'Big Man' tackles fare dodging teenager on train

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

Such a case would be thrown out of court. Insofar as the raising of Mr Main's voice may have caused alarm or distress, the conductor would also be guilty of the offence, as he reciprocated.

The conductor did not swear or shout abruptly, and he did not appear to hit anything.

The conductor was following lawful process of trying to evict someone who had no right to be on private property.

It was improper, albeit entirely reasonable, of Mr Main to resort to swearing, but it was patently not intended to cause alarm or distress, and the statutory defence that his behaviour was reasonable would apply.

Not intended to alarm or distress? Swearing and shouting, and I think hitting something, is reasonable? Bizzare!!

It does not matter what you think the intent was, but the exchange and the perception of others on the train.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. In any case, the crucial point there is that the conductor should have known the nature of the legal authority conferred on him by his job.

No it isn't but again he can argue he was acting reasonably and under authority when he done so, it is certainly an interesting component to it and is in no way reflective of the hyperbolic rubbish you espouted a few pages ago.

I get the impression you're broadly in agreement with me here. My point stands. No one had the legal authority to assault him in that manner, so the delegation of authority is moot. The conductor didn't have the authority to inflict patently unnecessary physical harm on Mr Main, and he didn't have the power to delegate that authority to a member of the public.

No.

The authority implied and his action is reasonable in my opinion, it doesn't excuse the ignorance but shows it was not done in an absolutely unwarranted fashion.

The infliction of pain was entirely of his own making if you ask me, that isn't excusing the reaction entirely although if you get into a struggle you may get hurt.

He could easily have intervened, if not physically, by expressing verbal disapproval of the actions of the 'big man' as soon as it was clear he was using an unreasonable level of force.

He did both and others shouted disaproval, he shouted at Big Man at one point and also stopped the ejected person from getting in again after that.

I'm criticising the conductor on numerous points, not simply his failure to take control. While arguing with Mr Main, his demeanour is clearly unprofessional. It was improper of him not to use reasonable force himself. It was improper of him not to involve the police if he did not think he could exercise reasonable force himself. It was improper of him to accept the invitation from 'big man' to use physical force to remove Mr Main. It was improper of him not to intervene at any point, in any way, during the ensuing assault.

Yeah well the kid should have paid his ticket like everyone else.

We have a whole catalogue of improper behaviour here, hence my calls for him to lose his job.

Write to Scotrail then and take your cruisade to the horses mouth. I'm sure they'll file it somewhere really important.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[ants83]

whats all this mr maine ??

its a chav getting thrown of a train in scotland, who honestly cares?
its like a damn court on this post, go get some woman or something.

 

[Biohazard]

I'm not even going to bother continuing to entertain the notion that Mr Main is guilty of a public order offence. It's complete and utter nonsense, for reasons I've made clear on numerous occasions already in this thread.

It's not even a talking point. 'Big man' is facing an assault charge, ScotRail have launched an investigation that will scrutinise the conductor's behaviour. Mr Main is not and will not face a public order charge. It's pure fantasy.

Their statement showed disaproval for the actions of the ejected passanger.

He won't no but there is no reason why if there was police in attendence and he continued that behavour that he wouldn't have. Someone could still make a complaint but I would find that a bit increadible now.

I would be suprised if anything results of the complaint, and opinion here does seem to be against anything happening to the 'good samaritan'. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

He was not acting reasonably — excessive force is by its very nature unreasonable — and he had no authority to act as such. It's not going to save him when he has his day in court.

He assumed, incorrectly but nontheless, authority and that would allow you to deduce that his actions were reasonable in ejecting him in light of that.

That's if it gets to court, if it does it may not "save him" but it is certainly a mitigating circumstance.

It might have been more reasonable if 'big man' had made clear that he would use force to remove Mr Main from the train before actually doing so. He did not. He approach Mr Main from behind, such that he could not see the oncoming assault, grabbed him without warning, and proceeded to assault him.

He approached him from the side from what I saw but anyway it probably would have been, but I think the conductor had been trying to get him off for long enough the lads excuse of "I wouldn't mess with the big guy I'd have got off" either is an admission of his illegitimate status or clearly an admission he wouldn't have done anything the employee said to him. He was anything but reasonable.

It was a sudden, unnecessary, and unprovoked escalation from a relatively civil verbal disagreement — no insults were exchanged, no personal attacks were made, no threats were vocalised, etc. — between Mr Main and the conductor, to a violent assault.

