Taking the law into your own hands
Discussion
Digby said:
So if a situation you were uncomfortable with, or were a witness to someone else being scared or uncomfortable with a certain situation and that situation was ended with a fist shake, you would rather the situation continued and would report the shaker?
Someone behaving in a manner which is making another person scared or uncomfortable is not the same as someone having their feet on a seat. It may well be that in such a situation stronger action may be appropriate. You keep mentioning people being abused and intimidated presumably to try and better justify you position that physical force is acceptable but that is not what is described in the OP. Similarly you have moved away from the use of physical force to fist shaking which is again not what happened in the OP.
At no point have I suggested I would report anyone for anything so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Cat
Cat said:
Someone behaving in a manner which is making another person scared or uncomfortable is not the same as someone having their feet on a seat. It may well be that in such a situation stronger action may be appropriate.
You keep mentioning people being abused and intimidated presumably to try and better justify you position that physical force is acceptable but that is not what is described in the OP. Similarly you have moved away from the use of physical force to fist shaking which is again not what happened in the OP.
At no point have I suggested I would report anyone for anything so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Cat
We moved on from the original story a long time ago. It was my attempt to see how people would react in a variety of situations and if those situations involved people they knew etc.You keep mentioning people being abused and intimidated presumably to try and better justify you position that physical force is acceptable but that is not what is described in the OP. Similarly you have moved away from the use of physical force to fist shaking which is again not what happened in the OP.
At no point have I suggested I would report anyone for anything so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Cat
It's clear some here would report members of their own family for shaking a fist. That's either true, or simply lies due to not wanting to admit situations dictate how they feel rather than the letter of the law.
The youths hanging around outside your front gate night after night was another example. Would you honestly be concerned if a raised fist or a shove ended such a situation?
If you would, then don't moan if they hang around outside your gate or outside local shops making customers nervous.
I'll ask this again, too..
What happens when you try your proportionate and appropriate physical response and it fails? Let them get on with it, or allow someone to turn things up just a notch to sort the issue?
Cat said:
Someone behaving in a manner which is making another person scared or uncomfortable is not the same as someone having their feet on a seat.
The article says they had been misbehaving. That may not make you nervous, but my 90 year old Gran?Edited by Digby on Tuesday 2nd August 18:33
mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
esxste said:
Something very wrong with someone who resorts to violence to resolve their frustrations.
"Law, without force, is impotent."(Pascal)
i suspect you also support the 2nd amendment mis-readers in the US as well ?
Digby said:
The youths hanging around outside your front gate night after night was another example. Would you honestly be concerned if a raised fist or a shove ended such a situation?
If you would, then don't moan if they hang around outside your gate or outside local shops making customers nervous.
Once again, I don't think it is acceptable to use physical force or threats of physical force because someone is doing something legal that I don't like. That is especially the case if the other people involved are children. Clearly you feel differently which obviously you're entitled to. If you would, then don't moan if they hang around outside your gate or outside local shops making customers nervous.
Digby said:
I'll ask this again, too..
What happens when you try your proportionate and appropriate physical response and it fails? Let them get on with it, or allow someone to turn things up just a notch to sort the issue?
What happens when you try your proportionate and appropriate physical response and it fails? Let them get on with it, or allow someone to turn things up just a notch to sort the issue?
My answer hasn't changed - if I the situation couldn't be dealt with in a proportionate and legal manner I wouldn't want someone to do something disproportionate or illegal to resolve it.
We are going round in circles you think it is reasonable to use force to stop someone doing something legal because you don't like it. I don't.
There appears little point in going over the same ground over and over as neither of us are going to change our point of view. There is also the issue that you might opt to try and use physical force because you don't like my behaviour.
Cat
Cat said:
I wouldn't want someone to do something disproportionate or illegal to resolve it.
Cat
Like shake a fist.Cat
Got it.
