defending yourself against a minor!

evolving_doors

so... possible scenario:

underage 'boldies' on the luas.
Adult is threatened
One boldie throws first punch
Adult hits back and injures the minor

Incident finishes.

Is the adult in danger of prosecution? Assume CCTV identifies all parties.

ads20101

Gebgbegb wrote: »

so... possible scenario:

underage 'boldies' on the luas.
Adult is threatened
One boldie throws first punch
Adult hits back and injures the minor

Incident finishes.

Is the adult in danger of prosecution? Assume CCTV identifies all parties.

You are to use minimum necessary force so that you can remove yourself from the scene.

Yes, I am fully aware that there is problems to this when you are on a tram.

Greenmachine

ads20101 wrote: »

You are to use minimum necessary force so that you can remove yourself from the scene.

Yes, I am fully aware that there is problems to this when you are on a tram.

What about your right to continue your journey. Can you incapacitate long enough to complete your journey. Not just applying this to a minor.

ads20101

Greenmachine wrote: »

What about your right to continue your journey. Can you incapacitate long enough to complete your journey. Not just applying this to a minor.

No, it wouldn't stand up in court.

You would need to get off at the next stop if the minors don't

Zambia

ads20101 wrote: »

No, it wouldn't stand up in court.

You would need to get off at the next stop of the minors don't

Ah why?

If the minor came at you again just repeat your first action.

I mean if you use the minimum force to repeal the attack why under law do you "have" to retreat.

nullzero

A tram is an enclosed space, you may have noticed that the STT security officers on Luas trams carry mace, something that other static security officers are not permitted to use. This is due to the proximity and space issues on a tram. Perhaps those same space issues may have some bearing on the situation described by the OP.

ads20101

Zambia wrote: »

Ah why?

If the minor came at you again just repeat your first action.

I mean if you use the minimum force to repeal the attack why under law do you "have" to retreat.

Because it is not your place to enforce the penalties of the law, unless you have no other choice. In this scenario you do, you should leave the scene. Seeking the attention of the gards should be the next course of action. I understand that this appears daft, but this course of action will protect you in the long run.

Greenmachine

nullzero wrote: »

A tram is an enclosed space, you may have noticed that the STT security officers on Luas trams carry mace, something that other static security officers are not permitted to use. This is due to the proximity and space issues on a tram. Perhaps those same space issues may have some bearing on the situation described by the OP.

Interesting. Not on the luas very often so can't say I have noticed. What specific legislation allow them to carry mace, something I believe is classed as an offensive weapon?

nullzero

Greenmachine wrote: »

Interesting. Not on the luas very often so can't say I have noticed. What specific legislation allow them to carry mace, something I believe is classed as an offensive weapon?

I'm not able to quote the legislation but I'm aware they carry it, the reason being the confined nature of a tram carriage and then he challenges presented in resolving violent situations in such an environment. The logic being that it is used as a type of personal protective equipment, kind of like the stab/ballistic vests they wear.

evolving_doors

just getting back to original scenario (no security or mace involved)...

How would you measure reasonable force. I presume it would be for a court to decide, but lets push it on a bit...

Suppose the adult broke the kids jaw and it was decided that reasonable restraint wasnt used.

What would be the possible punishment?

Zambia

ads20101 wrote: »

Because it is not your place to enforce the penalties of the law, unless you have no other choice. In this scenario you do, you should leave the scene. Seeking the attention of the gards should be the next course of action. I understand that this appears daft, but this course of action will protect you in the long run.

So I cant read in this that you have to leave. I understand why you should but you don't "have" to.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/print.html#sec18

Little CuChulainn

ads20101 wrote: »

Because it is not your place to enforce the penalties of the law, unless you have no other choice. In this scenario you do, you should leave the scene. Seeking the attention of the gards should be the next course of action. I understand that this appears daft, but this course of action will protect you in the long run.

He wouldn't be enforcing any law, just exercising his right to travel and defend himself. Where is this obligation to retreat coming from?

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not able to quote the legislation but I'm aware they carry it, the reason being the confined nature of a tram carriage and then he challenges presented in resolving violent situations in such an environment. The logic being that it is used as a type of personal protective equipment, kind of like the stab/ballistic vests they wear.