Civil verbal disagreement?

Whatever. There was no violent assault other than one of his own doing, by charging a large man onto private property he had no right to be on.

Remember it is still a mere allegation that Mr Main did not pay for a ticket in good faith. You've jumped straight to the conclusion that Mr Main was guilty of fare dodging when this hasn't been proven, and Mr Main actively contests the claim. None of the evidence available at the moment disputes Mr Main's explanation.

He done so in an abusive manner and he had no authority to overrule an employee on private property.

To be absolutely, painfully clear, I initially introduced the non payment hypothesis with the appropriate qualification — "you haven't paid at all"; "I wouldn't mess with the big guy I'd have got off" Subsequently presenting it as the defacto status quo, as I have already conceded.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Biohazard]

He was approached from the side and from behind. He could not have seen it coming until 'big man' was alongside him, at which point he was grabbed by his collar and forcibly removed from his seat.

He stood right next to him and went "do you want him off the train".

It can hardly be described as a surprise.

The importance of this point is that 'big man' could not argue that his use of force was reasonable, necessary or provoked. There were many ways in which the situation could have been resolved, and many in which Mr Main could have been removed from the train without resorting to violence.

That is irrelevent to the point that he had assumed authority and had acted reasonably within it while ejecting him. He could certainly argue that his response at the end was reasonable as the youth would not desist. Don't think it would work, but I doubt it will result in a court appearance anyway.

The transfer was not legal but his intentions of assistance were reasonable regardless of your repeated protests contrary to your own opinion earlier in this thread.

It was a completely unnecessary, entirely unreasonable escalation, and 'big man' will face the consequences of that in court.

If you say so.

It was a relatively civil verbal disagreement.

It was clearly nothing like a civil disagreement. Get a grip.

I knew you'd baulk at my terminology, so I qualified my statement suitably for you. It was a relatively civil disagreement. At no point in the video did Mr Main direct insults, threats, or anything of that matter at the conductor. He swore only to emphasise his statements, and without such swearing, it would have been an almost entirely civil affair.

He swore at him I believe, but irrespective you yourself acknowledged earlier that it was not endearing behavour and anyone would be hard stretched to describe those proceedings as civil.

I don't suppose you're from the school of thought that argues rape victims are responsible for the crime by dressing provocatively?

An increadibly distasteful straw man argument.

He ran at a man on property he had no right to be on, that has no implication on sexual attacks in anyway whatsoever.

That's the relevant analogy. Mr Main's violent assault was not his own doing. Furthermore, he did not "charge" 'big man' — I suggest you watch the video again before levying that allegation once more.

Or what? The police are going to knock my door down?

It's the internet, get a grip of yourself for heavens sake. And yes, he did charge him and yes he had no right to be on the train or get back on it and yes he brought his literal downfall entirely upon himself.

To reiterate once more, neither his words nor behaviour were abusive. At no point were either "insulting and offensive". You're just flat-out wrong on that point.

No I'm not you're just flat out what ever it is you are up to I don't think anyone can quite decide. Good entertainment though.

Are you thus going to acknowledge your mistake and apologise, as I did almost immediately after — fabrication of the century! — mistakenly asserting there were ticket barriers at Edinburgh Park train station?

There is no mistake to apologise over, although I didn't think you'd acknowledge that head on.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[StriderX]

This thread disappoints me more than the actual issue its about.

 

[Biohazard]

I'll try and make this a bit more exciting for anyone else still reading by this point. Let's have a count of all the things Biohazard got wrong in his latest post!

[size=]Incorrect statement #1![/size] 'Big man' asked that question as he was approaching his side, Mr Main was looking straight ahead, and could not have seen the assault coming. He may have expected to be removed by 'big man' using reasonable force, but no one could have expected the violent assault.

It was not a suprise.

It was not a violent assault ejecting him. He was stood next to him before he done anything, and his voice was audible.

[size=]Incorrect statement #2![/size] There was no authority to assault Mr Main to be transferred in the first instance.

There is of course authority, it just can't be transfered.

In any event I can hardly see how I can be 'incorrect' on that when I've said as much?

Why are you allowed to hypothosise with impunity but others cannot?

[size=]Incorrect statement #3![/size] I'm not going to explain for a third time why this was a relatively civil verbal disagreement.

So my opinion is an incorrect statement even though it is entirely subjective?

I don't think a lot of people think that is civil, if you do I think you will be in a very small minority.

