Homeowners fend off bailiffs, aided by POLICE! WOW

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Please go back to my first reply, or read any of the other's. The Police stated "This is a civil matter" afterward's they threatened to use force. You can read a book, or know rules. The problem is rule's aren't always followed.

edit on 24-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

The threatened use of force was in response to the people coming onto the property. The issue of the reposession and eviction is in fact a civil matter and law enforcement has NO jurisdiction. The moment people set foot on the property, they are in fact trespassing, which is a criminal matter and falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Force can be used to remove a person from private property if those people do not leave on their own accord after being told to do so. Since the paperwork was invalid, they had no lawful right to be present on the property in question. This makes their presence illegal under criminal law (trespassing).

again, please learn the difference.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

Wish we had such civic minded police in the U.S.

We'll sell you some. We sold a few to Canada and some other colonies a few years ago. A friend went.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Please go back to my first reply, or read any of the other's. The Police stated "This is a civil matter" afterward's they threatened to use force. You can read a book, or know rules. The problem is rule's aren't always followed.

edit on 24-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

The threatened use of force was in response to the people coming onto the property. The issue of the reposession and eviction is in fact a civil matter and law enforcement has NO jurisdiction. The moment people set foot on the property, they are in fact trespassing, which is a criminal matter and falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Force can be used to remove a person from private property if those people do not leave on their own accord after being told to do so. Since the paperwork was invalid, they had no lawful right to be present on the property in question. This makes their presence illegal under criminal law (trespassing).

again, please learn the difference.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Sorry but last time I looked trespass in the UK was a civil matter and nothing to do with crime. Always has been here. Breach of the peace is what the cops stand by to prevent.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I had a rental agreement and receipts please learn to read.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I had a rental agreement and receipts please learn to read.

edit on 26-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

Yep but we need to be pink and fluffy for those who can't read or have forgotten how to.

reply to post by Stewb


Almost forgot my manners. Couple stars for your posts.

Originally posted by Stewb
Sorry but last time I looked trespass in the UK was a civil matter and nothing to do with crime. Always has been here. Breach of the peace is what the cops stand by to prevent.

Except on designated lands under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It is also criminal when the trespassing is aggravated, as we saw in this case.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Civil and Criminal.. what part do you just not understand?

By all means though keep using the idiotic pictures...

Trespass in the UK is a civil issue except when it occurs on certain lands. However, once you have asked the trespasser to leave, and they refuse to do so, it then becomes criminal, assuming you can prove you have asked them to leave, and as such, the police can physically evict them from your property.

Considering they were asked to leave, right in front of the officers, and still refused, the police's threat of the use of force to remove them was both justified and legal.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Mr thinks he know's everything don't know s#@t. How about personal experience ,I sub let a room in a house in Florida. I come home one morning to find the owners setting my thing's on the side of the road.I had a lease agreement with the owner's and reciptes that were current to show I had paided.

I called the police ,when they arrived they told me it was a civil matter there was nothing they could do.I said that since it was a civil matter I'm goimg back in.They then told me I was not allowed when I started to go back in they threatened to tase me and ordered me to turn over my key.

When I tried to educate them to procedure for eviction I was called "A jail house lawyer".No action was taken by any court to remove me from the house.I actually won a settlement in civil court afterwards




Look I gave you a example that happen to me. It was a civil matter where the police inserted theirself. This happen to me, What part of police don't always follow the rules, don't you understand?

Does your need to be correct, override your sense of reason?

Originally posted by Stewb

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Please go back to my first reply, or read any of the other's. The Police stated "This is a civil matter" afterward's they threatened to use force. You can read a book, or know rules. The problem is rule's aren't always followed.

edit on 24-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

The threatened use of force was in response to the people coming onto the property. The issue of the reposession and eviction is in fact a civil matter and law enforcement has NO jurisdiction. The moment people set foot on the property, they are in fact trespassing, which is a criminal matter and falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Force can be used to remove a person from private property if those people do not leave on their own accord after being told to do so. Since the paperwork was invalid, they had no lawful right to be present on the property in question. This makes their presence illegal under criminal law (trespassing).

again, please learn the difference.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Sorry but last time I looked trespass in the UK was a civil matter and nothing to do with crime. Always has been here. Breach of the peace is what the cops stand by to prevent.