I don't think that is correct. I'm not aware of any legislation that permits luas security carry a firearm. There's also the problems that arise with using such a device in a confined and crowded area.

ads20101

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He wouldn't be enforcing any law, just exercising his right to travel and defend himself. Where is this obligation to retreat coming from

Ok, look at it from another angle. If you remain and the kids continue to hassle / confront then the force to remove them increases. This is not minimum force.

Your right to travel does not supersede this. In fact this is an issue you can take up later with the company providing the public transport by the fact that they did not take the necessary steps to ensure your safety.

Zambia

ads20101 wrote: »

Ok, look at it from another angle. If you remain and the kids continue to hassle / confront then the force to remove them increases. This is not minimum force.

Your right to travel does not supersede this. In fact this is an issue you can take up later with the company providing the public transport by the fact that they did not take the necessary steps to ensure your safety.

Sorry have you like case law or statute to back this up because I have to be honest it sounds like your making it up.

ads20101

Zambia wrote: »

Sorry have you like case law or statute to back this up because I have to be honest it sounds like your making it up.

Ah, maybe - however just on the off chance that I'm not would you, say by chance, be able to provide anything that directly contradicts what I have said?

nullzero

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He wouldn't be enforcing any law, just exercising his right to travel and defend himself. Where is this obligation to retreat coming from?



I don't think that is correct. I'm not aware of any legislation that permits luas security carry a firearm. There's also the problems that arise with using such a device in a confined and crowded area.

Mace is not categorised as a fire arm, it's is a non lethal self defense weapon. For instance security officers are not permitted to carry batons as there is a possibility of a baton causing serious or lethal injury, an item like mace is used to temporarily incapacitate.

Greenmachine

ads20101 wrote: »

Ah, maybe - however just on the off chance that I'm not would you, say by chance, be able to provide anything that directly contradicts what I have said?

Make something up, and ask someone to disprove you. Awesome defense. If you are going to claim something back it up.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Firearms_and_Ammunition_FAQ

Pat Mustard

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Is the adult in danger of prosecution? Assume CCTV identifies all parties.

Whatever about the likelihood being acquitted or having charges struck out, nobody could be certain of no danger of prosecution where a child is injured by an adult.

Big Nasty

This is the Red Line we're talking about, right OP?

Witcher

nullzero wrote: »

Mace is not categorised as a fire arm, it's is a non lethal self defense weapon. For instance security officers are not permitted to carry batons as there is a possibility of a baton causing serious or lethal injury, an item like mace is used to temporarily incapacitate.

Pepper spray, mace etc. are all illegal under the 1925 Firearms Act.

challengemaster

ads20101 wrote: »

Ok, look at it from another angle. If you remain and the kids continue to hassle / confront then the force to remove them increases. This is not minimum force.

Your right to travel does not supersede this. In fact this is an issue you can take up later with the company providing the public transport by the fact that they did not take the necessary steps to ensure your safety.

Justifiable use of force; protection of person or property, prevention of crime, etc.

18.—(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

Nowhere does it say minimum force. It says justifiable/reasonable in the circumstances. If they continue to attack you, circumstances would dictate then you may justifiably use a larger amount of force to defend yourself.

Excessive use of force (continuing to attack an assailant once the threat has been removed) would not be considered justifiable or reasonable in the circumstances.

Zambia

ads20101 wrote: »

Ah, maybe - however just on the off chance that I'm not would you, say by chance, be able to provide anything that directly contradicts what I have said?

Yes the law included in the link I posted earlier.

It lists clearly the defenses to assault charges, it makes no mention of high tailing it at the first opportunity.

I would be happy to admit I was wrong. Your theory is hard to believe hence I simply asked you to prove it.

nullzero

Strider wrote: »

Pepper spray, mace etc. are all illegal under the 1925 Firearms Act.

Mace or pepper spray are still non lethal weapons and the STT officers carry mace, something they would not do illegally.

the_syco

ads20101 wrote: »

Ok, look at it from another angle. If you remain and the kids continue to hassle / confront then the force to remove them increases. This is not minimum force.

But if you get off, and they get off, you're doomed on a (possibly) lonely platform with no-one near that will help.

8. What about CS gas spray, pepper spray and stun guns?
These are all totally prohibited in this country. Importation or possession of any of these items is illegal.

From http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Firearms_and_Ammunition_FAQ

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

Mace or pepper spray are still non lethal weapons and the STT officers carry mace, something they would not do illegally.

