Attempted Robbery @ Ducati Croydon

[Fallout]

True. You would be slightly miffed. But if he'd piled in and taken out one of the thieving scallywags, there would've been no confusion!

WOW! Scallywag doesn't come up on spell checker.

Originally Posted by ClunkintheUK

It does look like the guy in the high viz had nothing to do with it. To me it does not look like he attacked anyone, and he only got the hammer out when the ducati guy pushed him over (i.e. self defence) he never swung it back (i am fairly sure there is case law giving this as the definition as intent to use), and backed off as soon as soon as the imediate threat to him passed.

Seriously??

Self defence is putting your hands up to defend yourself. it is NOT chasing after a guy with a hammer who has already backed off.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by tactcom7

Seriously??

Self defence is putting your hands up to defend yourself. it is NOT chasing after a guy with a hammer who has already backed off.

Not exactly true.


Aside from this case, there are times when aggressive action is allowed in law*, and it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

*Who the hell cares about this anyway. The only thing of interest is what you can get away with the CPS thinking is enough of a 50/50 to not bother with pursuing a prosecution.

The vid doesn't work for me!!!!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Not exactly true.

I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes....

[NTECUK]

Looking at the body language of Mr Hi Vis , I wouldn't condem him off hand.

[Fallout]

If I was a juror, I would!

Originally Posted by tactcom7

Seriously??

Self defence is putting your hands up to defend yourself. it is NOT chasing after a guy with a hammer who has already backed off.

Yeah. I am serious.

Not saying its open and shut, few self defense cases are. My point was that he never raised the hammer, which I seem to remember being the point at which "using a deadly weapon" occurs, or what the law would deem "chasing after with a hammer" necessarily. True you can say the guy has been a bit of a muppet if he is innocent (i.e. why didn't he make like a sheperd and get the flock out of there), but the video does not prove either his connection with the three others or guilt.

what about him laying his grubby hands all over the bike when its sticking out the door?

[squirrel_hunter]

I've never been in a bike shop where the bikes inside have been locked up. This is because if you want to sit on a bike to see what its like you can, you can move the bars and get a feel for it. It also helps the sales staff as they don't need to spend 5 minutes getting the keys to pull a bike out of the line so you can get a better look at it.

Looking at the video I would expect that the intention was to get the bike out of the shop and then push the stolen bikes along with the mopeds. I wouldn't fancy doing that, but there are a few videos on line of it happening.

As for the staff that stood up to these scum, total respect.

But there is a lot of speculation regarding an adverse outcome for these members of staff, which I feel is misinformed. The staff are allowed to go hands on with reasonable force to protect the property. I only saw reasonable force from them and I would find it very hard to believe that there would be any prosecution on them. At the beginning there was some pushing and shoving which is usual in a shoplifting theft and at least one attempt at a detain, which again is allowed. The gang then come back with weapons, the staff need to defend themselves. But there were no fists flying and nothing unreasonable from the staff. The staff handled the situation very well.

As for the speculation regarding the chap in the hi vis, I'll join in. Anybody here travel around with just a hammer in their top box?