Thoughts on Cycling Mikey

[Tail End Charlie]

Criminal damage can include reckless acts though. Either way, it will be a field day for the insurers of both bike and car with so many get out clauses and differing opinions on the footage. Their lawyers will be the only ones who make anything out of the incident.

 

[presta]

What he does is vigilanteism, and that is not acceptable.

Today's news is Matthew Barber, Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner, criticising the public for not intervening when they see shoplifters.

 

[fossyant]

The thing is, this latest video is all over the press, Times, Telegraph, not just the gutter press. Rightly or wrongly, all say Mikey pushed his bike into the path of a moving car. It's got the wrong publicity and is not helping vulnerable road users. This driver is a wrong un, could have been far worse. Only needs to get one slightly more angry driver and he could get badly injured. Better to film and report.

 

[Alex321]

May I ask why? (I mean, if I jumped in front of someone hoping to assault you or your children , for example , that would be OK?)

There is a difference between acting to prevent immediate and clear danger to others (or yourself), and acting to prevent lawbreaking in itself.

The first falls into the category of self-defence (even if it is others you are actually defending), while without that factor, it becomes vigilanteism.

 

[Alex321]

Today's news is Matthew Barber, Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner, criticising the public for not intervening when they see shoplifters.

Actually mainly criticising shop staff for not intervening.

 

[Mo1959]

Actually mainly criticising shop staff for not intervening.

Can’t say I blame them these days. Customers could turn violent and you end up getting assaulted. Who, on minimum wage or not much more, wants to put themselves in harms way for that.

 

[matticus]

There is a difference between acting to prevent immediate and clear danger to others (or yourself), and acting to prevent lawbreaking in itself.

The first falls into the category of self-defence (even if it is others you are actually defending), while without that factor, it becomes vigilanteism.

But as I said, this is lawbreaking that creates a danger to others. That's why the laws are there.
(I can't see anything wrong with preventing danger to others in this way. I presume you think vigilantism is a bad thing? )

 

[Alex321]

But as I said, this is lawbreaking that creates a danger to others. That's why the laws are there.

That is not the same thing though. A generalised danger is not the same at al as somebody specific being in immediate danger.

(I can't see anything wrong with preventing danger to others in this way. I presume you think vigilantism is a bad thing? )

Yes, I do.

And generally, so does law enforcement.

 

[matticus]

And generally, so does law enforcement.

And yet they seem very happy with Mikey reporting all this law-breaking. How do you square that circle?

 

[Alex321]

And yet they seem very happy with Mikey reporting all this law-breaking. How do you square that circle?

Perhaps you need to actually read what I wrote above (post #70).

Reporting to law enforcement is not remotely the same as taking the law into your own hands.

I have sent videos into operation snap myself, and will do so again if and when I get another action camera ( the one I had died about 18 months ago and I haven't got around to replacing it).

 

[matticus]

Perhaps you need to actually read what I wrote above (post #70).

Reporting to law enforcement is not remotely the same as taking the law into your own hands.

(I did read your post - in fact it's the one I first replied to! Perhaps it wasn't very clear. So it would be helpful to actually answer my question, or just conduct the conversation in a normal manner. Do you discuss matters in real-life in this style? Anyway, moving on ...)

Are you aware of the Police saying anything negative about Mikey "taking the law into his own hands"? Nothing he's done - at least before this odd bike-throwing incident! - seems to have harmed a soul, or indeed property. Or upset anyone who wasn't already breaking the law. And he's almost always stopping them doing something dangerous.

 

[Alex321]

(I did read your post - in fact it's the one I first replied to! Perhaps it wasn't very clear. So it would be helpful to actually answer my question, or just conduct the conversation in a normal manner. Do you discuss matters in real-life in this style? Anyway, moving on ...)

Well then why did you ask that question?

I made it quite clear in that post that I thought reporting to the police was absolutely fine.

Are you aware of the Police saying anything negative about Mikey "taking the law into his own hands"? Nothing he's done - at least before this odd bike-throwing incident! - seems to have harmed a soul, or indeed property. Or upset anyone who wasn't already breaking the law. And he's almost always stopping them doing something dangerous.

I'm not aware of the police saying anything about Cycling Mikey specifically, positive or negative.

But this is a general article on the subject of vigilanteism from the police federation
https://www.police-foundation.org.u...n-citizens-take-the-law-into-their-own-hands/

 

[markemark]

Depends what you mean by vigilanty.

I can see

1. Preventing a crime that is taking place. Using reasonable force to do so.

2. Preventing a crime that is taking place. Using UNreasonable force to do so.

3. Punishing a suspected criminal for a crime

4. Targeting people suspected of crimes but not in the process of committing a crime.

I suspect there are others. And I suspect the law treats the above differently.

 

[Alex321]

Depends what you mean by vigilanty.

I can see

1. Preventing a crime that is taking place. Using reasonable force to do so.

2. Preventing a crime that is taking place. Using UNreasonable force to do so.

3. Punishing a suspected criminal for a crime

4. Targeting people suspected of crimes but not in the process of committing a crime.

I suspect there are others. And I suspect the law treats the above differently.

It does.

1 Is generally OK, though it should be noted that in the UK, "citizen's arrest" is only allowed for indictable offences, and I suspect that using ANY level of force would be treated in much the same way, although stopping the commission of a crime isn't quite the same as arresting somebody for it.

2 Is of course pretty well always illegal, as is 3.

4 Depends rather on what is meant here by "targeting". Anything more than reporting (with or without video or photographic evidence) would come under 3.

 

[markemark]

The current case of the man who exposed himself on the tube and was detained by passengers until an off duty office arrested him. People seem up in arms that some of passengers who stopped him are being investigated for assault. The media seems to have skimmed over the part that some people gave him a good kicking and beating whilst he was on the ground. This was would be 2, 3. And if found it is true then I hope assault charges are brought.

The media or commentators often seem to be under the impression it is #1 when the reality and further investigation shows it is 2,3,4. This is either as new information comes to light or the media willfully edit the story.