Mace/CS/Pepper spray are not permitted to be possessed by members of the public or private security and if a person was found in possession of such an item they would be in breach of the firearms act and most likely looking at prison time so please stop talking out of your posterior sir.


http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Firearms_and_Ammunition_FAQ

8. What about CS gas spray, pepper spray and stun guns?
These are all totally prohibited in this country. Importation or possession of any of these items is illegal.

nullzero

rosser44 wrote: »

Mace/CS/Pepper spray are not permitted to be possessed by members of the public or private security and if a person was found in possession of such an item they would be in breach of the firearms act and most likely looking at prison time so please stop talking out of your posterior sir.


http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Firearms_and_Ammunition_FAQ

No need to be so condescending.
Those security guards carry that stuff, seemingly they were given some sort of exemption to do so, they also carry restraints (hand cuffs) which other security guards do not have permission to have either.

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

Mace is not categorised as a fire arm, it's is a non lethal self defense weapon.

Well if you didnt spout ill informed rubbish like the bolded above I might be more polite. There is no such thing in Irish law as a self defence "W" word in relation to a member of the public. Please stop giving dangerous incorrect information out.

No object is recognised in Irish law for use by a member of the public for self defence.

nullzero

rosser44 wrote: »

Well if you didnt spout ill informed rubbish like the bolded above I might be more polite. There is no such thing in Irish law as a self defence "W" word in relation to a member of the public. Please stop giving dangerous incorrect information out.

No object is recognised in Irish law for use by a member of the public for self defence.

Perhaps not in Irish law, but as a general classification it would be applicable. I also never stated it would be seen as such under Irish law so your point is moot.

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

Perhaps not in Irish law, but as a general classification it would be applicable. I also never stated it would be seen as such under Irish law so your point is moot.

WTF are you talking about here? Under Irish law the possession of such items is illegal, full stop.

nullzero

rosser44 wrote: »

WTF are you talking about here? Under Irish law the possession of such items is illegal, full stop.

The fact is those security guards carry it. I brought it up in relation to the OP as they are allowed to carry for personal protection in the confines of a tram/train carriage and the same physical confines may have a bearing on somebody having to defend themselves against one or more aggressive minors in such an environment. I understand what you are saying as it is correct, but it is my understanding that there is an excemption in this law for that particular company, as peculiar as it seems at face value. The reason seemingly being that the idea of rail security being new to this country allowed them some wriggle room in this regard, as the demands of such a job are different to standard security work in this country.

Uno my Uno.

nullzero wrote: »

No need to be so condescending.
Those security guards carry that stuff, seemingly they were given some sort of exemption to do so, they also carry restraints (hand cuffs) which other security guards do not have permission to have either.

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is those security guards carry it. I brought it up in relation to the OP as they are allowed to carry for personal protection in the confines of a tram/train carriage and the same physical confines may have a bearing on somebody having to defend themselves against one or more aggressive minors in such an environment. I understand what you are saying as it is correct, but it is my understanding that there is an excemption in this law for that particular company, as peculiar as it seems at face value. The reason seemingly being that the idea of rail security being new to this country allowed them some wriggle room in this regard, as the demands of such a job are different to standard security work in this country.

I think there is a bit of reverse logic going on here, ie "Luas security carry pepper spray and restraints, therefore they must have been given an exemption to allow them to do so." That is not necessarily the case, just because members of security are carrying these items does not mean that they are necessarily not liable to prosecution for so doing.

"Exemptions" for companies or "Wriggle Room" are not concepts that the law recognises as they would be arbitrary and uncertain, who would grant such wriggle room and under what authority? Perhaps you could direct us to the S.I. or other act of the Oireachteas that allows Luas security to carry these otherwise unlawful items?

slimjimmc

nullzero wrote: »

Mace or pepper spray are still non lethal weapons and the STT officers carry mace, something they would not do illegally.

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is those security guards carry it. I brought it up in relation to the OP as they are allowed to carry for personal protection in the confines of a tram/train carriage and the same physical confines may have a bearing on somebody having to defend themselves against one or more aggressive minors in such an environment. I understand what you are saying as it is correct, but it is my understanding that there is an excemption in this law for that particular company, as peculiar as it seems at face value. The reason seemingly being that the idea of rail security being new to this country allowed them some wriggle room in this regard, as the demands of such a job are different to standard security work in this country.

