Pay your fare or get thrown off!

[snailracer]

... People do love a vigilante...

The man who intervened did not break the law - does he qualify as a vigilante?

 

[User169]

Under English law, anyone may use reasonable force in self-defence, to "arrest" someone, to "prevent crime", etc. trespass is just one of several situations where it is allowed. Whether the equivalent exists in Scottish law, I don't claim to know.

Are you sure that trespass would have been relevant, even had this all taken place in England?

 

[User482]

The man who intervened did not break the law - does he qualify as a vigilante?

That's arguable.

 

[snailracer]

Are you sure that trespass would have been relevant, even had this all taken place in England?

Definitely - the only arguments are about what is "reasonable" in "reasonable force".

 

[snailracer]

...I'd hope no elderly people are treated like that for what is a honest simple mistake...

Obviously, physically throwing an elderly person off a train would not be "reasonable".

 

[User169]

Definitely - the only arguments are about what is "reasonable" in "reasonable force".

OK, it’s just that the CPS website doesn’t mention trespass in relation to fare evasion; it mentions a number of options for prosecution, but trespass doesn’t seem to be one of them.

 

[Mad at urage]

If you're the landowner yes its (kinda) legal, for one person to throw another around however is assault nuff said.

It is lawful for the landowner, their representative or anyone assisting them, to use reasonable force to re move someone from the land. Picking up a recalcitrant oik who had refused to cooperate and was continuing to use offensive language (yet another offence), in order to remove him and prevent continued BOP / offensive behaviour, is (IMO) perfectly reasonable level of force. YMMV, but I doubt any court in present day Britain would find his behaviour illegal - I strongly doubt CPS would find any attempt to prove it so to be in the public interest.

 

[snailracer]

OK, it’s just that the CPS website doesn’t mention trespass in relation to fare evasion; it mentions a number of options for prosecution, but trespass doesn’t seem to be one of them.

"Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: it is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave. The offence is punishable by one month's imprisonment"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#railway

 

[User482]

Obviously, physically throwing an elderly person off a train would not be "reasonable".

Supposedly, the lad is a diabetic and his medicines were left on the train after he was thrown off. If true, that's not reasonable, either. Whilst I've no great sympathy for him, I'd suggest there are better ways of dealing with this kind of incident, and physically throwing someone off a train isn't a god idea, because you can never be sure of the consequences of your actions. What if he had fallen and hit his head? Not really proportionate to petty fare dodging...

 

[snailracer]

Supposedly, the lad is a diabetic and his medicines were left on the train after he was thrown off. If true, that's not reasonable, either. Whilst I've no great sympathy for him, I'd suggest there are better ways of dealing with this kind of incident, and physically throwing someone off a train isn't a god idea, because you can never be sure of the consequences of your actions. What if he had fallen and hit his head?...

I could also say that the ticket inspector might have had of a heart attack if the argument had persisted, but that's no more or less probable than your hypothetical extrapolation.
I'm not saying use of force was the best solution, but slagging off the big man for helping to "prevent crime" is unwarranted.

...Not really proportionate to petty fare dodging...

It's not just fare dodging, though, is it? The offences were fare evasion AND TRESPASS which occurred when the kid refused to get off the train when told to by the ticket inspector.
I'd say being arrested, cuffed, locked up in jail, being hauled though the courts, locked up some more and a criminal record screwing up your prospects of future employment would be even less "proportionate". Maybe the big man actually did the kid a favour!

 

[Mad at urage]

Supposedly, the lad is a diabetic and his medicines were left on the train after he was thrown off. If true, that's not reasonable, either. Whilst I've no great sympathy for him, I'd suggest there are better ways of dealing with this kind of incident, and physically throwing someone off a train isn't a god idea, because you can never be sure of the consequences of your actions. What if he had fallen and hit his head? Not really proportionate to petty fare dodging...

If you watch the video, the offensive little blighter's bag is carried over and put off the train with him. Whether he was too "not drunk" to notice this of course is his problem.

 

[User169]

"Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: it is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave. The offence is punishable by one month's imprisonment"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#railway

OK - thanks. I can see how this might apply, assuming Main didn’t have the correct ticket, but I’m not entirely sure how the big bloke could have known whether or not that were the case at the time.

 

[User482]

I could also say that the ticket inspector might have had of a heart attack if the argument had persisted, but that's no more or less probable than your hypothetical extrapolation.
I'm not saying use of force was the best solution, but slagging off the big man for helping to "prevent crime" is unwarranted.

It's not just fare dodging, though, is it? The offences were fare evasion AND TRESPASS which occurred when the kid refused to get off the train when told to by the ticket inspector.
I'd say being arrested, cuffed, locked up in jail, being hauled though the courts, locked up some more and a criminal record screwing up your prospects of future employment would be even less "proportionate". Maybe the big man actually did the kid a favour!

Who's slagging anyone off? My position is that throwing someone off a train for fare dodging is disproportionate and unnecessary. I also contend that circumstances such as the one I described are resonably forseeable, which is why the use of force in these cases isn't a good idea.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. The most likely punishment would be a penalty fare.

 

[wiggydiggy]

[QUOTE 1644834, member: 9609"]If the so called "Big Man" had turned out to be some sort of lunatic and had beaten the little guy to death, where would Scotrail have stood,? after all the conductor had enlisted the big man to physically remove a little guy from the train.[/quote]

Release a statement saying they will employ him full time

 

[cd365]

I personally think the drunk foul-mouthed youth got what he deserved, he was ejected from the train, live with it, get on with your life