You're wrong maybe you should go look again - it hasnt always been a civil matter and in some cases is still not a civil matter today - before telling someone they are wrong maybe make sure you are right to start with.

No one is above the LAW .


Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Section 24A - Arrest without warrant : Other persons

Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if—
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in question—
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
[F2(5)This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.]]

Police officers who are not upholding the LAW are not immune to arrest by citizens .

Bailiffs can be arrested by citizens without warrants too .

reply to post by Stewb


Wow really? That's pretty cool, do y'all stockpile good cops cause we're needing a bunch, like 1000s hehe.

reply to post by Xcathdra


But when it is aggravated etc as you point out it's no longer a simple trespass and becomes another offence. Trespass is a civil matter requiring a civil remedy and absolutely nothing to do with Police.

Originally posted by felixjames20

Originally posted by Stewb

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Please go back to my first reply, or read any of the other's. The Police stated "This is a civil matter" afterward's they threatened to use force. You can read a book, or know rules. The problem is rule's aren't always followed.

edit on 24-2-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)

The threatened use of force was in response to the people coming onto the property. The issue of the reposession and eviction is in fact a civil matter and law enforcement has NO jurisdiction. The moment people set foot on the property, they are in fact trespassing, which is a criminal matter and falls under the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

Force can be used to remove a person from private property if those people do not leave on their own accord after being told to do so. Since the paperwork was invalid, they had no lawful right to be present on the property in question. This makes their presence illegal under criminal law (trespassing).

again, please learn the difference.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Sorry but last time I looked trespass in the UK was a civil matter and nothing to do with crime. Always has been here. Breach of the peace is what the cops stand by to prevent.

You're wrong maybe you should go look again - it hasnt always been a civil matter and in some cases is still not a civil matter today - before telling someone they are wrong maybe make sure you are right to start with.

I only dealt with it for 30 years. Trespass is civil, when it is compounded by other circumstances ie with threats, with offensive weapons etc it is no longer trespass and then is a crime.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Stewb

 

Almost forgot my manners. Couple stars for your posts.

Touch my cap to you too sir.

reply to post by 23432


I don't know how much experience you have of law enforcement but here's a little reality.

Don't jump down my throat but Mr Average may read legislation about putting hands on and think it's realistic.

It isn't.

If Mr or Mrs Average wants to run the risk of accusations (which WILL come) after a citizen's arrest then be my guest. It's a shame too.

But ask yourself some serious questions on this one.
Where's your support for when it goes wrong? You'll end up battling in the street.
Will a court believe you? I really hope so.
Where's your training? I hope you have some.
What are you going to do with the prisoner in your custody? Unless there's cast iron evidence (and sod's law says there wont be any), no Police officer in his right mind will accept such a prisoner. Then what you gonna do, release him/her?
What provisions do you have for the care of your prisoner in your custody?

The reality is unfortunate but citizen's arrest = allegations and a civil and even a criminal case against the good hearted citizen.

I'd hate to think of good and right minded folks ending up in court.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles
reply to post by Stewb

 

Wow really? That's pretty cool, do y'all stockpile good cops cause we're needing a bunch, like 1000s hehe.

Evening Lost,

Yep, got a little production line here too. Generally we're quite good a cop things which is why the Canadians wanted several hundred a few years ago - something to do with us being less inclined to draw a firearm at the slightest provocation.

Originally posted by Stewb
reply to post by 23432

 

I don't know how much experience you have of law enforcement but here's a little reality.

