mafya Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Actually, "they swore at me first" has successfully been used as self defence.The yob was causing offence to every other passenger in the coach. The trouble causing yob shouldn't have resisted, therefore his fault. My Bold= Ha ha, you are having a laugh arn't you, which case exactly has this been successfully used as a reason for assaulting someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well in that you are wrong - in that he didn't cause the incident, but right in that he deserves punishment for threatening behaviour; but you very much are defending the much more dangerous lout who threw him off the train, and who deserves punishment for criminal assault. The lout was the instigating idiot. The "big man" even though very wrong was in order in reacting in the way he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 My Bold= Ha ha, you are having a laugh arn't you, which case exactly has this been successfully used as a reason for assaulting someone? Many incidents from Saturday nights. Maybe you should go out in to the real world once in a while! It's called provocation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The lout was the instigating idiot. We already know he was not. The conductor was the instigator of the three. If he'd followed the rules he was supposed to, there would have been no incident. The "big man" even though very wrong was in order That's a contradiction in terms. Someone who is wrong is not in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 We already know he was not. The conductor was the instigator of the three. If he'd followed the rules he was supposed to, there would have been no incident. No. That's a contradiction in terms. Someone who is wrong is not in order. And no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 In an ideal situation the conductor would have phoned ahead and British Transport Police would have boarded the train, dealt with the situation and nobody would have become angry or aggressive....unfortunately the police aren't there when you need them. The train may have had to wait for 30 minutes...an hour...two hours before they arrived, by which time "big man" and everyone else is seething fit to blow. In that situation the customers are either likely to take their frustrations out on the guard, or the driver or, in this case the root cause of the hold up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Many incidents from Saturday nights. Maybe you should go out in to the real world once in a while! It's called provocation! I have done time for assault a few times because some numpty tried it on and got a good beating back. I know what self defence is according to the law so please don't make out like I don't know what I'm talking about. My last sentence was for causing GBH to someone who the police accepted had been looking for me with a machete and had struck me on the head with an iron bar first. It was accepted as mitigation but not as self defence. I didn't get provocation accepted as part of my defence either because the force I used was not reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Like I said a man on the forum but in reality.............. Keep fishing ………. You might get a bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 In an ideal situation the conductor would have phoned ahead and British Transport Police would have boarded the train, dealt with the situation In an ideal situation, the conductor would have done what he is supposed to do, taken the student's name and address and told him to pay the fare (plus a £10 fine, if that applies in the area as it does around here) when he alighted. If he'd got that right, there would have been no situation to deal with. The next point is that in an ideal world, the student would not have lost his temper when dealing with a conductor who refuses to do his job properly. For that, he will be prosecuted for threatening behaviour. The final point is that in an ideal world, there wouldn't be violent louts who throw unarmed people off trains. While there are, such people will be charged with assault, and so they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 In an ideal situation, the conductor would have done what he is supposed to do, taken the student's name and address and told him to pay the fare (plus a £10 fine, if that applies in the area as it does around here) when he alighted. So the deterrent for fare dodging is £10 ………. And Sheffield still as no gates, free ride to Meadowhall anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.