Deliberately Knock Someone off a Scooter

[tony wright]

Watching a programme called “Daylight Robbery, Caught on Camera” and has me wondering about above. At the start it shows a couple robberies by lowlife on scooters caught on Dashcam. As well as the robberies it also showed video footage of police deliberately knocking the scum off their bikes.

So, it had me wondering what would happen if one of the car drivers with the dashcam footage chased and did the same to prevent them getting away. What action do you think the police would take?

[vonhosen]

As usual..............it depends.

[meatballs]

It would be a terrible idea.

Some argument if they are actually threatening you at the time and knock them off getting away...

[tony wright]

Main reason it had me thinking, we’re the videos of the police actively ramming the scooters. So could a defence be made that after watching the police on TV you were attempting a citizens arrest.

Think the first three crimes on the programme shoplifting etc, had no further action taken by the police, even though they were blatantly caught on camera.

[vonhosen]

tony wright said:

Main reason it had me thinking, we’re the videos of the police actively ramming the scooters. So could a defence be made that after watching the police on TV you were attempting a citizens arrest.

Think the first three crimes on the programme shoplifting etc, had no further action taken by the police, even though they were blatantly caught on camera.

Not simply that no.

[PorkInsider]

tony wright said:

So, it had me wondering what would happen if one of the car drivers with the dashcam footage chased and did the same to prevent them getting away. What action do you think the police would take?

The Good Samaritan driver would be dealt with more harshly than the scooter scum.

As usual, it would be a case of the law-abiding person not having the same experience of dealing with the police/justice system that the scrote would have and would therefore probably talk them self into trouble.

[Lindun]

PorkInsider said:

The Good Samaritan driver would be dealt with more harshly than the scooter scum.

As usual, it would be a case of the law-abiding person not having the same experience of dealing with the police/justice system that the scrote would have and would therefore probably talk them self into trouble.

It’s hardly law abiding to knock them off a scooter. If plod donut then they are working within their guidelines and have a mandate to do it. Joe Public doesn’t have that same mandate.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and vigilantism isn’t great.

[Pica-Pica]

Any forceful action has to be reasonable and proportional to the threat, as perceived at the time. If they had attacked and injured a third party, then for me to do it, they would have to have seriously injured someone, and then I would only do so if the injured party was being attended to. As for the police doing it, that is another matter.

[toon10]

Haven't the police been given specific authority to do this though and as such, trained on if, when and how to use this approach? I can't see Johnny on the spot doing it and getting away with it to be honest. I can just imaging the legal ramifications when one of the little scrotes breaks some bones or dies as a result of Dave ramming him off the road in his Mondeo.

[Seight_Returns]

PorkInsider said:

The Good Samaritan driver

The term "Good Samaritan" refers to someone who helps another when s/he has no obligation to.

The correct term for someone who attempts to enforce the law and hand down summary punishment without authority or mandate isn't "Good Samaritan", it's "Vigilante".

Good Samaritans benefit society - Vigilantes don't.


Edit - Didn't see Lindum's post which I agree with.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Tuesday 30th July 15:53

[Pica-Pica]

Seight_Returns said:

PorkInsider said:

The Good Samaritan driver

The term "Good Samaritan" refers to someone who helps another when s/he has no obligation to.

The correct term for someone who attempts to enforce the law and hand down summary punishment without authority or mandate isn't "Good Samaritan", it's "Vigilante".

Good Samaritans benefit society - Vigilantes don't.

Originally, a ‘Good Samaritan’ was someone who helped a stranger who was traditionally an unliked foreigner, and perceived as a potential enemy to the local peoples/tradition.

[PorkInsider]

Lindun said:

It’s hardly law abiding to knock them off a scooter. If plod donut then they are working within their guidelines and have a mandate to do it. Joe Public doesn’t have that same mandate.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and vigilantism isn’t great.

Hold on. I thought we were talking about someone witnessing the crime in progress and trying to intervene?

Not someone purposely going out purposefully to look for someone they can summarily decide is a criminal to be dealt with. That would be vigilantism.

[motco]

Pica-Pica said:

Seight_Returns said:

PorkInsider said:

The Good Samaritan driver

The term "Good Samaritan" refers to someone who helps another when s/he has no obligation to.

