Scotrail No Ticket, **** on a Train

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

Sometimes people do have to get up off their arse and do the right thing - the consequences otherwise just might be worse!

Biggins I totally get that you feel that people need to stand up for themselves and not let yobbos rule the world, I'd feel the same way, it's just the principle of the thing, some members of the public are not so discerning, and if you condone this kind of thing there are people out there who think it gives them the right to punch a junkie for skipping a queue or flatten a homeless guy for dropping litter, things a lot of people do regularly. It's vigilantism and the thin end of the wedge. If someone tries to attack you, you have a right to defend yourself.
Someone dodging a fare? Please. It's an issue between the railway authorities and the fare dodger. And this wouldn't have escalated as it did if the ticket collector had kept his head.

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There are hardly any BTP officers about and they view fare evasion as a minor crime therefore your rose tinted view of a BTP officer at the next station is not realistic at all.

The BTP in conjuction with the various train operators do campaigns to tackle fare dodgers rather than respond to individual calls (unless the fare dodger is threatening or has a weapon)

Yet there's no outcry about that (the lack of BTP officers that could be called upon) . Also, that was a fair bit of bruising for 'a minor crime'. If it's seen as a minor crime wtf is all the fuss about?

Johro

BBDBB wrote: »

just an additional point about the situation being dealt with at the "next station"........they were at a station, it was being dealt with and the fare dodger was being asked to leave the train

What happened though was a little more than simply someone being asked to get off a train.
If the ticket collector feels unable to deal with it, there's always the next station. But I'm told it's viewed as a 'minor crime' by the relevant authorities. Didn't really warrant the robustness of the response then, did it?

Johro

Veles wrote: »

Whats the tl;dr version of this story?

Storm, teacup.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

Someone dodging a fare? Please. It's an issue between the railway authorities and the fare dodger. And this wouldn't have escalated as it did if the ticket collector had kept his head.

This would not have escalated if the guard had ignored the man evading his fare and just carried on up the train? The guard did not lose his head in this incident, the man dodging his ticket lost his though.

Although it may come out in court, I think there is a byelaw which allows a member of the public to assist a guard in an incident like this if the guard has granted a request for assistance. It is not so black and white as you are making out.

Johro

efb wrote: »

Moot not mute.

True. I shall edit like fuck.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

Yet there's no outcry about that. Also, that was a fair bit of bruising for 'a minor crime'. If it's seen as a minor crime wtf is all the fuss about?

I think you are confusing matters. The fare dodging, not assault, is viewed as a minor crime by the BTP.

The fuss was the man did not have a valid ticket, refused an instruction from the guard, swore at the guard. The train was being delayed by the actions of the immature man and one of the passengers on the train assisted the guard in getting the man off the train.

Kim_Il_Jong

Costing me (journey) time.....oot wi ya ya wee bawbag
ma times nae free.

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think you are confusing matters. The fare dodging, not assault, is viewed as a minor crime by the BTP.

The fuss was the man did not have a valid ticket, refused an instruction from the guard, swore at the guard. The train was being delayed by the actions of the immature man and one of the passengers on the train assisted the guard in getting the man off the train.

Sorry. No confusion here. None.
But fuck it, yeah the scumbag deserved it, if only more people were willing to em... assist. :rolleyes:
I'm done here. It's getting old.


*He really swore?? Jesus.*

Kim_Il_Jong

yeah looks like its getting old, only read about 2 pages myself. Usual AH stuff with the 'you said he said' type thing.

However, just to stir the pot what about if it was a young woman.
You could quick find yourself up for a sexual assault and your name in the paper. Got to choose wisely in these scenarios Danialson.

Or a heroin user, might get yourself a needle in the leg accidentally.
Americans have it right, carry guns and if its troublesome just shoot it.

opinion guy

Kim_Il_Jong wrote: »

Americans have it right, carry guns and if its troublesome just shoot it.