[size=]Incorrect statement #4![/size] At no point in the video did Mr Main swear at the conductor — that is to say he never told him to "**** off", remarked "**** you", called him a "****er" or anything of that ilk. His use of the f-word was limited to emphasising otherwise reasonable, coherent and civil statements, and on one occasion using the f-word on its own to express his dissatisfaction with the state of affairs.

Scotrail seem to have taken that opinion too? Why are they "incorrect" and you are right?

1 point for them?

[size=]Incorrect statement #5![/size] Asking if someone subscribes to an analogous point of view to express how distasteful a particular line of reasoning is — in this case, the distasteful view that Mr Main deserved to be physically assaulted — does not constitute a "strawman".

Of course it is a straw man, what did my comment have to do with rape in any logical way at all?

[size=]Incorrect statement #6![/size] He didn't run at anyone. He was attempting to re-enter the carriage to retrieve his personal belongings, of which he had been improperly and unlawfully relieved, and made his intentions as such perfectly clear to those concerned.

Regardless of the legallity of his removal he had no right of re-entry. Two wrongs don't make a right.

He ran at people near the door to try and get past.

[size=]Incorrect statement #7![/size] It's a double-whammy, folks! The same incorrect statement — that Mr Main "charged" 'big man' twice in one post! You're getting a treat tonight!

He did, and he had no right to be on the carriage without paying for a valid ticket.

[Well, that's just about all of them. Let's tally them up!

In this post, Biohazard made a grand total of...

7 incorrect statements!

I'd award you with a new personal best, Biohazard, but I'm pretty sure you've achieved a greater density of incorrect statements in one post before. I just haven't been counting

Look at yourself in this thread? It's some freak show you've put on.

 

[AberystwythLAD]

Counting starts at zero to be perfectly honest so he made 0-6 mistakes and his array had 7 elements. The fact you didn't start your count from zero lets me know you are not a true mathematician.

This is what I have to reply to you with.

 

[Biohazard]

Counting starts at zero to be perfectly honest so he made 0-6 mistakes and his array had 7 elements. The fact you didn't start your count from one lets me know you are not a true mathematician.

Eh?

He clearly did start at one if he came to seven?

And who counts zero?

This is what I have to reply to you with.

FREAKS!

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[AberystwythLAD]

Eh?

He clearly did start at one if he came to seven?

And who counts zero?

This is what I have to reply to you with.

FREAKS!

No, in true mathematics you count from zero.

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~willb/cs302/summer-07/projects/project2/shifting-line.png

 

[StriderX]

In the context of language however, zero is not to be used.

That would imply that the first argument or statement non-existant, which isnt the case.

 

[Biohazard]

I think you've made it suitably clear by now that you're not in the business of engaging in rational, reasoned debate, Biohazard, so I think I'll wrap things up here.

Unless you have anything else to add — perhaps one final unsubstantiated claim or verifiably inaccurate assertion? — I'll bid you adieu and wish you a happy Hanukkah.

I anticipate this thread will become a magnet for indignant outrage once more when 'big man' is dragged through the courts on an assault charge. Until then, good afternoon, good evening and good night

Yeah whatever, he might appear in court but I doubt anything significant will happen to him.

 

[Biohazard]

No, in true mathematics you count from zero.

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~willb/cs302/summer-07/projects/project2/shifting-line.png

In true mathematics I was led to believe 1 was not really a number?

In any event, people count 1 as 1 object and upwards.

I never see people counting 0 in real life. Would be handy though, I'm sure you could get a lot of free stuff that way..

 

[xxalxx]

..... Would be handy though, I'm sure you could get a lot of free stuff that way..

Would be good in the shops ..
How many pies have you to pay for there?
None, bye!

 

[AberystwythLAD]

Would be good in the shops ..
How many pies have you to pay for there?
None, bye!

actual LOL.

 

[RoboCod]

Wow nearly 1000 posts. Not reading all that then

Just going to add my opinion if anyone cares: I think the "Big Man" was opening a can of worms. As soon as you lay your hands on someone you are opening yourself up to a world of pain, the student wasn't posing any kind of threat, the conductor could have continued the train and had authorities waiting for him at the next stop no? What if the big man pushed the student out and he hit his head so badly he died? Not worth it.

To me the above point is made regardless of whether he was swearing in front of little kids or not. A decent member of the public should have offered to pay his fare for him, because that is clearly the problem here, the kid doesn't have the money or made mistake somewhere and bought the wrong ticket?