ATM attempted robbery

GerryRyan

I'm after receiving a caution from a Garda (yesterday) for stopping some little scummer taking money off a woman at the ATM.

It was obvious enough what he was planning long before it happened. He'd been sitting on the wall nearby for a while eyeing up potential targets.

I went into the closest shop for credit and was coming back out when I say him striding towards this woman keying in her code. She had a buggy with her - bags of shopping at her side etc, so easy target for him.

I reached him just as he put an arm forward to grab the few notes. I didn't strike him or anything, just yanked him back by the hood, took the money back out of his hand and held him by the arm while one of the other lads got a Garda (station was within walking distance).

But when he arrived it was 'me' who got the caution - even after the few people still in the line backing me up.

He wouldn't stand for it and basically told me I had no place in getting involved. If I had hit, or even pushed, him he would have grounds to take me to court. He (scumbag) wasn't even cautioned. Just told to get out of the area.

I'm in between shock and being pissed off about it.

But what law was I breaking here to get a caution? Would they be happier if the little cunt had gotten away with a wad of 20's on her.

eigrod

Joe Duffy might be interested in hearing that story.

seamus

You didn't have permission to detain the kid regardless of what he was doing. By all means stop him and take the money from him, but at that point you would have to release him.

Surely the Garda said something to the kid?

Deesse

I'd be pizzed off too if that happened. Did the woman not open her mouth to the garda???

Is he not permitted to detain him under the powers of citizen's arrest?

No. 14/1997: CRIMINAL LAW ACT, 1997
4.—(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is or whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects to be in the act of committing an arrestable offence.
...
(5) A person who is arrested pursuant to this section by a person other than a member of the Garda Síochána shall be transferred into the custody of the Garda Síochána as soon as practicable.

GerryRyan

seamus wrote: »

You didn't have permission to detain the kid regardless of what he was doing. By all means stop him and take the money from him, but at that point you would have to release him.

Surely the Garda said something to the kid?

Here's the thing thought. Is there not a section of Irish law referring to our rights in making a citizens arrest if we see the need? In the absence of someone who can enforce the law - and where it was witnessed by many - can the person not be held until such a time a Garda appears?

I don't get this - every single day we here or this lad or that lad assaulting or robbing another pedestrian. And while we bitch and moan about it - we can't legally do anything to stop it. I'm not advocating vigilantim (sp?), but what would have been my options here to avoid a caution.

No, he was told to clear off and given the whole 'if I see you around here again etc'. Really, he got away scott-free, no bother to him.

seamus

Deesse wrote: »

I'd be pizzed off too if that happened. Did the woman not open her mouth to the garda???

Is he not permitted to detain him under the powers of citizen's arrest?

Possibly, but I see nothing to indicate that he made a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest also doesn't provide the power to detain someone unless the crime carries a penalty of X years in prison (don't remember the number exactly, I always forget).

Theoretically when you make a citizen's arrest for petty crime (which is what this is), the arrestee is supposed to wait with you while a Garda attends the scene. You may not detain them though.

I'm not advocating vigilantim (sp?), but what would have been my options here to avoid a caution.

Make the citizen's arrest. Take a photo of the kid before he scarpers. Go to the Garda station with the woman and as many witnesses as you can find and make a complaint.

GerryRyan

Deesse wrote: »

I'd be pizzed off too if that happened. Did the woman not open her mouth to the garda???

She backed me up, as did the others who were there. But this Garda was pig ignorant in his handling of it.

Ah well, lesson learned, don't get involved.

seamus

ThatGuy wrote: »

Ah well, lesson learned, don't get involved.

I think it depends. The Garda was probably annoyed because whenever the public get involved, the member of the public ultimately ends up taking the wrong course of action and then the scummer and their family go to court against an innocent member of public and extract money despite their acting like complete scum.

Bound to annoy Gardai when the dirt manage to manipulate the legal system to their benefit.

Deesse

Interesting Seamus. Is the arrester not entitled to use reasonable force to detain the scum? He would have the whole Q of customers to testify that he didn't give him a good beating ... now there's an idea!

Dyr

One thing that was said to me with regards to these situations, albeit about a different police force, seems to apply:

"Coppers just want you to be a good little victim, it makes the paperwork easier" :eek:

ian_m

Maybe you didn't do the right thing legally. But you did the right thing morally.