Christ can you imagine how much worse this would have been if everyone on the train was packing?

fullstop

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16229921

THIS is what an arrogant 18 year old is capable of when they decide not to pay their fare and get caught.



You will note once again they were asked to get off.
CLEARLY that is within the right of the company and ticket inspector to ask them to do.

Is it only 18 year olds capable of doing this? And do they need to be arrogant? :rolleyes:

If a peson is capable of acting like this, they are liable to do so at any time, in any place and at any age.

Latchy

It seems according to the daily fail , our first class hero might have criminal assault charges brought against him. British Transport Police confirmed they are investigating the matter after being notified about the video.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075258/Hounding-class-hero-The-banker-threw-foul-mouthed-student-train-end-court.html#ixzz1go7QgWjH

BBDBB

fullstop wrote: »

Is it only 18 year olds capable of doing this? And do they need to be arrogant? :rolleyes:

If a peson is capable of acting like this, they are liable to do so at any time, in any place and at any age.

so you agree with the point being made, that the relatively youthful age was NOT a mitigating factor then:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Johro wrote: »

Got no problem with that. So let the proper authorities deal with it. If you condone this kind of behaviour from the public you're leaving society open to all sorts of vigilantism. That's the issue.

No, you're not. A check of Webster for the definition of vigilante as one who suppresses an punishes crime as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate. Or, in simpler terms, vigilanteism is acting upon crime in a manner which is outside the law. That does not mean that it is not possible to act within the law and it seems that people are not aware that the law allows for enforcement action by the public and not just the police. The proper authorities can include you or I.

Condoning even simple loutish behavior in public because you won't do anything without the police leaves open society to all sorts of detrimental behavior by those who will think they can do whatever they like without fear of interference as long as there are no uniforms within eyeshot. That's the issue.

NTM

Biggins

Manic Moran speaks better than I could (which I agree with) - and I always remember the saying "Evil exists/persists while good men do nothing..."

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

Kim_Il_Jong wrote: »

Americans have it right, carry guns and if its troublesome just shoot it.

Christ can you imagine how much worse this would have been if everyone on the train was packing?

Methinks the situation would have deflated rapidly. I would expect some pretty immediate compliance from the chap with a half dozen pistols pointed at him.

However, it's hypothetical. CCW carriers would not draw for such a situation as it's not life threatening.

groggles11

I hope fat man gets sent to jail. :cool:

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Methinks the situation would have deflated rapidly. I would expect some pretty immediate compliance from the chap with a half dozen pistols pointed at him.

However, it's hypothetical. CCW carriers would not draw for such a situation as it's not life threatening.

CCW ?

Therein lies the problem however thank you for saying this. To my mind, and I've worked security, there was zero need for any violence in this situation. Yet you and others disagree. So escalate that to a gun situation - one person's definition of need is different to anothers.

But the events aboard the 9.33pm commuter train mean his future is also in jeopardy: Alan Pollock’s father this week questioned whether Sam should be allowed to remain on his surveying degree course at Heriot-Watt University, where he is in his second year.

‘I’ll be wondering what the Heriot-Watt principal will say if that’s somebody representing his university,’ said James Pollock.

‘I don’t want to ruin his career, but yobbish behaviour can’t be accepted.’

With the university confirming it would speak to the student about the affair once the police investigation was over, Main’s father told me he is incensed about the threat to his son’s education.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with his University

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

CCW ?

Therein lies the problem however thank you for saying this. To my mind, and I've worked security, there was zero need for any violence in this situation. Yet you and others disagree. So escalate that to a gun situation - one person's definition of need is different to anothers.

Concealed Carrier of Weapons. Basically members of the 49 states which permits citizens to go about their daily business whilst armed in accordance with local law who choose to do so.

Given that I am unaware of any unfortunate incidents involving an excessive reaction from CCW holders to an incident such as fare dodging, and that we have a rather large sample size to pool from, I don't believe your concern is a meritorious one. The limits of the law still apply, and few people will consider fare dodging to be a lethal threat warranting a firearm, which is a required situation to avoid a brandishing charge.

