Taking the law into your own hands
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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...........You can act, but If you act, act within the law.
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.
Those who do of course can be held accountable for acting outside it.
Digby said:
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.
There are lots of threads on here where people have done what they thought was the right thing and come a cropper when the fighting parties gang up on the stranger who's decided to stick his nose in.
There's also the fact that we use the terms children/kids but some of these teenagers are quite used to fighting as a past time or because of abusive parents, so Mr middle class hero isn't really much going to pose much of a threat.
WinstonWolf said:
vonhosen said:
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...........You can act, but If you act, act within the law.
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.
Those who do of course can be held accountable for acting outside it.
2) You're understaffed? ...........not me.
egor110 said:
I'd be very interested if you are this one man vigilante squad in real life.
There are lots of threads on here where people have done what they thought was the right thing and come a cropper when the fighting parties gang up on the stranger who's decided to stick his nose in.
We're not all the same.There are lots of threads on here where people have done what they thought was the right thing and come a cropper when the fighting parties gang up on the stranger who's decided to stick his nose in.
I have come a cropper - I have displayed more colours than a rainbow on my face a few times.
Would I risk it again? Without thinking about it if the situation dictated.
And let's be honest, telling some gobby kids to leave someone alone hardly makes me and those like myself vigilante squads, does it?
That sounds like a media created term. I simply call it 'helping others if I can'
That said, it's hard to continue to think that way after reading some of the posts here
Digby said:
egor110 said:
I'd be very interested if you are this one man vigilante squad in real life.
There are lots of threads on here where people have done what they thought was the right thing and come a cropper when the fighting parties gang up on the stranger who's decided to stick his nose in.
We're not all the same.There are lots of threads on here where people have done what they thought was the right thing and come a cropper when the fighting parties gang up on the stranger who's decided to stick his nose in.
I have come a cropper - I have displayed more colours than a rainbow on my face a few times.
Would I risk it again? Without thinking about it if the situation dictated.
And let's be honest, telling some gobby kids to leave someone alone hardly makes me and those like myself vigilante squads, does it?
That sounds like a media created term. I simply call it 'helping others if I can'
That said, it's hard to continue to think that way after reading some of the posts here
cmaguire said:
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.
It's relatively minor in nature, I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. That doesn't mean it's lawful behaviour or behaviour that should be encouraged. As I said earlier, idealistic revengeful-type force is all good and well until it goes wrong. Digby said:
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.
You can use force to defend yourself, others and preventing crime. You can't use force to punish or take revenge for obvious reasons.
La Liga said:
You can use force to defend yourself, others and preventing crime. You can't use force to punish or take revenge for obvious reasons.
And in the example given earlier where people could be standing their screaming at a family, you wouldn't want them dragged away if that were your family?And had it been the last seat on the train, you would have stood for the entire journey and reported anyone who moved the kids legs to let you or anyone else sit down?
Edited by Digby on Thursday 28th July 18:22
Digby said:
But what do you do when there is a chance of being reported by the very person you are trying to help?
Surely the correct answer is, you don't help?
The correct answer is help but don't do something illegal when you do so. That way even if the person does report you (although why would they because you haven't committed an offence?) then you won't have done anything wrong. Surely the correct answer is, you don't help?
Cat
Digby said:
La Liga said:
You can use force to defend yourself, others and preventing crime. You can't use force to punish or take revenge for obvious reasons.
And in the example given earlier where people could be standing their screaming at a family, you wouldn't want them dragged away if that were your family?And had it been the last seat on the train, you would have stood for the entire journey and reported anyone who moved the kids legs to let you or anyone else sit down?
La Liga said:
Yes, because it's a much better solution to have people punch people for 'low-level anti-social behaviour'.
Punching people is not where the line is drawn. You can't do anything to make them stop. And they know it.La Liga said:
The New Labour government extensively legislated around ASB so there are legal power to address it.
"Hello, 101, I'd like to report some kids making a nuisance of themselves on the train, can you tell me when I can expect to see an officer? Err, no, I don't think they've said anything offensive on Twitter."You can't legally do anything. The police can't practically do anything. Nothing can be done, we just have to put up with it.