You are right, we are going round in circles. Obviously some people are happy for my 90 year old Gran to feel rather nervous when anyone of any age misbehaves (like the kids in this story were doing) on a train and there are others who will attempt to make her feel less nervous, or provide her a seat, or allow her to shop without fear. As I said, what makes you nervous or scared does not apply to everyone, you can agree with that I'm sure (or you can ignore it because it makes debate more difficult)
I'll never change and I'm actually proud of that. That doesn't mean I will take an iron bar to your head at Defcon Five , but you know that anyway.
Quite obviously we live in a world where the 'correct' approach will often fail to get results or will not provide results as quickly as required. And look what happens when you challenge that correct approach to help others; abusive messages full of name-calling and ridicule etc. You were doing so well in that regard before the little jibe at the end
People seem to fly off the handle making anyone who does not agree with their way of thinking to be some type of axe-wielding gorilla who enjoys a good punch frenzy. The reality is, quite obviously, almost always very, very different.
Given that many of the posters who disagree with me are the ones here showing the most aggression and infantile behaviour, I honestly think there is something more to these responses. I find it incredibly easy to control my feelings and remain civil (unless you upset my Gran I suppose, but even then it would start off well...), the same cannot be said for them and I do wonder why and wonder if those traits are common in their lives away from a tablet or PC screen.
Anyway, I'm off to ponder on how certain people would report a member of their own family for ending a situation involving their family, even though nobody was touched. I'm not sure how I will get over that one, but I will try!
When I still had a warrant card I would frequently intervene in incidents when I was off duty, even low level minor disruptions. My wife was rather amusing once when a woman was being pestered by an obnoxious oik. It was all mild stuff until he overstepped a mark that I have. I put my book down and she said to the bloke: 'Bad thing to say. You've switched him on.'
I was never violent and only ever used force when forced into an arrest.
Since I've left the job I find that the mark has moved quite a way towards leniency. I don't know why. It is not fear, although I am a bit old now. I can still take care of myself but will feel it the next day, and more than a bit. However, the old urges have come to the fore a couple of times, but I didn't use force, armlocks or similar in either incident, once ensuring two nasty bits of work were thrown off a train at Gatwick, despite wanting to go to Brighton.
I'm big and ugly so I have an advantage I suppose.
There are ways around the use of force. It doesn't take a lot of working out. If you do use force, you'd better have two things: a good reason and a good lawyer. It is fraught with danger.
I was never violent and only ever used force when forced into an arrest.
Since I've left the job I find that the mark has moved quite a way towards leniency. I don't know why. It is not fear, although I am a bit old now. I can still take care of myself but will feel it the next day, and more than a bit. However, the old urges have come to the fore a couple of times, but I didn't use force, armlocks or similar in either incident, once ensuring two nasty bits of work were thrown off a train at Gatwick, despite wanting to go to Brighton.
I'm big and ugly so I have an advantage I suppose.
There are ways around the use of force. It doesn't take a lot of working out. If you do use force, you'd better have two things: a good reason and a good lawyer. It is fraught with danger.
Derek Smith said:
However, the old urges have come to the fore a couple of times, but I didn't use force, armlocks or similar in either incident,
No force required in almost all of my incidents, too (including helping the police). It's nice when it works that way.Be careful with the word 'urges', people will be calling you Derek Hindley
Digby said:
Like shake a fist.
Got it.
Shaking a fist at someone isn't illegal.Got it.
I appreciate that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I posted to try and score cheap points but you shouldn't it does you no favours.
Digby said:
You are right, we are going round in circles. Obviously some people are happy for my 90 year old Gran to feel rather nervous when anyone of any age misbehaves (like the kids in this story were doing) on a train and there are others who will attempt to make her feel less nervous, or provide her a seat, or allow her to shop without fear. As I said, what makes you nervous or scared does not apply to everyone, you can agree with that I'm sure (or you can ignore it because it makes debate more difficult)
Yet another misrepresentation - it is a fallacy to imply that because someone isn't prepared to use physical force to end an otherwise legal situation that they would therefore do nothing or that they are happy about the behaviour.
Digby said:
Quite obviously we live in a world where the 'correct' approach will often fail to get results or will not provide results as quickly as required.