Next time he (scumbag) might think twice about who he is robbing, knowing that there are people who are willing to defend themselves, others and others property.

seamus

Deesse wrote: »

Interesting Seamus. Is the arrester not entitled to use reasonable force to detain the scum? He would have the whole Q of customers to testify that he didn't give him a good beating ... now there's an idea!

Here we go, god bless the archives:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52582511&postcount=16

The offence must be criminal, punishable by 5 or more years in prison. As gabhain says in that above link, most offences committed by children are not criminal therefore you can't detain the child.

Heat of the moment is a tough thing. If someone theoretically was to issue a beating, you're unlikely to get all witness to look the other way and if you're in a public place you may very well be caught on camera. If a child was beaten and damaged he would also have difficulty committing a robbery, so how did he get so badly beaten between committing the robbery and getting caught by you?

Deesse

I know you described him as a "little scummer", but does that mean he was a child ThatGuy? Wonder what is the law reference describing the powers of restraint? The criminal law act (back a few posts before) doesn't actually mention it.

GerryRyan

Deesse wrote: »

I know you described him as a "little scummer", but does that mean he was a child ThatGuy? Wonder what is the law reference describing the powers of restraint? The criminal law act (back a few posts before) doesn't actually mention it.

He was definitely between 18-19, no less than that. I described him as a 'little scummer' as it summed him up fairly accurately.

Deesse

Seems like you did just come across a pig ignorant garda - there are a lot of recently qualified ones on the beat in my area at the moment - and that maybe he just got it wrong.
I'd be very interested if any legal expert knows exactly what your allowed course of action is in a situation like ThatGuy's?

Jumpy

Please try and get this on national coverage if you can OP. It may benefit everyone in the long run.

Turner

You had every right to detain him.

Theft and robbery (if she was in fear) both carry sentences of 5 years or more.

Contact the superintendent.

Bluefox21

yeah thats a disgrace similar thing happened to a friend of mine two scumbags jumped him hit him a few slaps and took an empty phone box he was carrying he came back with the gards pointed them out and the gard said nothing can be done about it?!

You should definatly call liveline:rolleyes:

IT Loser

ThatGuy wrote: »

I'm after receiving a caution from a Garda (yesterday) for stopping some little scummer taking money off a woman at the ATM.

It was obvious enough what he was planning long before it happened. He'd been sitting on the wall nearby for a while eyeing up potential targets.

I went into the closest shop for credit and was coming back out when I say him striding towards this woman keying in her code. She had a buggy with her - bags of shopping at her side etc, so easy target for him.

I reached him just as he put an arm forward to grab the few notes. I didn't strike him or anything, just yanked him back by the hood, took the money back out of his hand and held him by the arm while one of the other lads got a Garda (station was within walking distance).

But when he arrived it was 'me' who got the caution - even after the few people still in the line backing me up.

He wouldn't stand for it and basically told me I had no place in getting involved. If I had hit, or even pushed, him he would have grounds to take me to court. He (scumbag) wasn't even cautioned. Just told to get out of the area.

I'm in between shock and being pissed off about it.

But what law was I breaking here to get a caution? Would they be happier if the little cunt had gotten away with a wad of 20's on her.

Here is my advice.

Forget about the Guards. They suck. Shoulda just smacked him. If it goes before a judge you better believe the Guards would get short shrift.

IT Loser

The plain law is that you are entitled to detain anybody whom you suspect, reasonably so, was in the process of committing an offence or committing an act which, if the police were aware of, they would have made an attempt to stop or truncate.

So the question is, would a Guard be reasonably expected to intervene in the attempted robbery of cash at an ATM.

Gee, let me think about that.:rolleyes:

Trojan911

seamus wrote: »

Possibly, but I see nothing to indicate that he made a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest also doesn't provide the power to detain someone unless the crime carries a penalty of X years in prison (don't remember the number exactly, I always forget).

An arrestable offence that carries a prison term of five years or more I beleive.

seamus wrote: »

Theoretically when you make a citizen's arrest for petty crime (which is what this is), the arrestee is supposed to wait with you while a Garda attends the scene. You may not detain them though.

You sure about that? So fighting shoplifters have been unlawfully detained by store security when they are held down because they have attempted to walk/run away?

I beleive the person may be detained using reasonable & justifiable force until the arrival of the Gardai. If I am incorrect, please advise.

IT Loser

Trojan911 wrote: »

An arrestable offence that carries a prison term of five years or more I beleive.



You sure about that? So fighting shoplifters have been unlawfully detained by store security when they are held down because they have attempted to walk/run away?

I beleive the person may be detained using reasonable & justifiable force until the arrival of the Gardai. If I am incorrect, please advise.

Thats what I thought- and I wasn't aware of the minimum sentence requirement either.

Victor

IT Loser wrote: »

Thats what I thought- and I wasn't aware of the minimum sentence requirement either.

Yeah, you need it to stop people making arrests for parking offences (Road Traffic Act) or wearing the uniform of a foreign country (Defence Acts).

seamus

Trojan911 wrote: »

You sure about that? So fighting shoplifters have been unlawfully detained by store security when they are held down because they have attempted to walk/run away?

That depends. Is shoplifting punishable by five years in prison?
You may defend yourself, but I very much doubt that you are allowed to use any force whatsoever to detain someone - as Victor points out, imagine someone carrying out a citizen's arrest for breach of the peace and using force to detain the arrestee. Any force whatsoever would be unreasonable, even if the person was walking away.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

Is shoplifting punishable by five years in prison?

Theft is up to 10 years.

So much for tackling white collar crime.

Trojan911

ThatGuy wrote: »

I reached him just as he put an arm forward to grab the few notes. I didn't strike him or anything, just yanked him back by the hood, took the money back out of his hand and held him by the arm while one of the other lads got a Garda (station was within walking distance).

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Ok, just gone over your entry again. Above you have described a theft. Not an attempted robbery as the victim was not threatened with violence nor assaulted prior to the offence. The act is complete so attempted theft is now also ruled out.

ThatGuy wrote: »

But when he arrived it was 'me' who got the caution - even after the few people still in the line backing me up.
He wouldn't stand for it and basically told me I had no place in getting involved. If I had hit, or even pushed, him he would have grounds to take me to court. He (scumbag) wasn't even cautioned. Just told to get out of the area.

It appears the officer acted incorrectly. Here you have just described a clear cut theft. I would doubt the "Caution" actually was recorded. As far as I am aware you have to be arrested and then admit to the offence to qualify for a caution.

What the officer may have done was to give you words of advice, however with the entry you have posted it would appear you were given a huge "fob off" by the officer in which case I would seek to clarify your "caution" by taking it further and arranging an oppointment to see the Superintendent. That or revisit your Original Post.

What you did was admirable and fair play to you for spotting it in the first place.

Trojan911

seamus wrote: »

You may defend yourself, but I very much doubt that you are allowed to use any force whatsoever to detain someone.

The mere fact that you have detained someone, whether vebally or physically, then force has been used. You have arrested or stopped or detained someone from going about their normal daily business. The OP acted correctly in my opinion. I am going on what the OP typed.

seamus

Trojan911 wrote: »

The OP acted correctly in my opinion. I am going on what the OP typed.

I agree completely. Based on the extra info supplied, this is definitely worth bringing to the attention of the super at the station.

johnnyskeleton

2 sides to every story I suppose. The Op might have, for example, mistakenly thought that the person trying to take the money was a robber when in fact he was the woman's son.

The law as regards assault is that you are entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the cirucmstances to protect yourself, other people, or prevent the commission of a crime. Since robbery involves an element of violence, however small, one could argue that one was protecting the woman and preventing a crime.

You are entitled to prosecute the alleged robber if you like, but bear in mind the garda might have had a good reason not to prosecute.

Electricsail

It doesn't really matter what the ins and outs of the whole situation are, this fu**er was robbing a fellow citizen, and you did your best to prevent it. The Guard was doing the usual thing, avoid the paperwork, don't get involved, what's new.
I agree with the previous, make a formal complaint with the Superintendent, followed up by a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman. I know a similar situation happened a few years ago and the Guard could have been prosecuted under natural justice (whatever that is) for failing to arrest someone who had committed a crime.....
But whatever you do, just remember that at least the woman with the shopping was not out her money
Well done!!!

John2002

seamus wrote: »

Here we go, god bless the archives:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52582511&postcount=16

The offence must be criminal, punishable by 5 or more years in prison.

Where in the law does it say that the offence must be punishable by 5 or more years in prison?