How are you so certain that whatever it is they carry (if they carry) is mace/pepper spray or other prohibited noxious chemical. How do you know it's not a decoy or dispenses a non-noxious substance which is permitted by law. Could it be a harmless marker dye (if that is legal) ?

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is those security guards carry it. I brought it up in relation to the OP as they are allowed to carry for personal protection in the confines of a tram/train carriage and the same physical confines may have a bearing on somebody having to defend themselves against one or more aggressive minors in such an environment. I understand what you are saying as it is correct, but it is my understanding that there is an excemption in this law for that particular company, as peculiar as it seems at face value. The reason seemingly being that the idea of rail security being new to this country allowed them some wriggle room in this regard, as the demands of such a job are different to standard security work in this country.

They are not allowed to carry any form of weapon for self defence. I know this for a fact.

It is pretty clear here that your understanding is quite far from the truth, either due to ignorance of the facts or straight out spoofing.


Now please run along and stop spreading false information in a legal discussion forum.


And even if we were to entertain your fantasies, pepper spray in a confined space???? Smart thinking there lol......

the_syco

nullzero wrote: »

The fact is those security guards carry it.

Just because someone else does something, doesn't mean it's automatically legal.

=-=

Are the security guards on the Luas working for the state in any shape or form? I only ask as it'd mean different rules for them.

Uno my Uno.

the_syco wrote: »

Just because someone else does something, doesn't mean it's automatically legal.

=-=

Are the security guards on the Luas working for the state in any shape or form? I only ask as it'd mean different rules for them.

Not that I'm aware of, and it would only mean different rules for them if the minister or oireachteas made those rules specifically.

nullzero

slimjimmc wrote: »

How are you so certain that whatever it is they carry (if they carry) is mace/pepper spray or other prohibited noxious chemical. How do you know it's not a decoy or dispenses a non-noxious substance which is permitted by law. Could it be a harmless marker dye (if that is legal) ?

Perhaps you are correct in saying that, my understanding has been that they do carry mace, perhaps the information I received was incorrect, the next time I have occasion to speak to one of them I'll ask them about it and get a definite answer but the idea you outlined could well be correct.

nullzero

rosser44 wrote: »

They are not allowed to carry any form of weapon for self defence. I know this for a fact.

It is pretty clear here that your understanding is quite far from the truth, either due to ignorance of the facts or straight out spoofing.


Now please run along and stop spreading false information in a legal discussion forum.


And even if we were to entertain your fantasies, pepper spray in a confined space???? Smart thinking there lol......

Run along?

You could make your point without being so pompous and condescending.

Having had a quick look over your post history (a little over 100 posts since 2008)I see this is the first time you have posted on this forum in yet you speak as of you are some sort of quality control officer for this forum. I haven't frequented this forum previously myself but even if I had I wouldn't assume to conduct myself the way you have here. Also you would appear to enjoy indulging what would appear to be something of a superiority complex, fishing with grenades over in the conspiracy theories forum, you would appear to enjoy being "right".
You made some valid points but I'm afraid you invalidated them with your attitude.

Help!!!!

Punch him square in the face.....if prosecuted say you feared for your safety thought he had a weapon. Same excuse to be used if you catch someone in your house ( Advice from a policeman in UK, don't see why it cant be used in Ireland as well )

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

Run along?

You could make your point without being so pompous and condescending.

And you could fact check before talking out of your ar$e.:mad:

This isn't AH, you are spreading falsehoods here with your repeated ill informed statements.

hullaballoo

rosser44 wrote: »

And you could fact check before talking out of your ar$e.:mad:

This isn't AH, you are spreading falsehoods here with your repeated ill informed statements.

Moderator: please read the forum charter before posting in this forum again.

nullzero

rosser44 wrote: »

And you could fact check before talking out of your ar$e.:mad:

This isn't AH, you are spreading falsehoods here with your repeated ill informed statements.

I could well be wrong, a valid point was made by another poster which I conceded could well be a possible alternative to the contents of the canisters carried by those security guards. I can accept being wrong.

Uno my Uno.

nullzero wrote: »

I could well be wrong, a valid point was made by another poster which I conceded could well be a possible alternative to the contents of the canisters carried by those security guards. I can accept being wrong.

