Bike thief caught by the owner

[ufkacbln]

Of course we all know that this is the thief without any doubt?

It isn't someone who innocently bough this bike earlier that day and is just as much a victim?

It isn't someone with a very similar bike who has just been accosted and had his bike stolen by a couple of nutters in fancy dress?

 

[jefmcg]

Libel is written.

No case here because no one is identified, so any libel action falls big style at the first hurdle.

Of course, but it wouldn't be if they hadn't pixellated the thief, which was my point

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course, but it wouldn't be if they hadn't pixellated the thief, which was my point

Alleged thief - Which is my point

 

[Simontm]

They are dressed like punts

http://www.visitcambridge.org/things-to-do/punting-bus-and-bike-tours/punting-tours

I don't think we need language like that here do we?

....

Sorry misread

 

[Simontm]

Libel is written.

No case here because no one is identified, so any libel action falls big style at the first hurdle.

To be pedantic, all libel is is a proof of malice. As long as the complainant can prove that the action was malicious and caused damage to them then that is libel - or rather the defendant has to prove that they didn't act in that way as libel is one of the few cases in British law where you are technically guilty and have to prove innocence.

The fact that no one is identified doesn't matter to a certain extent if the complainant says that they were damaged by the paper's action regardless of pixelation.

At least that's how we were taught media law 101 and what lawyers have said to me over the years

 

[Sara_H]

Interesting photo's.

How much force are you legally allowed to use to stop people stealing your property?

 

[Saluki]

Glad he has his bike back. Very handy that his colleagues were able to help out.

 

[Pale Rider]

To be pedantic, all libel is is a proof of malice. As long as the complainant can prove that the action was malicious and caused damage to them then that is libel - or rather the defendant has to prove that they didn't act in that way as libel is one of the few cases in British law where you are technically guilty and have to prove innocence.

The fact that no one is identified doesn't matter to a certain extent if the complainant says that they were damaged by the paper's action regardless of pixelation.

At least that's how we were taught media law 101 and what lawyers have said to me over the years

The bar has been raised recently from 'lower the person's reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society generally' to 'seriously damage the person's reputation'.

Calling someone a thief who is not might pass both tests, but it is academic because no one is identified.

That's why the paper doesn't show his face.

Much is made of the reverse burden in libel, but there is no way someone who is not plainly identified has a case.

 

[Brandane]

Interesting photo's.

How much force are you legally allowed to use to stop people stealing your property?

"Reasonable" force. That is open to interpretation, but as long as you only use enough force to prevent the theft of your property and don't take it to the point of punishment, you should be ok. (In Scotland anyway).

There are circumstances where you could possibly justify killing someone; e.g. they are stealing your bike and you catch them at it. They point a gun at you, so you whack them on the head with a golf club you had to hand. They die, but it was self defence.

OTOH, you would find yourself in trouble if you punched a thief you caught with your bike if they were compliant and handed the bike to you with no resistance.

 

[Tin Pot]

Queens bury rules?

Kicking them once they're on the floor would be too far.

 

[Simontm]

The bar has been raised recently from 'lower the person's reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society generally' to 'seriously damage the person's reputation'.

Calling someone a thief who is not might pass both tests, but it is academic because no one is identified.

That's why the paper doesn't show his face.

Much is made of the reverse burden in libel, but there is no way someone who is not plainly identified has a case.

Yes, but say that bloke A had bought the bike in good faith. Someone A knows sees the bike, recognises it as that bloke's. But now that someone thinks that A is a thief and tells everyone.

Although A was not identified, the paper could be forced to prove that it had taking all reasonable actions to avoid identification.

Extreme and highly unlikely, but the burden technically still exists.

God, haven't had this type of discussion since journalist training. All those years ago

 

[Sara_H]

"Reasonable" force. That is open to interpretation, but as long as you only use enough force to prevent the theft of your property and don't take it to the point of punishment, you should be ok. (In Scotland anyway).

There are circumstances where you could possibly justify killing someone; e.g. they are stealing your bike and you catch them at it. They point a gun at you, so you whack them on the head with a golf club you had to hand. They die, but it was self defence.

OTOH, you would find yourself in trouble if you punched a thief you caught with your bike if they were compliant and handed the bike to you with no resistance.

I just wondered if, for example, someone rode past you on your bike and you gave them a shove to stop them and they fell off and were injured, would that be ok?

 

[Brandane]

I just wondered if, for example, someone rode past you on your bike and you gave them a shove to stop them and they fell off and were injured, would that be ok?

Obviously, you would need to be VERY sure that it was indeed your bike! Secondly, it might have been bought in good faith by a third party; so that scenario is fraught with danger. If you had seen them taking your bike and you were in pursuit of them, then I think you could justify giving them a shove! Having said that, I am not a lawyer but I have 20 years practical experience of the Scottish justice system. Some of the experiences raised my faith in it, while others demolished it. It's a minefield......

 

[jefmcg]

I just wondered if, for example, someone rode past you on your bike and you gave them a shove to stop them and they fell off and were injured, would that be ok?

I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like an assault, and I don't think you are entitled to assault someone just because they stole your property.

You may have to move to Florida.

 

[Drago]

Having said that, I am not a lawyer but I have 20 years practical experience of the Scottish justice system. Some of the experiences raised my faith in it, while others demolished it. It's a minefield......

You're a bank robber?