In any case, our individual here was not posing a threat at the time which the passenger did not feel capable of dealing with by means of his own two hands. Talk about guns is pure speciousness until you get to something like the stabbing of the ticket inspector Biggins linked to.

NTM

opinion guy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Concealed Carrier of Weapons. Basically members of the 49 states which permits citizens to go about their daily business whilst armed in accordance with local law.

Given that I am unaware of any unfortunate incidents involving an excessive reaction from CCW holders to an incident such as fare dodging, and that we have a rather large sample size to pool from, I don't believe your concern is a meritorious one. The limits of the law still apply, and few people will consider fare dodging to be a lethal threat warranting a firearm, which is a required situation to avoid a brandishing charge.

Cool/

Was going to thank your post until this bit:

In any case, our individual here was not posing a threat at the time which the passenger did not feel capable of dealing with by means of his own two hands. Talk about guns is pure speciousness until you get to something like the stabbing of the ticket inspector Biggins linked to.
NTM

The individual here was not posing ANY threat to anyone

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, you're not. A check of Webster for the definition of vigilante as one who suppresses an punishes crime as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate. Or, in simpler terms, vigilanteism is acting upon crime in a manner which is outside the law. That does not mean that it is not possible to act within the law and it seems that people are not aware that the law allows for enforcement action by the public and not just the police. The proper authorities can include you or I.

Condoning even simple loutish behavior in public because you won't do anything without the police leaves open society to all sorts of detrimental behavior by those who will think they can do whatever they like without fear of interference as long as there are no uniforms within eyeshot. That's the issue.

NTM

Bollocks. You know very well what I mean. It's wasn't up to a member of the public to physically manhandle a person off the train, it was none of his business and he'll likely face court because of it. In other words, he was outside the law.That's the issue.
The proper authority to deal with the situation was the ticket collector, and ideally the transport cops. The guy who put him off the train obviously didn't think the ticket collector was up to it so he decided to step in.
The proper authorities are NOT you or I.
Ffs, you're talking about a fare dodger. Yes he was belligerent, yes he was in the wrong, but talk about setting the wrong example..
This bit you wrote here: ...leaves open society to all sorts of detrimental behavior by those who will think they can do whatever they like without fear of interference as long as there are no uniforms within eyeshot....
Yeah. Your Joe Public can do exactly that too. How can you be sure a person using your 'enforcement action' isn't just an asshole with an agenda? Let's face it, there's plenty of them around.

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

Manic Moran speaks better than I could (which I agree with) - and I always remember the saying "Evil exists/persists while good men do nothing..."

Evil? Get a grip. :rolleyes: Rape/murder is evil. Let's keep things in perspective and acknowledge that a guy ended up getting bruised for not having a valid ticket for a train journey.

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The guard did not lose his head in this incident, the man dodging his ticket lost his though.

Really??
Because as far as I can see the only person who got physical was the guy who threw him off the train. I thought most people know that as soon as you put your hands on someone trying to steer/restrain them you're liable to be answering an assault charge. Unless, of course, you're a person authorised for that kind of thing. Such an authorised person not being around does not authorise you. As no doubt he'll find out to his cost.

Biggins

Johro wrote: »

...Get a grip. :rolleyes:

Is that your constant rebuttal to any points made?
You belittle your own efforts.

Johro wrote: »

Rape/murder is evil. Let's keep things in perspective and acknowledge that a guy ended up getting bruised for not having a valid ticket for a train journey.

"Evil exists/persists while good men do nothing..."

"Evil" being a word form a saying. Anyone with a modicum of kop-on will KNOW it means it should be read regarding any degree of badness.
...Be it big or small - and the arrogant cocky ticket cheating little schite was just that!

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Although it may come out in court, I think there is a byelaw which allows a member of the public to assist a guard in an incident like this if the guard has granted a request for assistance. It is not so black and white as you are making out.

You think? Oh that's alright then.
Can't remember the 'guard' pleading for help though..

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

Is that your constant rebuttal to any points made?
You belittle your own efforts.



"Evil exists/persists while good men do nothing..."

"Evil" being a word form a saying. Anyone with a modicum of kop-on will KNOW it means it should be read regarding any degree of badness.

Hardly. Just the ridiculous ones. I just don't understand why it's okay to use, let's face it, a moderate to serious level of aggressive force, by a passenger who was in no way involved or has any authority, towards a person who has no valid ticket. I agree he acted like an idiot, and I would even consider him 'an ignorant little shite'. That doesn't give me the right to manhandle him. Simple.
As for: "Evil" being a word form a saying. Anyone with a modicum of kop-on will KNOW it means it should be read regarding any degree of badness.
Why use it here then, coz it doesn't apply. No evil deed was done.

Biggins

Johro wrote: »

As for: "Evil" being a word form a saying. Anyone with a modicum of kop-on will KNOW it means it should be read regarding any degree of badness.
Why use it here then, coz it doesn't apply. No evil deed was done.

Wrong.
If a person travels without paying - its tantamount to stealing.
If a transport company is not getting the monetary fares its supposed to be getting, it will pass the losses onto the already decent paying customers.
Are you willing to pay more so that similar arrogant crap can rise trains/transport for free?

No "evil" was done? I'm sorry - but I STRONGLY disagree.

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

Wrong.
If a person travels without paying - its tantamount to stealing.
If a transport company is not getting the monetary fares its supposed to be getting, it will pass the losses onto the already decent paying customers.
Are you willing to pay more so that similar arrogant crap can rise trains/transport for free?

No "evil" was done? I sorry - but I STRONGLY disagree.

Okay. Let's just agree to disagree then, since I often agree with what you have to say on most topics.
I don't deny the guy was in the wrong, I just don't like the way it was handled.

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

Really??
Because as far as I can see the only person who got physical was the guy who threw him off the train. I thought most people know that as soon as you put your hands on someone trying to steer/restrain them you're liable to be answering an assault charge. Unless, of course, you're a person authorised for that kind of thing. Such an authorised person not being around does not authorise you. As no doubt he'll find out to his cost.

Do you know which one of the three persons involved is the Guard?

A Dub in Glasgo

Johro wrote: »

You think? Oh that's alright then.
Can't remember the 'guard' pleading for help though..

Yes I think and if it goes to court, it will be clarified

Have a read of this before you hit reply

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/3-4/97/section/16?view=extent

Biggins

Johro wrote: »

Okay. Let's just agree to disagree then, since I often agree with what you have to say on most topics.
I don't deny the guy was in the wrong, I just don't like the way it was handled.

Fair enough.

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

Fair enough.

Phew...

Biggins

Johro wrote: »

Phew...

I disagree!

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes I think and if it goes to court, it will be clarified

Have a read of this before you hit reply

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/3-4/97/section/16?view=extent

Here goes...: If any person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any officer or agent of any railway company in the execution of his duty upon any railway, or upon or in any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, and shall refuse to quit the same upon request to him made by any officer or agent of the said company, every such person so offending, and all others aiding or assisting therein, shall and [F1may be seized and detained by any such officer or agent, or any person whom he may call to his assistance, until such offender or offenders can be conveniently taken before some justice of the peace for the county or place wherein such offence shall be committed, and when convicted, before such justice as aforesaid, (who is hereby authorized and required, upon complaint to him . . . F2 to take cognizance thereof, and to act summarily in the premises,) shall, in the discretion of such justice,][F1, upon conviction by a magistrates’ court, at the discretion of the court,]forfeit to her Majesty any sum not exceeding [F3level 1 on the standard scale][F4£200 [F5level 3 on the standard scale]], [F6and in default of payment thereof shall or may be imprisoned] . . . F7

Oh right. I guess I didn't hear the 'guard' shout for help.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Do you know which one of the three persons involved is the Guard?

