it doesn't matter if he wants to kill you or your family if you touch him/her they will sue
Even if they had a case, why on earth would they be interested in suing some punters in a bookies, who don't have any public liability insurance or any more cash than the guy with the gun?
Even if they had a case, why on earth would they be interested in suing some punters in a bookies, who don't have any public liability insurance or any more cash than the guy with the gun?
Because people will sue for anything they may even sue the bookies as he was hurt on their premises
I can state with absolute certainty that if I , along with someone else, ever had to restrain someone then they would be able to breathe. It is quite fundamental.
and I can state with certainty that if you really believe that, you have never had to restrain a dangerous person.
The first question is "do they have insurance?". They don't bother suing people who don't even have enough money to cover their expenses.
they may even sue the bookies as he was hurt on their premises
Well, the bookies don't have some overriding duty to make sure armed robbers are treated nicely by their other customers. It does seem that staff were involved in the restraining here so there's possibly some liability there, though I'm guessing it was the customers "in charge" of this incident.
The law managed to convict a train guard of manslaughter through gross negligence because Georgia Varley fell under his train whilst drunk.
So whose to say that the manager of the bookies couldn't be found guilty of the same?
Leaving aside the fact that we weren't talking about criminal charges, it's not a fundamental part of the duties of a betting shop manager to ensure the health and safety of armed robbers.
I would say that as he was waving around a gun albeit a replica it would give even a casual observer a slight hint he may be violent so yes your right
I know nothing about guns so I doubt I could tell if someone was waving around a replica or a real one.
Personally I think these people went way too far, but then that is very easy for me to say in the safety of my own home.In the heat of the moment when your first instinct is to protect yourself I am not surprised something like this happened.
I know nothing about guns so I doubt I could tell if someone was waving around a replica or a real one.
Personally I think these people went way too far, but then that is very easy for me to say in the safety of my own home.In the heat of the moment when your first instinct is to protect yourself I am not surprised something like this happened.
Your first instinct is not to get shot, or at least it was on the 2 occasions I had a gun pointed at me.
I can't understand why they would do this when it massively increased the chance of them getting shot.
It did amuse me when one of the customers in the paper said the staff were like family. The staff are trained to make them feel that way so they keep betting.
I know nothing about guns so I doubt I could tell if someone was waving around a replica or a real one.
Personally I think these people went way too far, but then that is very easy for me to say in the safety of my own home.In the heat of the moment when your first instinct is to protect yourself I am not surprised something like this happened.
I don't think anyone can tell. They are made to look like real guns aren't they?
The law managed to convict a train guard of manslaughter through gross negligence because Georgia Varley fell under his train whilst drunk.
So whose to say that the manager of the bookies couldn't end up charged with the same?
Nans, that is an entirely different situation in which the guard had a duty of care to passengers and will have been a part of his job description. I am damn sure that whilst managers and companies will always tell their staff that their safety is the priority in a robbery I sorely doubt that the welfare of a gun wielding, mask wearing robber could ever be classed as anywhere near similar to what you are comparing.
I know nothing about guns so I doubt I could tell if someone was waving around a replica or a real one.
Personally I think these people went way too far, but then that is very easy for me to say in the safety of my own home.In the heat of the moment when your first instinct is to protect yourself I am not surprised something like this happened.
Thats the point , it wasn't until after the event it was found to be a replica , at the time they customers had every reason to believe it was a real gun and their lives were in danger so lethal force is reasonable defence
Your first instinct is not to get shot, or at least it was on the 2 occasions I had a gun pointed at me.
I can't understand why they would do this when it massively increased the chance of them getting shot.
It did amuse me when one of the customers in the paper said the staff were like family. The staff are trained to make them feel that way so they keep betting.
I think its just an accident that happened in the heat of the moment, the blood was pumping, the adrenaline flowing ect ect. Do I think it was right what they did? hell no, but I don't think they are guilty on manslaughter since imo it is a psychological response. Our minds make us do crazy things when we feel threatened. Things we wouldn't normally do.
Personally I don't know why the hell they attacked him in the first place, some people may see them as brave, I think it was an idiotic and foolhardy thing to do, it is not worth risking your life over some cash.
Train guards have a responsibility, as part of their job, to ensure that nobody ends up under the train when it could have been avoided.
Bookies don't have a responsibility to protect armed robbers from customers who are restraining them.