The correct term for someone who attempts to enforce the law and hand down summary punishment without authority or mandate isn't "Good Samaritan", it's "Vigilante".

Good Samaritans benefit society - Vigilantes don't.

Originally, a ‘Good Samaritan’ was someone who helped a stranger who was traditionally an unliked foreigner, and perceived as a potential enemy to the local peoples/tradition.

Wasn't it the Samaritan the unpopular one?

[Lindun]

PorkInsider said:

Lindun said:

It’s hardly law abiding to knock them off a scooter. If plod donut then they are working within their guidelines and have a mandate to do it. Joe Public doesn’t have that same mandate.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and vigilantism isn’t great.

Hold on. I thought we were talking about someone witnessing the crime in progress and trying to intervene?

Not someone purposely going out purposefully to look for someone they can summarily decide is a criminal to be dealt with. That would be vigilantism.

Irrespective you can’t just go out and smack into them with your car. If I saw a crime and decided to batter the living crap out of someone with a baseball bat would that be OK?

Reasonable force is key and hitting someone with a car is unlikely to be viewed as reasonable. I’ve already covered off the police aspect, so let’s not go back round that circle.

[Aluminati]

Would it not be construed as assault with a deadly weapon ?

Scenario, knock scrote off bike, scrote injured and croaks.

Was that not the reason that recent Police policy was to give up chase when scrotes removed crash helmet ?

Not 100% it was policy, only going on old Cop programmes where it appeared to be the case.

[tinnitusjosh]

Pica-Pica said:

Any forceful action has to be reasonable and proportional to the threat, as perceived at the time. If they had attacked and injured a third party, then for me to do it, they would have to have seriously injured someone, and then I would only do so if the injured party was being attended to. As for the police doing it, that is another matter.

I don't think this scenario would cut it - you're not responding to a 'threat' if the perp has attacked someone (past tense) and you then followed them and rammed them off their bike

[jondude]

Only the police have a monopoly on use of violence.

While I am sure many coppers would be sympathetic and thankful for the help, I am pretty sure judges would take a very dim view of the public using the veil of being police assistants to mow people down.

Which if looking at it coldly, is how it has to be.

[Pica-Pica]

motco said:

Pica-Pica said:

Seight_Returns said:

PorkInsider said:

The Good Samaritan driver

The term "Good Samaritan" refers to someone who helps another when s/he has no obligation to.

The correct term for someone who attempts to enforce the law and hand down summary punishment without authority or mandate isn't "Good Samaritan", it's "Vigilante".

Good Samaritans benefit society - Vigilantes don't.

Originally, a ‘Good Samaritan’ was someone who helped a stranger who was traditionally an unliked foreigner, and perceived as a potential enemy to the local peoples/tradition.

Wasn't it the Samaritan the unpopular one?

Neither tribes liked each other.

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

Lindun said:

Irrespective you can’t just go out and smack into them with your car. If I saw a crime and decided to batter the living crap out of someone with a baseball bat would that be OK?

Reasonable force is key and hitting someone with a car is unlikely to be viewed as reasonable. I’ve already covered off the police aspect, so let’s not go back round that circle.

I saw a tt try to undertake and forced a car into a central reservation last month. He wasn’t punished for it (apart from insurance excess I guess)

[Graveworm]

jondude said:

Only the police have a monopoly on use of violence.

While I am sure many coppers would be sympathetic and thankful for the help, I am pretty sure judges would take a very dim view of the public using the veil of being police assistants to mow people down.

Which if looking at it coldly, is how it has to be.

It definitely depends. The first sentence is a long way off the mark.
It's an offence not to help a constable when called upon to do so.
When it comes to the use of force to arrest or in the prevention of crime, the Police have no more power than any other person.
They will, however, be better able to understand and articulate what is proportionate and necessary. They will also not be personally liable for any civil liability. The courts specifically have said, that more leeway not less should be given to members of the public, owing to their lack of training.
I know of a case where an armed robber (On foot not on a moped) was run down by a black taxi driver; he was given a commendation not locked up. In another, a prostitute pinned a mugger to the wall with her car; she got a sheriff's award for bravery.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 30th July 20:59