I don't see any mention of it here.

johnnyskeleton

John2002 wrote: »

Where in the law does it say that the offence must be punishable by 5 or more years in prison?

I don't see any mention of it here.

It's here.

kopparberg

seamus wrote: »

That depends. Is shoplifting punishable by five years in prison?
You may defend yourself, but I very much doubt that you are allowed to use any force whatsoever to detain someone - as Victor points out, imagine someone carrying out a citizen's arrest for breach of the peace and using force to detain the arrestee. Any force whatsoever would be unreasonable, even if the person was walking away.

yes section 4 of the criminal justice act theft and fraud offences is. your right about the brech of the peace also public order type offences dont carry 5 years or more.

it not what sentance people get it what the law allows in the worst case. if a shop lifter stole jewellery worth 20000 euro say

Victor

Electricsail wrote: »

I know a similar situation happened a few years ago and the Guard could have been prosecuted under natural justice (whatever that is) for failing to arrest someone who had committed a crime.....

Natural justice is esentially juctice if there was no formal law. In criminal law, it means things like, you are entitled to answer the accusations against you, you are entitled to have an independent advisor, etc. In civil law, it mean thats you are entitled to live, eat, work, marry, etc.

I think the above case, the use is misplaced. There might be an argument for misfeaseance / malfeaseance of office.

hullaballoo

Just to clarify one or two aspects here: theft under s 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 carries a sentence of up to 10 years. However, if you just think about how ridiculous a situation that could be where someone steals €12 worth of groceries from Tesco, you'll see that there must be something missing.

Under s 53 of the same act, there's provision for the summary trial of indictable offences. Due to that provision, petty theft like the instant case can be and is dealt with in the District Court, where the maximum sentence is 12 months per conviction.

I'm not too sure how, theoretically, that relates back to the 'citizens' arrest' powers that the 1997 Act purports to grant. I say 'theoretically' and 'purports' because the powers are really a fallacy. The power of arrest is wholly different from the power to detain. Only the law enforcement authorities have that power, and only in limited circumstances.

Jo King

hullaballú wrote: »

Just to clarify one or two aspects here: theft under s 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 carries a sentence of up to 10 years. However, if you just think about how ridiculous a situation that could be where someone steals €12 worth of groceries from Tesco, you'll see that there must be something missing.

Under s 53 of the same act, there's provision for the summary trial of indictable offences. Due to that provision, petty theft like the instant case can be and is dealt with in the District Court, where the maximum sentence is 12 months per conviction.

I'm not too sure how, theoretically, that relates back to the 'citizens' arrest' powers that the 1997 Act purports to grant. I say 'theoretically' and 'purports' because the powers are really a fallacy. The power of arrest is wholly different from the power to detain. Only the law enforcement authorities have that power, and only in limited circumstances.

There is nothing missing. There is a maximum sentence for an offence. The courts have a discretion in relation to the sentence imposed, which must be exercised according to recognised principles. In the case of a summary trial the DPP has to direct summary disposal, the trial judge has to accept jurisdiction, and the accused has to elect for summary trial. The power to arrest derives from the maximum available from the offence not the eventual sentence which may be imposed. A power of arrest implies a power to detain (temporarily) of necessity. What good is arrest for a millisecond? After an arrest a person must be released after a specific time or charged and released on bail or charged and brought before a court as soon as practicable. The power of arrest in respect of a non-garda only arises if the person effecting the arrest believes that the person arrested would attempt to avoid arrest by the garda. It happens every day of the week that shoplifters are apprehended and detained until the garda arrive. Quite often a video recording of the entire episode is played in court.
What happened to the o/p was a disgrace and should result in a criminal charge against the garda in question. It should certainly be reported to the garda inspectorate.

hullaballoo

I don't see a difference between what either of us said with regard to the 2001 Act.

However, I dispute on principle any argument that ordinary citizens have any powers of detention - no matter how brief. Even if there are statutory provisions that envisage a situation where vigilant members of the public go about arresting and detaining petty criminals, I don't think it works that way in practice. In fact, my inclination is that it really doesn't work that way.

I'll have to come clean and say that I have quite a good deal more to say on this issue, but that I am not really at liberty so to do given the nature of this thread. If it wasn't a real-life situation involving real people who can be sued, I would be happy to go on, but for the time being, I think it's safer for the parties involved if discussion of some of the material legal aspects to this particular sequence of events is left to a minimum.

