4 ms·

"... This is all important. Being able to record the police is one of the best ways to ensure that the police are held accountable for their actions. ..." It's

"... This is all important. Being able to record the police is one of the best ways to ensure that the police are held accountable for their actions. ..." It's not only Police. In the local news today it's "ticket inspectors" using unreasonable force: "Brouwer says too much force not the ticket" [0] ~ http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brouwer-says-too-much-force-not-the-ticket-20101221-194ij.html http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brouwer-says-too-much-forc... [0] The Age, Nick McKenzie 2010DEC22

hugh3 16y ago
Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the receiving end of force will usually wind up complaining that it was unreasonable. Don't wanna get tackled by a ticket inspector? Buy a ticket. Or if you don't buy a ticket, fess up and accept your fine.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them Do we know that for sure? In the US at least, generally workers in those positions specifically do not have the power to apprehend people - if there is a problem, you call the police or the designated security personnel. It's really easy for a person without the proper martial training to unnecessarily hurt someone, or get hurt themselves.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Wikipedia says it only indirectly, but yes: "In New South Wales, revenue protection on its rail network is primarily the responsibility of Transit Officers. Like their Victorian counterparts, these transit officers also carry out security patrols on trains and railway stations, with the power of issuing on-the-spot fines for minor offences, and even to use "reasonable force" to make arrests." Which I read as saying that ticket officers in both NSW and Victoria (where this story takes place) are allowed to use reasonable force. (In America, of course, things are different. For instance the BART has its own police force, which 999,999 times out of every million can be guaranteed not to shoot you in the back while you're lying on the ground.)
    - Anechoic 16y ago
      and it would seem that "reasonable force" is where the conflict arises - after all, I suspect that you would agree that simply shooting the suspect would be unreasonable?
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Of course, and I'm sure that they have used unreasonable force on occasion. I only got into this whole argument because the OP sounded surprised that ticket inspectors, of all people, were getting into unreasonable-force situations, as if it were crazy for ticket inspectors to be using force at all. I only wished to point out that it's reasonable for ticket inspectors to use reasonable force, and hence it's inevitable that eventually one of 'em is going to wind up using excessive force. But I'm starting to regret ever getting into this discussion since there's a much nicer one going on in another thread about the heat death of the universe.
- barrkel 16y ago
  That's an interesting chain of logic. The mere responsibility of a job gives you powers of arrest? Why are there police in the US at all, if private citizens may so easily be empowered?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    No, actually in this specific case the law specifically gives ticket inspectors the power of arrest as I said in a comment either up there ^^^ or down there VVVV. But actually in most common-law jurisdictions, citizens do have arrest powers, which is why we have the term "Citizen's arrest": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest Which (if you look up the bit about Victoria) would probably apply in this case even if the ticket inspector were not specifically empowered to make arrests.
    - barrkel 16y ago
      However, transport is usually under some form of contract, so people who break those contracts are more usually guilty of breaking civil law, not criminal law. The penalties for such very rarely involve loss of liberty. I'm fairly sure citizen's arrest is targeted at getting the public to aid in apprehending criminals instead.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        The penalties for such very rarely involve loss of liberty. Right, but the penalties for resisting arrest (or fining) do. If a policeman stops you and gives you a ticket for jaywalking, that's not an offence for which you can wind up in prison. But if you try to run away instead of being given the ticket, the policeman can do whatever it takes to catch you and restrain you. Otherwise, the whole ticketing system wouldn't work at all.
        bootload 16y ago
        "... But if you try to run away instead of being given the ticket, the policeman can do whatever it takes to catch you and restrain you. ..." Bad example. Did you know it's SOP for AO's to only apprehend in certain circumstances at risk of legal complications. For example if a person has evaded capture: "... In the event that the offender is able to decamp officers are not to give chase and pursue the offender. ..." if the person has evaded capture and/or hidden: "... loose sight of the offender then the pursuit must be abandoned and the officers should resume normal duties. Under no circumstance are officers to conduct a search of the area ..." if the person is on private property: "... If it is deemed necessary to pursue a person for a serious offence and that particular person enters private property, the pursuit is to cease immediately; entry to private property may be illegal and deemed as trespass. ..." These examples are straight from the "Code of Conduct". It highlights how limited the real powers AO's have been supplied, mostly the Transport Act 1983. [0] CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORISED OFFICERS ~ http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/transport.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/public+transport+managementauthorised+officers#code http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/transport.nsf/h...
- bootload 16y ago
  "... They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. ..." PTAO's (Public Transport Authorised Officers) are pretty much the lowest end of sworn enforcement officer I can think of, certainly not to the level of VicPolice standards ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer For the public this is a problem. The ticketing system the privitised transport system introduced is plauged with trouble ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myki#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myki#Criticism The transport company MTR Corp ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation (nee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_Melbourne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_Melbourne) solution is to questionably enforce ticket policing and the (repeated) result can be read in the papers: "Angry commuters hit out at ticket inspectors" (Mex Cooper, TheAge 2009MAY06) ~ http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-commuters-hit-out-at-ticket-inspectors-20090506-ausg.html http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-commuters-hit-out-at... Easier to squeeze patrons than fix the real problem.
- usedtolurk 16y ago
  @hugh3 - Did you actually watch the whole clip? This illustrates the need for video evidence perfectly. Without the footage many people would instinctively agree with you, but faced with the footage it's clear that the inspectors are in the wrong. [Edit - it's more obvious in some of the later scenes]

hugh3 16y ago

Shrug. It's the job of ticket inspectors to make sure people aren't travelling without tickets. If you're travelling without a ticket, it's their job to give you a fine. They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. And of course anyone on the receiving end of force will usually wind up complaining that it was unreasonable. Don't wanna get tackled by a ticket inspector? Buy a ticket. Or if you don't buy a ticket, fess up and accept your fine.

Anechoic 16y ago
which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them Do we know that for sure? In the US at least, generally workers in those positions specifically do not have the power to apprehend people - if there is a problem, you call the police or the designated security personnel. It's really easy for a person without the proper martial training to unnecessarily hurt someone, or get hurt themselves.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Wikipedia says it only indirectly, but yes: "In New South Wales, revenue protection on its rail network is primarily the responsibility of Transit Officers. Like their Victorian counterparts, these transit officers also carry out security patrols on trains and railway stations, with the power of issuing on-the-spot fines for minor offences, and even to use "reasonable force" to make arrests." Which I read as saying that ticket officers in both NSW and Victoria (where this story takes place) are allowed to use reasonable force. (In America, of course, things are different. For instance the BART has its own police force, which 999,999 times out of every million can be guaranteed not to shoot you in the back while you're lying on the ground.)
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    and it would seem that "reasonable force" is where the conflict arises - after all, I suspect that you would agree that simply shooting the suspect would be unreasonable?
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Of course, and I'm sure that they have used unreasonable force on occasion. I only got into this whole argument because the OP sounded surprised that ticket inspectors, of all people, were getting into unreasonable-force situations, as if it were crazy for ticket inspectors to be using force at all. I only wished to point out that it's reasonable for ticket inspectors to use reasonable force, and hence it's inevitable that eventually one of 'em is going to wind up using excessive force. But I'm starting to regret ever getting into this discussion since there's a much nicer one going on in another thread about the heat death of the universe.
barrkel 16y ago
That's an interesting chain of logic. The mere responsibility of a job gives you powers of arrest? Why are there police in the US at all, if private citizens may so easily be empowered?
- hugh3 16y ago
  No, actually in this specific case the law specifically gives ticket inspectors the power of arrest as I said in a comment either up there ^^^ or down there VVVV. But actually in most common-law jurisdictions, citizens do have arrest powers, which is why we have the term "Citizen's arrest": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest Which (if you look up the bit about Victoria) would probably apply in this case even if the ticket inspector were not specifically empowered to make arrests.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    However, transport is usually under some form of contract, so people who break those contracts are more usually guilty of breaking civil law, not criminal law. The penalties for such very rarely involve loss of liberty. I'm fairly sure citizen's arrest is targeted at getting the public to aid in apprehending criminals instead.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      The penalties for such very rarely involve loss of liberty. Right, but the penalties for resisting arrest (or fining) do. If a policeman stops you and gives you a ticket for jaywalking, that's not an offence for which you can wind up in prison. But if you try to run away instead of being given the ticket, the policeman can do whatever it takes to catch you and restrain you. Otherwise, the whole ticketing system wouldn't work at all.
      - bootload 16y ago
        "... But if you try to run away instead of being given the ticket, the policeman can do whatever it takes to catch you and restrain you. ..." Bad example. Did you know it's SOP for AO's to only apprehend in certain circumstances at risk of legal complications. For example if a person has evaded capture: "... In the event that the offender is able to decamp officers are not to give chase and pursue the offender. ..." if the person has evaded capture and/or hidden: "... loose sight of the offender then the pursuit must be abandoned and the officers should resume normal duties. Under no circumstance are officers to conduct a search of the area ..." if the person is on private property: "... If it is deemed necessary to pursue a person for a serious offence and that particular person enters private property, the pursuit is to cease immediately; entry to private property may be illegal and deemed as trespass. ..." These examples are straight from the "Code of Conduct". It highlights how limited the real powers AO's have been supplied, mostly the Transport Act 1983. [0] CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORISED OFFICERS ~ http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/transport.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/public+transport+managementauthorised+officers#code http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/transport.nsf/h...
bootload 16y ago
"... They need to have certain powers if they're gonna do their job properly, which includes the power to apprehend people who try to run away from them. So reasonable force from a ticket inspector is perfectly justified. ..." PTAO's (Public Transport Authorised Officers) are pretty much the lowest end of sworn enforcement officer I can think of, certainly not to the level of VicPolice standards ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer For the public this is a problem. The ticketing system the privitised transport system introduced is plauged with trouble ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myki#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myki#Criticism The transport company MTR Corp ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation (nee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_Melbourne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connex_Melbourne) solution is to questionably enforce ticket policing and the (repeated) result can be read in the papers: "Angry commuters hit out at ticket inspectors" (Mex Cooper, TheAge 2009MAY06) ~ http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-commuters-hit-out-at-ticket-inspectors-20090506-ausg.html http://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-commuters-hit-out-at... Easier to squeeze patrons than fix the real problem.
usedtolurk 16y ago
@hugh3 - Did you actually watch the whole clip? This illustrates the need for video evidence perfectly. Without the footage many people would instinctively agree with you, but faced with the footage it's clear that the inspectors are in the wrong. [Edit - it's more obvious in some of the later scenes]