Any chance you could provide some sources for all the other assertions you made?

rosser44

nullzero wrote: »

I could well be wrong, a valid point was made by another poster which I conceded could well be a possible alternative to the contents of the canisters carried by those security guards. I can accept being wrong.

If you can accept being wrong will you also accept that these private security guards have no exemption to carry such items also as you previously asserted?

Apologies for my rash and uncivil manner earlier, it was out of line and I accept that.

cerastes

ads20101 wrote: »

No, it wouldn't stand up in court.

You would need to get off at the next stop if the minors don't

ads20101 wrote: »

Ok, look at it from another angle. If you remain and the kids continue to hassle / confront then the force to remove them increases. This is not minimum force.

Your right to travel does not supersede this. In fact this is an issue you can take up later with the company providing the public transport by the fact that they did not take the necessary steps to ensure your safety.

And what if you get off at a quiet spot/time and are promptly beaten to a pulp by a gang of underage thugs? or stabbed, this kind of thing has happened.
I can tell you Id much rather be on the Luas with cctv? or help potentially on the way or even other people/witnesses then get off at some stop where my means to extricate myself will have suddenly become more limited.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Uno my Uno.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wonder has a member of security ever actually used it? It could be a litigation nightmare if they did.

evolving_doors

Big Nasty wrote: »

This is the Red Line we're talking about, right OP?

O sweet lord, lets not go there, it's not that type of thread, this is all hypothetical

Anyhow... just to clarify why I'm asking.

Forget about mace, fart gas, security guards farting in defence or whatever first of all.

The scenario arose from another thread on another forum (i think the protocol is not to drag stuff from other threads and cross wires etc so I won't mention where). In general the thread contained numerous of examples of standing up to 'scumbags' (fair enough!!), however, quite often the inference was that it was scumbag 'teenagers' that needed sorting out.

Quite a few 'brave' posters were taking the view that once aggression was acted upon them then they had a right to 'pre-empt' further agression by going on the offensive (although some were talking about letting the 'little scrotes' have the first punch).

My point was that if something was deemed to be 'unreasonable force' in subsequent court case (lets face it, it's not a clear cut area) then the punishment for the 'attack' on a minor would be very different to say an outcome for using unreasonable force in defence against an adult aggressor who threw the first punch.

So... back to the guy on the luas. If he 'defended himself' after initial attacks on the part of a 'little scrote' by say breaking the jaw of a 14 year old. Is the age of the person taken into account? (Compared to breaking the jaw of an adult agressor)?

the_syco

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd wonder if it's mace, or just vinegar? I'm sure someone has found an irritant that annoys you, yet is legal.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

cerastes wrote:

And what if you get off at a quiet spot/time and are promptly beaten to a pulp by a gang of underage thugs? or stabbed, this kind of thing has happened. I can tell you Id much rather be on the Luas with cctv? or help potentially on the way or even other people/witnesses then get off at some stop where my means to extricate myself will have suddenly become more limited.

A good point as there are some stops on the red line I'd be reluctant to get off at even if that was my intended journey.

Pat Mustard

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So... back to the guy on the luas. If he 'defended himself' after initial attacks on the part of a 'little scrote' by say breaking the jaw of a 14 year old. Is the age of the person taken into account? (Compared to breaking the jaw of an adult agressor)?

I would think so.

If a sturdy 30 year old hit a scrawny 14 year old and broke his jaw, depending on all of the circumstances, it is possible that a dim view might be taken.

On the one hand, if the 30 year old was attacked by four scrawny 14 year olds, if he landed several blows against the attackers and one of the said attackers ended up with a broken jaw, maybe it might be viewed as self defence. A judge might think; 'Sure, what could he do?'

On the other hand, let's suppose that the 30 year old was minding his own business when one scrawny 14 year old punched him in the face but the attack ended there. Let's suppose that the 30 year old then punched the 14 year old, breaking his jaw. The fact that the attack had ended before the counterattack came, means that although it may be possible that the 30 year old could attempt to argue that he was not aware that the attack had ended, it could be significantly more difficult for him to succeed in showing self defence, in those circumstances. A judge could think; 'He went too far. He overstepped the line and committed assault himself when he broke the boy's jaw after the attack had ended. The boy should also be guilty of assault for his own part in this but that's not the issue in front of me here.'