Em lemme see... I see a ticket collector/conductor.. and a mouthy fare dodger.. oh, and a passenger who should know better. Nope. No guard. Wait a sec...
You mean the ticket collector is the guard??
Coz if he is, he's crap at it.

Johro

Biggins wrote: »

I disagree!

Why you little ignorant sh...:D

Johro

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes I think and if it goes to court, it will be clarified
/QUOTE]
Tbh, whether the guy was 'enlisted' by the ticket collector is not really the issue for me, and I don't think he was for that matter. If it gets to court it'll be because the 'big guy' threw the fare dodger off the train. It'll be an assault charge. Excessive force was used by an un-authorised person. The law should be pretty clear on that.

Latchy

That's really what the issue is all about ,somebody taking it upon himself to forcibly eject somebody from public transport who although he was been verbally abusive , wasn't making any physical threat to the train guard ,big guy or passengers .So if charged it will be up to the courts to decide if the big man was preventing any possible violent outcome or was out of order , even if the majority of public opinion is on his side .

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

Cool/

Was going to thank your post until this bit:
The individual here was not posing ANY threat to anyone

I fully agree with you, which is why I say that any detours about weapons are irrelevant. There was no call for a weapon.

However, that does not mean that just because he isn't posing a threat there is no need for physical force. The next step beyond "Get off, or I'll tell you to get off again" is someone grabbing the man and physically manhandling him off the train. If this is done by a passenger, the guard, or the police is irrelevant, the force is necessary to accomplish the desired endstate. The point of disagreement is over who is authorised to use that force. To wit:

Johro wrote: »

Bollocks. You know very well what I mean. It's wasn't up to a member of the public to physically manhandle a person off the train, it was none of his business and he'll likely face court because of it. In other words, he was outside the law.

We shall see.

The proper authorities are NOT you or I.

and

I thought most people know that as soon as you put your hands on someone trying to steer/restrain them you're liable to be answering an assault charge. Unless, of course, you're a person authorised for that kind of thing. Such an authorised person not being around does not authorise you. As no doubt he'll find out to his cost.

Find me the piece of legislation which says this. Explain how such a piece of legislation can exist in the face of citizens' arrest laws which nearly by definition requires restraining people, or the railway legislation linked earlier that says that the guard can have the assistance of any person on the train.

Your Joe Public can do exactly that too. How can you be sure a person using your 'enforcement action' isn't just an asshole with an agenda?

You can say the same about police being an asshole with the protection of a warrant card. I think we just have to await the legal system coming to its conclusions. Since the transport police are conducting an investigation, we'll see if they make a recommendation to the CPS to prosecute. Then we'll see if they do decide to prosecute. And then we'll see if he's convicted. Such a process should be able to handle any excesses.

NTM

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

Find me the piece of legislation which says this.

Legislation? You put your hands on a stranger and see how long you last before you're arrested. You're right, it is a question of authority.
Citizens arrest laws do exist, but they may be enforced in the absence of the relevant authority. This was about excessive force used by someone who hadn't the right, legal or otherwise.

investment

UPDATE 17/12/11

A ticket inspector was stabbed at a railway station in Essex last night

The 42-year-old man was knifed in the back after asking two youths, who were apparently travelling without tickets, to get off a train at East Tilsbury.

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can say the same about police being an asshole with the protection of a warrant card.

Then they'd have to answer to their superiors when complaints are made.

Johro

investment wrote: »

UPDATE 17/12/11

A ticket inspector was stabbed at a railway station in Essex last night

The 42-year-old man was knifed in the back after asking two youths, who were apparently travelling without tickets, to get off a train at East Tilsbury.

Different scenario altogether. These were violent thugs who happened to jump a train. And this calls for the public to get involved?? Coz that's what we're talking about here.
Great.

Manic Moran

Legislation? You put your hands on a stranger and see how long you last before you're arrested

Correction: Put your hands on a stranger without lawful grounds, and see how long you last before you're arrested. The prohibition is not absolute.

This was about excessive force used by someone who hadn't the right, legal or otherwise.

Our points of contention, in a nutshell, on three factors.

Johro wrote: »

Then they'd have to answer to their superiors when complaints are made.

And just because a complaint is made does not mean that there is merit to the complaint.

Mr Pollock is going to be subject to the attentions of the legal system for a while. That does not mean that he is guilty of transgressing the law, just that process is being followed. Hopefully, in seven years when the wheels of justice are stopped turning, someone will remember this thread and we can bring it to a conclusion one way or another.

NTM

Manic Moran

Johro wrote: »

Different scenario altogether. These were violent thugs who happened to jump a train. And this calls for the public to get involved?? Coz that's what we're talking about here.
Great.

Right, because ticket inspectors are to be expected to deal with sudden violence without the assistance of anyone else. Fortunately, it was one stab and off they went, but had they decided to make sure their target was down, you would advocate bystanders sitting there and doing nothing but taking video on the mobile phone to hand to the police afterwards?

NTM

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

Correction: Put your hands on a stranger without lawful grounds, and see how long you last before you're arrested. The prohibition is not absolute.



Our points of contention, in a nutshell, on three factors.



And just because a complaint is made does not mean that there is merit to the complaint.

Mr Pollock is going to be subject to the attentions of the legal system for a while. That does not mean that he is guilty of transgressing the law, just that process is being followed. Hopefully, in seven years when the wheels of justice are stopped turning, someone will remember this thread and we can bring it to a conclusion one way or another.

NTM

Ha. For the record, I don't agree he had 'lawful grounds', but I guess you know that already. I stand by my conviction and you stand by yours. Fair enough. Neither opinion matters in the long run. Nice sparring with ya.

Johro

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, because ticket inspectors are to be expected to deal with sudden violence without the assistance of anyone else. Fortunately, it was one stab and off they went, but had they decided to make sure their target was down, you would advocate bystanders sitting there and doing nothing but taking video on the mobile phone to hand to the police afterwards?

NTM

No, considering the dangers inherent in the job I'd prefer him to have some sort of backup. But that kind of thing always comes down to money, or lack of it, and a lack of reason when it comes to priorities.
I would have no problem at all with a bystander(s), were he/they brave enough, to tackle violent thugs. In fact I would applaud it. What I meant was wtf are transport cops for if they can't be found.

opinion guy

Johro wrote: »

Here goes...: If any person shall wilfully obstruct or impede any officer or agent of any railway company in the execution of his duty upon any railway, or upon or in any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, or if any person shall wilfully trespass upon any railway, or any of the stations or other works or premises connected therewith, and shall refuse to quit the same upon request to him made by any officer or agent of the said company, every such person so offending, and all others aiding or assisting therein, shall and [F1may be seized and detained by any such officer or agent, or any person whom he may call to his assistance, until such offender or offenders can be conveniently taken before some justice of the peace for the county or place wherein such offence shall be committed, and when convicted, before such justice as aforesaid, (who is hereby authorized and required, upon complaint to him . . . F2 to take cognizance thereof, and to act summarily in the premises,) shall, in the discretion of such justice,][F1, upon conviction by a magistrates’ court, at the discretion of the court,]forfeit to her Majesty any sum not exceeding [F3level 1 on the standard scale][F4£200 [F5level 3 on the standard scale]], [F6and in default of payment thereof shall or may be imprisoned] . . . F7

I actually think the part I have bolded is the most relevant part to this story. What this passage actually implies is that if someone is being a scumbag they conductors can ask someone to intervene and hold the guy until the cops come. This is NOT what happened. They just f**ked him off the train without waiting for any cops. Thats not allowed according to this passage.

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, that does not mean that just because he isn't posing a threat there is no need for physical force. The next step beyond "Get off, or I'll tell you to get off again" is someone grabbing the man and physically manhandling him off the train. If this is done by a passenger, the guard, or the police is irrelevant, the force is necessary to accomplish the desired endstate.

Its very relevant who does it. The cops are trained in this kind of thing. There is a way to get these things done. And from what I see in the video both the Big Man and the conductor are very ignornant of how to handle these situations. The conductor has apparently been suspended for how he handled it one paper said.

You can say the same about police being an asshole with the protection of a warrant card. I think we just have to await the legal system coming to its conclusions. Since the transport police are conducting an investigation, we'll see if they make a recommendation to the CPS to prosecute. Then we'll see if they do decide to prosecute. And then we'll see if he's convicted. Such a process should be able to handle any excesses.

NTM

I'd almost put money on the guy will get a conviction - but a suspended sentence. Might get away with a warning.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Right, because ticket inspectors are to be expected to deal with sudden violence without the assistance of anyone else. Fortunately, it was one stab and off they went, but had they decided to make sure their target was down, you would advocate bystanders sitting there and doing nothing but taking video on the mobile phone to hand to the police afterwards?

NTM

Actually unless the innocent bystanders are off duty law enforcement, soldiers or trained martial artists, just so happen to have a weapon on them or else well outnumber the assailants, yeah I reckon they probably shouldn't take on the two knife wielding maniacs. Two or more people stabbed is worse than one.

Helix

Johro wrote: »

Oh right. I guess I didn't hear the 'guard' shout for help.

the conductor was asked by the man if he wanted him to get the guy off the train, he said yes, ergo he requested the man's help

Manic Moran

opinion guy wrote: »

I actually think the part I have bolded is the most relevant part to this story. What this passage actually implies is that if someone is being a scumbag they conductors can ask someone to intervene and hold the guy until the cops come. This is NOT what happened. They just f**ked him off the train without waiting for any cops. Thats not allowed according to this passage.

It is reasonable to think that the railway agent to approved of the action could subsequently rescind the idea. Surely it's similar to being brought up by the police, only to have them use their personal discretion and decide not to cite you after having temporarily detained you.

Its very relevant who does it. The cops are trained in this kind of thing. There is a way to get these things done. And from what I see in the video both the Big Man and the conductor are very ignornant of how to handle these situations. The conductor has apparently been suspended for how he handled it one paper said.

There is a way to get things done. Actually, there is often more than one way to get things done. Seems to me that the video displays one of these ways.

Corporate policies and the law are often not the same. Most companies tend to err very much on the side of caution and prohibit otherwise lawful activity for their own reasons. Excellent case in point from the US:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/15/wal-mart-security-employees-fired-for-disarming-store-gunman/

Four Wal-Mart employees have been fired after management said they violated company policy by disarming an alleged shoplifter who had pulled a gun inside the store.
[...]
In the police incident report, the investigating officer noted that the Wal-Mart employees acted in the "best interest and safety" of those around them. Longton, as it turned out, was a convicted felon who was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Wal-Mart managers, however, disagreed. The following week, the four workers were fired for violating the company's "Investigation and Detention of Shoplifters Policy." The policy instructs employees to retreat if an individual brandishes a weapon.

Actually unless the innocent bystanders are off duty law enforcement, soldiers or trained martial artists, just so happen to have a weapon on them or else well outnumber the assailants, yeah I reckon they probably shouldn't take on the two knife wielding maniacs. Two or more people stabbed is worse than one.

The dynamics of unarmed combat are actually surprisingly interesting and will often not result in the 'obvious' outcome. However, surely the choice of watching someone get killed in front of you, or trying to do something about it at the risk to yourself is something which should be at the discretion of the bystander, not have the choice made for him by some politician or corporate lawyer.

NTM