Better that than a world where grown men think it's acceptable to poke/punch kids and place them in an armlock because they are misbehaving.
Cat
Digby said:
(or you can ignore it because it makes debate more difficult)
I'm not ignoring anything. Just because someone is nervous or scared doesn't mean it it is appropriate to use force to deal with the root of the problem. There are plenty of other ways you can stop someone feeling that way without resorting to physical force. Cat
What I find interesting is that your world appears to be perfect. There is a perfect line between the moment you say you would use force or not use force (if you ever would at all), a perfect line between when misbehaving becomes abusive or threatening behaviour, a perfect and instantly recognisable line between the moment a fist shake is just that, or common assault..
Quite clearly you see things (or may never have?) where you, like almost everyone else, wish those situations were not happening, but you then perfectly define and recognise every single moment, action, reaction, vocal tones, gestures and anything else you care to mention to make a perfectly informed choice as to what you will or will not do based upon the letter of the law.
Given that lawyers, the police, judges etc have a hard time and can spend months and even years trying to determine what the correct responses should or should not have been, what makes you such an 'on the spot' decision maker in the heat of the moment? Where is this perfect world where things only happen with not a single area of grey?
The correct response if there is a fire in your home is to forget your pets and run, but would you?
Do you think "Oh, I have a fire in my kitchen, but I will leave the dog to possibly burn in the lounge even though I am passing it during my exit as that's the correct thing to do"
As you have said, we will have to agree to disagree.
t move his legs.
I don't want your world, yet we are plagued by it. I prefer mine where people can sit down and not have to walk through gangs of misbehaving idiots etc and in that world, the solution is never black and white. Whilst you are googling for allowed responses, someone else will be telling them to behave and move their legs or they will move them for them. I know which train ride I would prefer.
Quite clearly you see things (or may never have?) where you, like almost everyone else, wish those situations were not happening, but you then perfectly define and recognise every single moment, action, reaction, vocal tones, gestures and anything else you care to mention to make a perfectly informed choice as to what you will or will not do based upon the letter of the law.
Given that lawyers, the police, judges etc have a hard time and can spend months and even years trying to determine what the correct responses should or should not have been, what makes you such an 'on the spot' decision maker in the heat of the moment? Where is this perfect world where things only happen with not a single area of grey?
The correct response if there is a fire in your home is to forget your pets and run, but would you?
Do you think "Oh, I have a fire in my kitchen, but I will leave the dog to possibly burn in the lounge even though I am passing it during my exit as that's the correct thing to do"
As you have said, we will have to agree to disagree.
Cat said:
Better that than a world where grown men think it's acceptable to poke/punch kids and place them in an armlock because they are misbehaving.
Well, as I said, the picture is bigger than the original story. I even suggested that despite having no issue with the the old guy did, I doubt I would have done the same if there were spare seats. Even if there were no spare seats, most likely just pushing my legs against the kids legs and dropping into the seat would have been enough. In your eyes, it would appear that this can be construed as beating a child to within an inch of its life. In mine, it is making a cocky tt move his legs.I don't want your world, yet we are plagued by it. I prefer mine where people can sit down and not have to walk through gangs of misbehaving idiots etc and in that world, the solution is never black and white. Whilst you are googling for allowed responses, someone else will be telling them to behave and move their legs or they will move them for them. I know which train ride I would prefer.
Cat said:
Just because someone is nervous or scared doesn't mean it it is appropriate to use force to deal with the root of the problem. There are plenty of other ways you can stop someone feeling that way without resorting to physical force.
A bit like the old guy tried to do by asking these kids first, then.Edited by Digby on Tuesday 2nd August 22:40
PAULJ5555 said:
That's the problem you just cant give kids a good old beating anymore.
SADLY. How many of us remember being more terrified of dad finding out that PC had threatened to clip us round the ear than of PC actually doing this ? Now work yesterdays values into the feet on seat incident. feet would have moved at light speed if there was a hint of dads finding out, that kid had had to be reminded that seats are not for feet. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff