snailracer
Über Member
The man who intervened did not break the law - does he qualify as a vigilante?... People do love a vigilante...
The man who intervened did not break the law - does he qualify as a vigilante?... People do love a vigilante...
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.
That's arguable.The man who intervened did not break the law - does he qualify as a vigilante?
Definitely - the only arguments are about what is "reasonable" in "reasonable force".Are you sure that trespass would have been relevant, even had this all taken place in England?
Obviously, physically throwing an elderly person off a train would not be "reasonable"....I'd hope no elderly people are treated like that for what is a honest simple mistake...
Definitely - the only arguments are about what is "reasonable" in "reasonable force".
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.If you're the landowner yes its (kinda) legal, for one person to throw another around however is assault nuff said.
"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"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.
Obviously, physically throwing an elderly person off a train would not be "reasonable".
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.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?...
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....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.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...
"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
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!