Don't jump down my throat but Mr Average may read legislation about putting hands on and think it's realistic.

It isn't.

If Mr or Mrs Average wants to run the risk of accusations (which WILL come) after a citizen's arrest then be my guest. It's a shame too.

But ask yourself some serious questions on this one.
Where's your support for when it goes wrong? You'll end up battling in the street.
Will a court believe you? I really hope so.
Where's your training? I hope you have some.
What are you going to do with the prisoner in your custody? Unless there's cast iron evidence (and sod's law says there wont be any), no Police officer in his right mind will accept such a prisoner. Then what you gonna do, release him/her?
What provisions do you have for the care of your prisoner in your custody?

The reality is unfortunate but citizen's arrest = allegations and a civil and even a criminal case against the good hearted citizen.

I'd hate to think of good and right minded folks ending up in court.

The Legislative Power gives anyone the power to perform an arrest . It really isn't my idea but admittedly it is a good idea to have such legislation .
The reality of the situation is somewhat different obviously but this is a matter of principle .
Citizens Arrest doesn't mean an automatic Custody therefore no need for prison nor a physical restraint .
What matters is the Charge that is generated and it must be dealt in the court of law where a jury might decide who is right or who is wrong . ( at least this is how it suppose to work )
I understand your concerns about innocent folk . I have the same concerns but for the different reasons.

Status Quo ought to be challenged is the point imho .

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by Stewb
reply to post by 23432

 

I don't know how much experience you have of law enforcement but here's a little reality.

Don't jump down my throat but Mr Average may read legislation about putting hands on and think it's realistic.

It isn't.

If Mr or Mrs Average wants to run the risk of accusations (which WILL come) after a citizen's arrest then be my guest. It's a shame too.

But ask yourself some serious questions on this one.
Where's your support for when it goes wrong? You'll end up battling in the street.
Will a court believe you? I really hope so.
Where's your training? I hope you have some.
What are you going to do with the prisoner in your custody? Unless there's cast iron evidence (and sod's law says there wont be any), no Police officer in his right mind will accept such a prisoner. Then what you gonna do, release him/her?
What provisions do you have for the care of your prisoner in your custody?

The reality is unfortunate but citizen's arrest = allegations and a civil and even a criminal case against the good hearted citizen.

I'd hate to think of good and right minded folks ending up in court.

The Legislative Power gives anyone the power to perform an arrest . It really isn't my idea but admittedly it is a good idea to have such legislation .

1. In principle it is but please please please don't do it unless you have training/support/somewhere to take your prisoner.

The reality of the situation is somewhat different obviously but this is a matter of principle .
Citizens Arrest doesn't mean an automatic Custody therefore no need for prison nor a physical restraint

2. Sorry but you're wrong. Look at that reality and what arrest means - the taking away of someone's liberty - and that very act requires that an accused person is taken into custody by restraining him/her. Unless you become physical and put hands on the accused, how do ya think he or she can become arrested? In law in England and Wales and Scotland it is insufficient to just inform someone they've been arrested. Then consider why you would want to arrest a person. It shouldn't be just 'cos the law's been broken, it should be to prevent a recurrence (especially where violence has occurred). Arrest secures evidence, it reduces escalation, it keeps people safe. There is every need for custody and physical restraint!
.
What matters is the Charge that is generated and it must be dealt in the court of law where a jury might decide who is right or who is wrong . ( at least this is how it suppose to work )

3. The charge. Yes it is important obviously and in this context it normally comes following an arrest once an arresting officer has taken the prisoner to a place of safety where evidence can be evaluated and the charge is made.

I understand your concerns about innocent folk . I have the same concerns but for the different reasons.

Status Quo ought to be challenged is the point imho .

4. In theory, living in the democracies we do, that status quo is challenged every day. It's what we call freedom. You may not like how that's done but there's nothing to stop you challenging anything you want.

Cheers.

edit on 1-3-2013 by 23432 because: (no reason given)