done to all those who help contribute to this sorry state of affairs.

That's not it, it's much simpler.
You can act, but If you act, act within the law.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

That's not it, it's much simpler.
You can act, but If you act, act within the law.

And, it would seem, make sure you know exactly what the law is before you act. This might cause a brief delay while checking the legal position...........

[Greenmantle]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

That's not it, it's much simpler.
You can act, but If you act, act within the law.

And, it would seem, make sure you know exactly what the law is before you act. This might cause a brief delay while checking the legal position...........

nice one von for clearing that up for us
everyone should know what to do from now on
but oh wait
Girl H - Sussex Police - IPCC ruling
6 custody sergeants with 2 taking early retirement
surely they should have known the law by what you said above.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

And, it would seem, make sure you know exactly what the law is before you act. This might cause a brief delay while checking the legal position...........

If you are not sure as a grown man that punching/poking a seven year old then placing them in an armlock for having their feet on a seat/being cheeky is unlawful then you probably shouldn't be out on your own.

Cat

[vonhosen]

Greenmantle said:

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

That's not it, it's much simpler.
You can act, but If you act, act within the law.

And, it would seem, make sure you know exactly what the law is before you act. This might cause a brief delay while checking the legal position...........

nice one von for clearing that up for us
everyone should know what to do from now on
but oh wait
Girl H - Sussex Police - IPCC ruling
6 custody sergeants with 2 taking early retirement
surely they should have known the law by what you said above.

Of course they should, knowing it doesn't stop people acting outside it, they have a choice whether to or not to (as the guy on the train did)
Those who do of course can be held accountable for acting outside it.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

That's not it, it's much simpler.
You can act, but If you act, act within the law.

Someone gave an example here of having abuse constantly hurled at himself and his family. What does the law allow in that situation bearing in mind he would report me if I intervened and touched those screaming at him?

I assume, let them carry on screaming at his family as it's not my problem.

[Digby]

Cat said:

If you are not sure as a grown man that punching/poking a seven year old then placing them in an armlock for having their feet on a seat/being cheeky is unlawful then you probably shouldn't be out on your own.

Cat

And when you are out on your own one night and the same gobby kids in an even larger group follow you, don't expect anyone to tell them to get lost and if needs be, push them away etc.

[TheBear]

I knew at the start that this thread would become the usual internet farce. I've not been disappointed.

[Cat]

Digby said:

And when you are out on your own one night and the same gobby kids in an even larger group follow you, don't expect anyone to tell them to get lost and if needs be, push them away etc.

OK I won't. Thanks for the advice.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Thursday 28th July 17:24

[anonymous-user]

Digby said:

Well, seems pretty clear, folks. Don't help anyone ever again. Walk on by, look away, run..

The merest touch will be classed as assault and it's better to watch someone tremble in fear than to help them out and then have charges brought against you for doing so by the very person you were trying to help.

In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious why people don't bother.

Well done to all those who help contribute to this sorry state of affairs.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/30/Appeal-to-Extremes

Greenmantle said:

nice one von for clearing that up for us
everyone should know what to do from now on
but oh wait
Girl H - Sussex Police - IPCC ruling
6 custody sergeants with 2 taking early retirement
surely they should have known the law by what you said above.

You've mentioned this twice now but the force was not unlawful and there were no assaults. No one took early retirement (one was in Inspector, BTW).

May I suggest attempting to understand the subject matter before trying to be clever?

[Digby]

Cat said:

OK I won't. I thanks for the advice.

Cat

And no suggestions of "a knight in shining armour came to my rescue", get that police report in sharpish and remove the vile saviour from our streets.

[Cat]

Digby said:

And no suggestions of "a knight in shining armour came to my rescue", get that police report in sharpish and remove the vile saviour from our streets.

Sorry, you've lost me.

Cat

[cmaguire]

La Liga said:

You're critical about the eyewitness accounts of a 'punch' to disregard it, but seemingly don't apply the same standards to the accounts of the childrens' behaviour which you're ready and willing to accept justified the man's behaviour.

What I actually think is that this is a complete non-event and isn't worth worrying about. Show me this 8-11 year old that is any worse off than he would have been after having his butt spanked by his dad and I'll reconsider. Society has a major problem at present with regards to respect, because those not showing it can do so without recourse. I'm not extolling the virtues of a crack Police Unit of 70 year olds that go around dishing out slaps, cuffs and pokes to offenders but it's a start.

[Digby]

La Liga said:

Stuff..

My points relate to a bigger picture and not the specifics of this case.

You can't defend these kids and then thank someone for manhandling a group of children should they be terrorising one of your own.

Most here won't admit it, but they would thank someone who came to their aid in such a situation.

If you wouldn't and would rather report them, well, you do contribute to the reason many people turn a blind eye.

I can't turn a blind eye, so we will just have to accept that not everyone is the same.

[egor110]

Digby said:

Well, seems pretty clear, folks. Don't help anyone ever again. Walk on by, look away, run..

The merest touch will be classed as assault and it's better to watch someone tremble in fear than to help them out and then have charges brought against you for doing so by the very person you were trying to help.

In fact, it's becoming more and more obvious why people don't bother.

Well done to all those who help contribute to this sorry state of affairs.

It wasn't merest touch though was it , he punched the child in the ribs.

You keep coming up with all these hypothetical situations rather than deal with what actually happened.

The adult in the train was being verbally abused and thought violence was acceptable .

Now if the kids started attacking the old guy then yes he'd be totally within his rights to defend himself but they didn't did they.

[Digby]

egor110 said:

You keep coming up with all these hypothetical situations rather than deal with what actually happened.

I dealt with it in my very first post.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

La Liga said:

You're critical about the eyewitness accounts of a 'punch' to disregard it, but seemingly don't apply the same standards to the accounts of the childrens' behaviour which you're ready and willing to accept justified the man's behaviour.

What I actually think is that this is a complete non-event and isn't worth worrying about. Show me this 8-11 year old that is any worse off than he would have been after having his butt spanked by his dad and I'll reconsider. Society has a major problem at present with regards to respect, because those not showing it can do so without recourse. I'm not extolling the virtues of a crack Police Unit of 70 year olds that go around dishing out slaps, cuffs and pokes to offenders but it's a start.

Moderate correction of a child by a parent is lawful (although some people will disagree wit it & believe it is a poor teaching method), physical correction by any old adult isn't.
An adult who doesn't understand that & dishes it out hasn't acted in a way that commands respect or gives a lesson in it.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 28th July 17:46