[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Why should I take any discussion with you seriously? You rely on stock answers all the time when you've been challenged on points you can't overcome and any time you're losing an argument you'll play the victim or get on your high horse or worst of all attempt to mini mod people although you don't hold yourself to the standards you preach at everyone.

Look at this discussion, most of it's consisted of you essentially sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming 'LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'. I'm not going to debate with someone on a serious level that relies on such asinine tactics.

What's the point of me wasting my time writing arguments for something when you're gonna feign ignorance at it in a misguided attempt to disregard it? It's a waste of time debating anything with you because you act like a child.

If you want a proper debate then I'll give you one but I'm not going to take you seriously until you drop the playground antics.

Dezzy, you really should think about what you are posting as there are more insults in your posts than you should be allowed to be getting away with. Several of your previous posts of this very nature and the in the same vein were removed last night.

Notwithstanding that - The basic point is: I do not have to be forced to accept what you (or anyone else) say. I have my own viewpoint and I will stick to that as long as I feel I have reason to do so, which I do.

I'll let you read the snippet I just posted up in respect of Laws in Scotland regarding assault.

[Tom4784]

I'm not playing your game no longer Pyramid, I'm goinna leave this thread with my dignity intact knowing that I stuck to my guns and won which can't be said for some others.

If you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me, I'm tired of your diversions and deflections.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm not playing your game no longer Pyramid, I'm goinna leave this threadwith my dignity intactknowing that I stuck to my guns and won which can't be said for some others.

If you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me, I'm tired of your diversions and deflections.

If you wish to continue responding with insults in a rather surreptitious manner then by all means, feel free to PM me Dezzy.

However if I wish to discuss the subject that this thread is about, and should I wish to address posts you make on this thread regarding the subject, I will do so on this very thread. If you wish not to reply, then that is your perogative.

Do you have any comment to make on the post I just put up: I'll repost it below for ease for you.

Bit of Scots Law for you all. Note the parts in red. The Big Man's intent was on removing a troublesome, abusive, fare dodger who was holding up the train - ie: there was no criminal intent.


http://www.police-information.co.uk/...nindexsco.html


Quote:


Assault

Source: Common Law

Offence: To direct an attack to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted.

Arrest: Common law power of arrest.

Notes:
There must be criminal intent, an accidental injury does not amount to assault. It is not however necessary that the attack should take effect. An assault can be direct or indirect, e.g. setting a dog at another person. It is also assault to be violently menacing. Threatening gestures inducing a state of bodily fear are an example. An assault may be aggravated by intent; mode of perpetration (e.g. use of a weapon), extent of injury, place of assault, or the character of the person assaulted (e.g. a pregnant woman). Indecent assault is an assault accompanied by indecent intent. In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others or in self-defence.

[Jords]

I think the fat twat is an absolute ****! He wouldnt act all tough if he was a skinny **** so sit the **** down. Especially with a kid, its none of his business and who knows if he was telling the truth or not.


I think its pretty sad that if he had no money and no way to get home they did that, they shoulda just left him on the train its not like it was packed (and maybe send a bill to his address?) He was on his own not pissing about with a bunch of mates or anything too so...

[Tom4784]

You've missed your chance Pyramid, if you wanted to debate then you shouldn't have acted like you did before.

I must congratulate you though, you're the first and most likely only person to ever grace my ignore list.

[MTVN]

I don't see how it could be classed as "accidental injury" Pyramid, not like he wouldn't have realised that chucking him head first onto a stone train platform wouldn't have caused him injury

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

I think the fat twat is an absolute ****! He wouldnt act all tough if he was a skinny **** so sit the **** down. Especially with a kid, its none of his business and who knows if he was telling the truth or not.


I think its pretty sad that if he had no money and no way to get home they did that, they shoulda just left him on the train its not like it was packed (and maybe send a bill to his address?) He was on his own not pissing about with a bunch of mates or anything too so...

The yob was 19. An adult not a kid.

He got on a train knowing fine well that he did not have the ticket required.

He argued with the conductor - verbally abusing the man - and lying that he had the correct ticket - despite then changing his story twice to in two different interviews.

He refused to get off - as he was legally bound to do.

He was aided in being removed by another passenger.

He then lied about not being allowed to get his bag, which in fact, had been thrown off the train - after him.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You've missed your chance Pyramid, if you wanted to debate then you shouldn't have acted like you did before.

I must congratulate you though, you're the first and most likely only person to ever grace my ignore list.

I see you have chosen to completely and utterly ignore the post that refers you directly to what is regarded as assault in Scotland, and under what circumstances it is regarded as justifiable, if indeed, it is classed as assault in the first instance.

Originally Posted by MTVN

I don't see how it could be classed as "accidental injury" Pyramid, not like he wouldn't have realised that chucking him head first onto a stone train platform wouldn't have caused him injury

It is not his fault that the yob fell. If the yob had left the train in the manner in which he should have, if he would have accepted that he was being ejected from the train - it would not have happened.

Also note the bottom part in red - re when assault can be classed as justified.

I do not think in all seriousness, that this man, the Big Man, Mr Pollock will be found guilty, far less charged. I will be very surprised if he is.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Snowball

It is not his fault that the yob fell. If the yob had left the train in the manner in which he should have, if he would have accepted that he was being ejected from the train - it would not have happened.

Also note the bottom part in red - re when assault can be classed as justified.

I do not think in all seriousness, that this man, the Big Man, Mr Pollock will be found guilty, far less charged. I will be very surprised if he is.

Are train conductors the law now?

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The yob was 19. An adult not a kid.

He got on a train knowing fine well that he did not have the ticket required.

He argued with the conductor - verbally abusing the man - and lying that he had the correct ticket - despite then changing his story twice to in two different interviews.

He refused to get off - as he was legally bound to do.

He was aided in being removed by another passenger.

He then lied about not being allowed to get his bag, which in fact, had been thrown off the train - after him.

I really dont care.

The fat bastard just wanted to show authority, if he was less rough Id be fine with it but the fact he was pretty aggressive and obviously pushed him out making a mess to his face, angers me.

Hes 4 times the size of him. Twat.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Are train conductors the law now?

Fare dodging is a criminal act and is liable for prosecution, therefore it could be argued that the Big Man was justified in his actions because he was acting within authority of the Law.

It doesn't say Authority or Authorities as in designated or recognised Authoritative Law figures (ie: policemen, security guard, tranport police etc)- the meaning of the word authority and the context in which it is used, can be open to various interpretations. I suspect quite deliberately - to cover this type of very incident - ie: allow the Police certain leaway in whether such action is regarded as an offence or not.

[Jords]

Pyra if that was your son how would you honestly feel about it?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

I really dont care.

The fat bastard just wanted to show authority, if he was less rough Id be fine with it but the fact he was pretty aggressive and obviously pushed him out making a mess to his face, angers me.

Hes 4 times the size of him. Twat.

BIB made me laugh!

You're perfectly entitled to be angered if that's how it's made you feel - I totally agree if that how it's got to you then it's understandable that you have the view you have, and like us all here, you are more than allowed to have that view on it - but it still gave me a giggle.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Bit of Scots Law for you all. Note the parts in red. The Big Man's intent was on removing a troublesome, abusive, fare dodger who was holding up the train - ie: there was no criminal intent.

Nice try but its best not to use outdated UK sources for a legal reference for Scottish Law. (In order to tidy up Scottish Law, The Scottish Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 was introduced. You will notice on the site you referenced its not mentioned at all.) It also good to understand the meaning of certain legal terms before you use them as a defence.

Lets go through what you have highlighted and I will point out your misunderstandings, because there are a few.

"Criminal intent" was shown by Big Man to a witness namely the person who filmed the incident when BM said "if I go to jail..." that means he was aware that what he was about to do could be classed as a criminal act but was going to do it anyway. Thats criminal intent. Ignorance of a law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

"an accidental injury does not amount to assault." Thats very true, however in pushing the yob of the train he caused the injury, a sheriff(or jury) will question is it likely that someone may receive a graze or similar in being pushed off a stationary train, yeah it is likely depending on the force used to push the person off. In that case its not an accidental injury.

"In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others" In defence of who? Who was being attacked etc. Simply because people are being slightly inconvenienced doesnt mean they need someone to defend them.


Just going off the video the yob was guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour, thats section 38 of SCJ&L Act its not an indictable offence therefore its not something a private citizen should "lay hands" on to rectify. (what used to be classed as Breach of the Peace).

[Vicky.]

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

Pyra if that was your son how would you honestly feel about it?

Exactly the same as I do now - in fact, probably worse - given that he's turned out to be everything I just said earlier: an irresponsible, lying, law breaking cheeky bastard of a son, who showed no respect to a man who was only trying to do his job - and had now embarrassed me by having the world seeing what an arsehole he was.

That's how I would feel. Honestly.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Fare dodging is a criminal act and is liable for prosecution, therefore it could be argued that the Big Man was justified in his actions because he was acting within authority of the Law.

As is shoplifting.

If I go to tescos tomorrow and see someone slying vodka in their bag, its ok for me to plant them one? After all, they were breaking the law...right?

Or if some drunk is singing outside my house at 4am...being drunk and disorderly, ie. breaking the law. Its fine for me to go knock em out to shut them up?

[Benjamin]

Are you lot not bored yet of hashing over the same argument, going round and round in circles?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

It is not his fault that the yob fell.

He didnt fall, he was pushed

Spoiler:

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Nice try but its best not to use outdated UK sources for a legal reference for Scottish Law. (In order to tidy up Scottish Law, The Scottish Criminal Justice and Licensing Act 2010 was introduced. You will notice on the site you referenced its not mentioned at all.) It also good to understand the meaning of certain legal terms before you use them as a defence.

Lets go through what you have highlighted and I will point out your misunderstandings, because there are a few.

"Criminal intent" was shown by Big Man to a witness namely the person who filmed the incident when BM said "if I go to jail..." that means he was aware that what he was about to do could be classed as a criminal act but was going to do it anyway. Thats criminal intent. Ignorance of a law is no defence in the eyes of the law.

"an accidental injury does not amount to assault." Thats very true, however in pushing the yob of the train he caused the injury, a sheriff(or jury) will question is it likely that someone may receive a graze or similar in being pushed off a stationary train, yeah it is likely depending on the force used to push the person off. In that case its not an accidental injury.

"In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others" In defence of who? Who was being attacked etc. Simply because people are being slightly inconvenienced doesnt mean they need someone to defend them.


Just going off the video the yob was guilty of threatening and abusive behaviour, thats section 38 of SCJ&L Act its not an indictable offence therefore its not something a private citizen should "lay hands" on to rectify. (what used to be classed as Breach of the Peace).

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do. We can all google till our hearts are content and pretend we know of things we actually don't - that's not exclusive.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

In certain cases an assault may be justified by showing that it was done under the authority of the law; in defence of others

-

Well it wasnt really done under the authority of law tbh

And you can hardly argue that it was in defense of others...were his nasty swear words going to hurt the conductor so much that he could not reach for his radio and contact he correct people to deal with the matter? Bless :'(

As I said to Shasown - let's see if he is found guilty.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Let's see if he is charged and found guilty........ besides whch, let's be honest here - you have no better grasp of Scottish Criminal Law, than I do.

If you say so, because its obvious you know all about it dont you?

As I said before if you are going to quote Scottish Law use an up to date reference. Nuff said.

[Jords]

Originally Posted by Snowball

BIB made me laugh!

You're perfectly entitled to be angered if that's how it's made you feel - I totally agree if that how it's got to you then it's understandable that you have the view you have, and like us all here, you are more than allowed to have that view on it - but it still gave me a giggle.

But you are saying he was 'aided' off when there was way more force that that, along with his 'big man' attitude whilst doing so.

I understand that he had to lead off (although the conductor should have made him CHECK, especially if its true hed bought it but got his tickets mixed up). The big man could have easily controlled him and encouraged him with 'come on mates' etc. whilst grabbing his arm and leading. Would have gained a lot more respect as a person imo

Of course if the lad swung at the conductor (who was doing a **** job with this, I can stand here all day Im getting paid, wat) his actions would be warranted, but all he did was tell him to **** off... meh.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

As is shoplifting.

If I go to tescos tomorrow and see someone slying vodka in their bag, its ok for me to plant them one? After all, they were breaking the law...right?

Or if some drunk is singing outside my house at 4am...being drunk and disorderly, ie. breaking the law. Its fine for me to go knock em out to shut them up?

Ahhh...so we are back to ''what if he was an off duty copper / security guard / bouncer etc'......

We aren't talking about nicking a bottle of vodka, nor are we talking about the Big Man having landed a punch on the yob. (though the yob did in fact try to punch the big guy....remember).

For the time being: I'm pretty confident there will be no charges made upon the Big Man, far less him being found guilty of a crime. If that does happen, I will be the first to come on here and say, "Well blow me down, I never saw that one coming". You have my word.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

If you say so, because its obvious you know all about it dont you?

As I said before if you are going to quote Scottish Law use an up to date reference. Nuff said.

I know enough...... as we are both aware of. Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Elf Ears

But you are saying he was 'aided' off when there was way more force that that, along with his 'big man' attitude whilst doing so.

I understand that he had to lead off (although the conductor should have made him CHECK, especially if its true hed bought it but got his tickets mixed up). The big man could have easily controlled him and encouraged him with 'come on mates' etc. whilst grabbing his arm and leading. Would have gained a lot more respect as a person imo

Of course if the lad swung at the conductor (who was doing a **** job with this, I can stand here all day Im getting paid, wat) his actions would be warranted, but all he did was tell him to **** off... meh.

The conductor asked him several times, and told him several times that the guy was showing him the incorrect ticket....

The guy swung not at the conductor, but at the Big Man.

He was forcibly removed. Far as I am concerned, it was justified. That's it really in a nutshell.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Ahhh...so we are back to ''what if he was an off duty copper / security guard / bouncer etc'......

We aren't talking about nicking a bottle of vodka, nor are we talking about the Big Man having landed a punch on the yob. (though the yob did in fact try to punch the big guy....remember).

For the time being: I'm pretty confident there will be no charges made upon the Big Man, far less him being found guilty of a crime. If that does happen, I will be the first to come on here and say, "Well blow me down, I never saw that one coming". You have my word.

I dont actually remember that part. However if it was after being grabbed, I cant blame him. I would have done the same if some randomer grabbed hold of me on a train. Its called self defense.