I would suggest to the OP that he lodge a formal complaint with respect to the incident, however.

Deesse

That's just teasing us Hula! If you have something to say, why not say it? As far as I can see (admittedly I'm quit short sighted:D), people are worrying far too much about being sued here.

The way I see it is this:
If you have an opinion, share it with us please! Surely you can only be sued if the advice you offer is completely wrong, so it seems to me that this is quite a good regulator to stop people talking rubbish or dishing out "pub-talk" type advice on here.

There are nearly 40 posts here now, and we still don't know what the legal position is in this type of situation - in which any of us could find ourselves!

You claim that you dispute any right that the public have of detention. Could you please share the legal reference for us, or quote some legal precedent on this matter. Or is it just a vague area of law? Please, can anybody clear up the legal rights of the common man in this situation? Otherwise, I suggest closing this thread, as it's really very pointless.

johnnyskeleton

Deesse wrote: »

There are nearly 40 posts here now, and we still don't know what the legal position is in this type of situation - in which any of us could find ourselves!

The original question was what offence was the OP cautioned for. It's assault, but it's a good defence to show that you were acting to protect another person or prevent property from being stolen.

Deesse wrote:

You claim that you dispute any right that the public have of detention. Could you please share the legal reference for us, or quote some legal precedent on this matter. Or is it just a vague area of law? Please, can anybody clear up the legal rights of the common man in this situation? Otherwise, I suggest closing this thread, as it's really very pointless.

Don't try to suggest that the argument so far has been without references; it is based on the criminal law act 1997. In any case, citizen's arrest is more of a side issue, and you can open another thread to discuss it if you wish.

Deesse

Thanks Jonny. I actually provided the Criminal Law reference in post#4, so I wasn't suggesting that the thread is without reference. It is however without any definitive reference or historic court ruling regarding the power to detain a thief.

If I find myself in the position of the op, and am being treated like the criminal, I would like to know what to quote to the garda. You know what I mean? I want to be able to say to the garda:- "No Garda, I have the right to restrain the criminal under section blah blah of the blah act."

I also suspect that is the true question that the majority of viewers of the tread would like to have answered.

Regarding your Citizen's Arrest comment, I feel It's relevant, as that is effectively what the op was doing with the thief. If other people have a different opinion, I'm happy to be corrected.:)

Saruman

OP have you contacted his superior or the ombudsman yet?

This seems as ridiculous as not being able to defend your home and the criminal being able to sue if they injure themselves in my home.

My house was burgled the other night, no one home but had i been home i would not have retreated and i should not be expected to run out of the house and hide while my stuff is being taken.

johnnyskeleton

Deesse wrote: »

If I find myself in the position of the op, and am being treated like the criminal, I would like to know what to quote to the garda. You know what I mean? I want to be able to say to the garda:- "No Garda, I have the right to restrain the criminal under section blah blah of the blah act."

I also suspect that is the true question that the majority of viewers of the tread would like to have answered.

"Garda, I have the right to arrest the person whom I with reasonable cause suspect to have been in the act of committing an arrestable offence pursuant to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997 and who would otherwise attempt to avoid arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána. Pursuant to s4(5) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, I am now transferring him into your custody."

Members of the public have no powers of detention. However, there is a difference between arrest and detention. There is inevtiably an element of deprivation of liberty involved with arrest, but it is different to detention. I would add that if someone arrests another and as it transpires the arrested person was not committing an offence, they may be liable for false imprisonment.

Deesse wrote:

Regarding your Citizen's Arrest comment, I feel It's relevant, as that is effectively what the op was doing with the thief. If other people have a different opinion, I'm happy to be corrected.:)

The OP's question was what offence was he hypothetically cautioned for. Assault.

johnnyskeleton

Saruman wrote: »

This seems as ridiculous as not being able to defend your home and the criminal being able to sue if they injure themselves in my home.

That's why the law allows you to defend your home (within reason) and as for a criminal suing if they injure themselves in your home, they will only succeed if you have set a trap for them.

Saruman wrote:

My house was burgled the other night, no one home but had i been home i would not have retreated and i should not be expected to run out of the house and hide while my stuff is being taken.

I'm sorry to hear that, and you should not be expected to run out of the house and hide. But you must allow for mistakes being made and extreme over reactions.

GerryRyan

Saruman wrote: »

OP have you contacted his superior or the ombudsman yet?

Yes, the Garda ombudsman was contacted. Not in a 'I want to cause trouble for the Garda involved' sort of way. At the end of the day, they do have a hard job - one incident isn't going to change my view on that. It wasn't a Garda bashing thread.

I rang and e-mailed them, as I was curious as to what offence I could have been guilty of and/or my (our) rights and correct course of action if it ever happened again. I've yet to receive a reply.

I posted this to find my legal stance - wasn't making myself out to a hero. Anyone in the situation would have done the same (I hope).
Thanks for the replies.

cormie

Let's just hope they don't come and arrest you for admitting what you did:rolleyes:

GerryRyan

"Garda, I have the right to arrest the person whom I with reasonable cause suspect to have been in the act of committing an arrestable offence pursuant to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997 and who would otherwise attempt to avoid arrest by a member of the Garda Síochána. Pursuant to s4(5) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, I am now transferring him into your custody."

Members of the public have no powers of detention. However, there is a difference between arrest and detention. There is inevtiably an element of deprivation of liberty involved with arrest, but it is different to detention. I would add that if someone arrests another and as it transpires the arrested person was not committing an offence, they may be liable for false imprisonment.

Very informative, thanks.

GerryRyan

cormie wrote: »

Let's just hope they don't come and arrest you for admitting what you did:rolleyes:

Was careful to word it in a way where I wouldn't be held liable or followed up on.

Instead of "I did/saw this" - "what are the possible offences if person x saw x happening and acted on it ... and if person x believes he/she was wrongly cautioned for acting in someone elses interests? What would be the best course of action?".

You get the gist.

Trojan911

Last night I happened across a drunk sitting in the drivers seat of a vehicle. The engine was running and he had reversed into a parked car & impacted. He was extremely drunk. I established this after approaching him & speaking to him (Glazed eyes, smell of drink, slurred speech etc).

I rang the Gardai & informed them of what I had witnessed & also informed them I was going to seize the keys as he had a small baby strapped into the rear seat in a travel chair.

This I did & handed them over to the officers on their arrival. In theory I detained that man because I removed the keys to his car. He could have walked away with the baby but didn't. (I would have taken the baby if this had been the case). The weather was stormy with high winds and rain.

He blew over immediately when bagged. I recieved praise from the officers for possibly preventing an accident, not a caution.

There is not much of a difference between this post & the OP's.

johnnyskeleton

ThatGuy wrote: »

I rang and e-mailed them, as I was curious as to what offence I could have been guilty of and/or my (our) rights and correct course of action if it ever happened again. I've yet to receive a reply.

It's assault, but the garda ombudsman is not a legal advice service. You can read about assault here and see if it applies to you, or you can contact your nearest Free Legal Advice Centre. You might note that there are several defences to this.

Trojan911 wrote: »

This I did & handed them over to the officers on their arrival. In theory I detained that man because I removed the keys to his car. He could have walked away with the baby but didn't. (I would have taken the baby if this had been the case). The weather was stormy with high winds and rain.

Detention, i.e. preventing a person from leaving an area, is different to legal detention, which is an authorisation by statute for the gardai to keep someone in a garda station (or other suitable location) for questioning / search. Technically what you did was appropriate his property and prevent him from driving the car. There is nothing to suggest that if he tried to leave you would have stopped him, so you weren't actually holding him against his will. As for taking the baby though, that sounds a bit odd.

Trojan911 wrote:

He blew over immediately when bagged. I recieved praise from the officers for possibly preventing an accident, not a caution.

And they were right to do so.

Trojan911 wrote:

There is not much of a difference between this post & the OP's.

You didn't actually touch the other person, therefore it is not assault. But it could have been false imprisonment if, for example, it turned out that he wasn't drunk it was just that you assumed that he was.

hullaballoo

It couldn't have been false imprisonment, since he was in no way stopped from moving. He could have just walked away.

At the outside, it's theft. Either way, well done TJ.

johnnyskeleton

hullaballú wrote: »

It couldn't have been false imprisonment, since he was in no way stopped from moving. He could have just walked away.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Technically what you did was appropriate his property and prevent him from driving the car. There is nothing to suggest that if he tried to leave you would have stopped him, so you weren't actually holding him against his will. As for taking the baby though, that sounds a bit odd.

.