Cat said:
The correct answer is help but don't do something illegal when you do so. That way even if the person does report you (although why would they because you haven't committed an offence?) then you won't have done anything wrong.
Cat
So let the family in the example earlier be screamed at (unless "Please stop that" works) and do not attempt to move anyones legs from a seat even if it were the last seat on the train (unless "remove your legs, please") works?Cat
In other words, let the abuse continue because there's nothing you can do and stand for the entire journey for the same reason.
La Liga said:
can't say how I'd act in whatever made-up scenario you propose as every situation is different. Whatever I did, I'd be on the right side of the law so I need not worry.
I didn't create the scenario about a family being screamed at.Anyway, let the abuse continue and stand for the entire journey should words not have the desired effect appears to be the answer.
Some may do more to "help"
The question is, would you appreciate the help, or be reporting it?
dudleybloke said:
Feet up on a chair = No law broken.
Being cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
yep its not difficultBeing cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
let standards slip
until one day you wake up and find that no law abiding citizen would dare take their family to say the Notting Hill Carnival since it has now become a virtual no go area for decent people. The powers that be then impose a zero tolerance procedure to counteract this and we end up with FUBAR!
dudleybloke said:
Feet up on a chair = No law broken.
Being cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
Youths deciding to hang around outside your front gate night after night - no real laws broken.Being cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
Would you be happy if some local, older boys made sure they no longer did this?
Greenmantle said:
dudleybloke said:
Feet up on a chair = No law broken.
Being cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
yep its not difficultBeing cheeky = No law broken.
Physical assault by beating = Law broken.
Its not difficult!
let standards slip
until one day you wake up and find that no law abiding citizen would dare take their family to say the Notting Hill Carnival since it has now become a virtual no go area for decent people. The powers that be then impose a zero tolerance procedure to counteract this and we end up with FUBAR!
otolith said:
La Liga said:
Yes, because it's a much better solution to have people punch people for 'low-level anti-social behaviour'.
Punching people is not where the line is drawn. You can't do anything to make them stop. And they know it.otolith said:
"Hello, 101, I'd like to report some kids making a nuisance of themselves on the train, can you tell me when I can expect to see an officer? Err, no, I don't think they've said anything offensive on Twitter."
You can't legally do anything. The police can't practically do anything. Nothing can be done, we just have to put up with it.
If they're below 10, then they can't commit and offence. If 10 and over then there are potential legal remedies such as this: http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-n...You can't legally do anything. The police can't practically do anything. Nothing can be done, we just have to put up with it.
There could also be other angles to look at the matter such as why children of that age are unaccompanied and a need for social services to assess parenting / risk etc.
Digby said:
I didn't create the scenario about a family being screamed at.
Anyway, let the abuse continue and stand for the entire journey should words not have the desired effect appears to be the answer.
Some may do more to "help"
The question is, would you appreciate the help, or be reporting it?
That sounds more like behaviour that would amount to an offence given the scope of railway by-laws: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa... or would amount to a regular offence e.g. public order. Anyway, let the abuse continue and stand for the entire journey should words not have the desired effect appears to be the answer.
Some may do more to "help"
The question is, would you appreciate the help, or be reporting it?
If the guard is unable to manage / enforce it then he / she would likely summons the BTP to assist at the next practical stop. Withdrawing from the situation and allowing the guard / police to manage the matter would be better than escalating and using force unless it was necessary.
Digby said:
So let the family in the example earlier be screamed at (unless "Please stop that" works) and do not attempt to move anyones legs from a seat even if it were the last seat on the train (unless "remove your legs, please") works?
In other words, let the abuse continue because there's nothing you can do and stand for the entire journey for the same reason.
If the screaming of abuse amounted to a breach of the peace then you could legally take action to prevent it. This could include the use of reasonable force. The amount of force that was reasonable would obviously depend on the exact circumstances.In other words, let the abuse continue because there's nothing you can do and stand for the entire journey for the same reason.
Cat
Cat said:
If the screaming of abuse amounted to a breach of the peace then you could legally take action to prevent it. This could include the use of reasonable force. The amount of force that was reasonable would obviously depend on the exact circumstances.
Cat
Von will be along in a second to tell you you don't know what you are talking about Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff