'Big man' vs Sam Main incident (final decision: no charges for either)

[Oliver]

Personally, I find myself in an odd situation.

As someone who generally is against people taking the law into their own hands, I would like to see the guy cautioned for it (or at least given a talking to about it). Indeed, following on this line I am personally quite worried about the effects of letting people take the law into their own hands. If we allow it for situations like this, then what other situations is it ok for? Who says so? What happens when people disagree with when it is appropriate or not.

However, as someone who spends an awful lot of money travelling by train, I get annoyed at those who don't pay when they should. Especially those who lie and try to argue their away around it, and especially at those who are abusive about it, and I really hope he learned something from this experience.

The point is that these low-lifes behave badly because they assume (rightly) that the rest of us will sit and watch, but not intervene. If the public was less tolerant of low-level crime it would be much less prevalent.

We are all responsible for maintaining law and order, however we normally subcontract that work to the police. In the absence of police it is our duty to do it ourselves, in the same way that it is our duty to stop at an accident if injured need our help.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

in the same way that it is our duty to stop at an accident if injured need our help.

No it isn't. Nobody is under any obligation to stop at an accident unless they were involved in it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think he means a moral duty, not a legal duty.

 

[sonorguy]

You'd say so? From personal experience, I wouldn't. I suppose every force varies though.

I hope the chaps sake that he is a PC/SC/SPC, but I doubt it. If he were, I'm sure he would have identified himself as such. He certainly would have if he were BTP, as he'd have a knowledge of the byelaws.

Unfortunately, though the byelaws permit the guard to use 'reasonable force' to remove a person breeching a byelaw from the train (most TOCs don't permit it), the byelaws don't cover people assisting an 'Authorised person'... The guy was clearly well intentioned, but like Yorkie I see that this chap could end up facing an Assault charge. Only time will tell whether BTP Scotland and eventually the Procurator Fiscal (EDIT - I did put CPS originally. Thanks Chew Chew. ) will peruse that though. If the fare evader comes forward, he'll at least be facing a £200+ fine for breaching an assortment of byelaws...

I'd agree, I'm trained in control and restraint techniques and also familiar with GS prison service handling techniques and the way the large gentleman dealt with it is nothing like anything I've ever seen. He isn't a policeman or he'd have identified himself as such.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If an authorised person gives authorisation to someone does that make them an authorised person, after all an authorised person may use force to remove.

Simply, no. The authorised person does not know whether the person assisting has any knowledge of restraint techniques or anything else, including state of intoxication etc. I also don't think that a conductor has the right to physically manhandle anyone off a train either unless under common law under extreme circumstances (ie to prevent serious injury or death).

 

[CarterUSM]

That video takes me back.......

 

[Dolive22]

Strictly speaking it wasn't necessary to remove him to prevent him travelling without a ticket, as the train isn't going anywhere. Has the conductor said something like 'Railway byelaws, get off the railway' it would have been reasonable force in the prevention of crime. If the law in Scotland is like it is in England, the big guy was removing a trespasser as an agent of the occupier and/or exercising the self help remedy for trespass to goods (a train) again as an agent of the owner.

 

[route:oxford]

I love this kind of thing...

A person with no regard for the law, has a physical encounter with someone who also *may* not have a regard for the law.

Then dozens of people argue over who has the greater right to have no regard for the law.

 

[sonorguy]

No it isn't. Nobody is under any obligation to stop at an accident unless they were involved in it.

Theoretically nurses and doctors do under their code of practice as it would be an omission of care not to do so.

 

[Nym]

Theoretically nurses and doctors do under their code of practice as it would be an omission of care not to do so.

Indeed they are, hence why my ex always closed his eyes when passing an accident site when drunk...

 

[jon0844]

Sometimes you do just have to stand up and be counted.

Absolutely. When people get to believe they can do what they like (as the August riots proved so well) then you have to say enough is enough.

Yes some people are going to be 'outraged' by this, but if you look on some forums, you'll see loads of people who are defending Emma West on the tram. People will have differing opinions, including some who have them just to wind others up or 'go with the flow'.

Personally I think that showing scrotes that you won't let them get away with anything and everything will be a benefit to all of us as a society in the long run. I hope that when the police (and the CPS/court system) got tough with the rioters and looters that it sent a strong message out. Naturally we had the same people moaning then.

 

[Chew Chew]

http://www.facebook.com/sammain16?sk=wall

This guy is claiming it was him who was chucked off and he seems to think it is a great laugh.

I'm sure admin will remove if they think it is inappropriate to post but the details are public.

 

[jon0844]

I wish FCC employed 'heavies' to chuck the chavs out of FC on the late trains.

They've had some security staff at King's Cross over the years. Wagn also did. It was on a Wagn train where something kicked off in the front of a 365 (first class) that the driver came out from the cab and physically ejected someone! Not dissimilar to the big man on this video, but not throwing him on the floor.

Another thing with this video is that the passengers on the train supported the actions, and didn't gang up on the conductor and undermine his authority. I think that this approach will help them (and everyone) in the future. Show any signs of weakness and people will take advantage. If everyone stands united, you're in a far worse position to break the law and expect to get away with it.

 

[TheJRB]

Personally I think it is good that justice was done. I think it's totally silly that it's "inappropriate" or "harmful" for that fare evader to be moved off and it's not as though he was hurt in any way as far as the video was shown.

It's just another one of these things where nobody in authority has any rights to even touch somebody who's doing wrong. The act of picking somebody up and moving them and doing no further more should be permitted in situations like this and it's the same in schools. If the guy who moved him gets in trouble it doesn't exactly reflect well on our country's morals and ethics now does it? Or should we perhaps live somewhere where anybody can get away with anything without punishment? Sometimes I really don't know...

 

[bAzTNM]

What would have happened if the ned had his bag thrown on the tracks and then the train ran over it breaking, for example, a laptop? Would he get compo for it?

 

[Hydro]

What would have happened if the ned had his bag thrown on the tracks and then the train ran over it breaking, for example, a laptop? Would he get compo for it?

How is that remotely relevant to what happened? How would that situation even materialise from what happened here?

 

[jon0844]

May as well ask what would have happened if he cracked his head open when he was thrown off, and then died.

Or, he gets thrown off, stumbles into a local 24 hour shop and buys a winning Lottery scratchcard, which bags him £50k, and he thinks 'and it's all thanks to the man who threw me off...'

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Does it really matter what 'could' have happened? It didn't, so as far as I see it it isn't relevant.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Does it really matter what 'could' have happened? It didn't, so as far as I see it it isn't relevant.

In terms of the actual incident, you're right. It appears irrelevant.

But in terms of approving or permitting any set of actions by way of a policy a procedure or simple advice, then that should be as robust as if a risk assessment had been undertaken where 'what could happen' is very relevant.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Does it really matter what 'could' have happened? It didn't, so as far as I see it it isn't relevant.

IMHO it does matter.
If we start saying that it is ok for people to take the law into their own hands, then:
1 - Where do we stop? Why is this ok but someone shooting a thief not ok?
2 - What happens if something does happen again, but the consequences are different? Perhaps the person dies or whatever? Who takes the blame? Etc etc.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

IMHO it does matter.
If we start saying that it is ok for people to take the law into their own hands, then:
1 - Where do we stop? Why is this ok but someone shooting a thief not ok?
2 - What happens if something does happen again, but the consequences are different? Perhaps the person dies or whatever? Who takes the blame? Etc etc.

And all that is already laid down in law.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[the sniper]

If an authorised person gives authorisation to someone does that make them an authorised person, after all an authorised person may use force to remove.

The power of an authorised person can not be deferred to another person, the byelaws make no provision for that.

I also don't think that a conductor has the right to physically manhandle anyone off a train either unless under common law under extreme circumstances (ie to prevent serious injury or death).

The conductor has the power under the railway byelaws to use reasonable force to remove anyone from the train/railway who is breeching a byelaw.

 

[mralexn]

Procurator Fiscal in Scotland.



Linlithgow is 1 stop, 5 minutes, from Polmont which was where he was wanting to go.

The train he was on, was going to Perth

 

[Chew Chew]

The train he was on, was going to Perth

At the 2 minute mark you can see the see the station details on a sign and it is Linlithgow he is at. Maybe not going back to Polmont as I presumed but definitely at Linlithgow.

 

[mralexn]

Yeah, the evader should have been chipped off, but nobody should be grabbing people off chairs, punching them to the floor, then throwing them out the door, then throwing their bag at them. That goes a tad bit far if you ask me,

Well what goes around comes around...
He was being very rude and abusive to the guard. and disrespectful to other fellow passengers.

When i was in town a few weeks ago, some random person started to start and threaten me. Next thing i know the bouncer has slammed him down to the floor. is this classes as assault? or should he have just stood there and let him smash my face in for no reason?

Also. If the train has to be held to wait for BTP to come. First Doesnt the TOC / US in the end. end up paying a fine of around £90 per min that the train is occupying the line? also he didnt seem to care that he would cause everyone else to be late home / miss their connections etc.
If he had been polite and approached the guard at when he got on and explained the situation. im sure he probably could have got away with it!

At the end of the day Manors cost nothing, and can get you a lot!

if you are disrepetful to others, expect others to be disrespectful to you.

 

[90019]

At the end of the day Manors cost nothing, and can get you a lot!

Manors tend to be quite expensive.

 

[DarloRich]

You'd say so? From personal experience, I wouldn't. I suppose every force varies though.

I hope the chaps sake that he is a PC/SC/SPC, but I doubt it. If he were, I'm sure he would have identified himself as such. He certainly would have if he were BTP, as he'd have a knowledge of the byelaws.

Unfortunately, though the byelaws permit the guard to use 'reasonable force' to remove a person breeching a byelaw from the train (most TOCs don't permit it), the byelaws don't cover people assisting an 'Authorised person'... The guy was clearly well intentioned, but like Yorkie I see that this chap could end up facing an Assault charge. Only time will tell whether BTP Scotland and eventually the Procurator Fiscal (EDIT - I did put CPS originally. Thanks Chew Chew. ) will peruse that though. If the fare evader comes forward, he'll at least be facing a £200+ fine for breaching an assortment of byelaws...

He could always say he was intervening in order to prevent an assault on another!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manors tend to be quite expensive.

It depends where you get the train from (sorry!)

 

[the sniper]

He could always say he was intervening in order to prevent an assault on another!

There are a lot of things he could say.

 

[amcluesent]

LOL at the guy who was more concerned they'd ruffled his parka. I bet his kiddies weren't so impressed that Dad had sat and done nothing!

 

[northwichcat]

http://www.facebook.com/sammain16?sk=wall

This guy is claiming it was him who was chucked off and he seems to think it is a great laugh.

If you look at this picture: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f....131969223515644.24936.100001077026472&type=3 and look at him just after he's thrown in the video when his hat has fallen off, it does look like the same person.

 

[DarloRich]

There are a lot of things he could say.

He (or his lawyer) just has to present the situation as plausible. If he can state he honestly felt that he was acting to prevent a third party being assaulted and used minimum force to remove the would be assailant it could well be enough to persuade the procurator fiscal to desist from offering charges!