Well, I've never thought that banks / building societies have a responsibility to protect their customers from the antics of armed robbers as their staff sit tucked behind armoured glass. The first thing they'll do is threaten the customers.
I think its just an accident that happened in the heat of the moment, the blood was pumping, the adrenaline flowing ect ect. Do I think it was right what they did? hell no, but I don't think they are guilty on manslaughter since imo it is a psychological response. Our minds make us do crazy things when we feel threatened. Things we wouldn't normally do.
Personally I don't know why the hell they attacked him in the first place, some people may see them as brave, I think it was an idiotic and foolhardy thing to do, it is not worth risking your life over some cash.
I couldn't agree more.
But there are people in this thread celebrating his death. Completely sick, And then they call me a troll.
Well, I've never thought that banks / building societies have a responsibility to protect their customers from the antics of armed robbers as their staff sit tucked behind armoured glass. The first thing they'll do is threaten the customers.
One of the staff was involved I believe, I'm not sure what banks or building societies you go in but in mine they have people at desks and reception areas.
Comments
6 different versions of what happened and counting isn't it ?
Even if they had a case, why on earth would they be interested in suing some punters in a bookies, who don't have any public liability insurance or any more cash than the guy with the gun?
Because people will sue for anything they may even sue the bookies as he was hurt on their premises
and I can state with certainty that if you really believe that, you have never had to restrain a dangerous person.
He should be in politics Jason
I can see his manifesto pledge of promising safety to armed robbers from the general public being a great vote catcher :rolleyes:
The first question is "do they have insurance?". They don't bother suing people who don't even have enough money to cover their expenses.
Well, the bookies don't have some overriding duty to make sure armed robbers are treated nicely by their other customers. It does seem that staff were involved in the restraining here so there's possibly some liability there, though I'm guessing it was the customers "in charge" of this incident.
The law managed to convict a train guard of manslaughter through gross negligence because Georgia Varley fell under his train whilst drunk.
So whose to say that the manager of the bookies couldn't end up charged with the same?
Leaving aside the fact that we weren't talking about criminal charges, it's not a fundamental part of the duties of a betting shop manager to ensure the health and safety of armed robbers.
Yes the bookies will have a huge payout to make and we know how much they hate those.
I know nothing about guns so I doubt I could tell if someone was waving around a replica or a real one.
Personally I think these people went way too far, but then that is very easy for me to say in the safety of my own home.In the heat of the moment when your first instinct is to protect yourself I am not surprised something like this happened.
Maybe because he didn't do anything? All reports seem to suggest it was his customers that restrained the robber.
Your first instinct is not to get shot, or at least it was on the 2 occasions I had a gun pointed at me.
I can't understand why they would do this when it massively increased the chance of them getting shot.
It did amuse me when one of the customers in the paper said the staff were like family. The staff are trained to make them feel that way so they keep betting.
Train guards have a responsibility, as part of their job, to ensure that nobody ends up under the train when it could have been avoided.
Bookies don't have a responsibility to protect armed robbers from customers who are restraining them.
I can't believe he's still going. :eek:
I don't think anyone can tell. They are made to look like real guns aren't they?
I just lost some wine then
Nans, that is an entirely different situation in which the guard had a duty of care to passengers and will have been a part of his job description. I am damn sure that whilst managers and companies will always tell their staff that their safety is the priority in a robbery I sorely doubt that the welfare of a gun wielding, mask wearing robber could ever be classed as anywhere near similar to what you are comparing.
I hate to be awful that is really a bit silly.
Thats the point , it wasn't until after the event it was found to be a replica , at the time they customers had every reason to believe it was a real gun and their lives were in danger so lethal force is reasonable defence
I think its just an accident that happened in the heat of the moment, the blood was pumping, the adrenaline flowing ect ect. Do I think it was right what they did? hell no, but I don't think they are guilty on manslaughter since imo it is a psychological response. Our minds make us do crazy things when we feel threatened. Things we wouldn't normally do.
Personally I don't know why the hell they attacked him in the first place, some people may see them as brave, I think it was an idiotic and foolhardy thing to do, it is not worth risking your life over some cash.
I think it was more they thought their lives were in danger just because you comply to a robbers request doesn't mean they won't shoot you anyway
Well, I've never thought that banks / building societies have a responsibility to protect their customers from the antics of armed robbers as their staff sit tucked behind armoured glass. The first thing they'll do is threaten the customers.
I couldn't agree more.
But there are people in this thread celebrating his death. Completely sick, And then they call me a troll.
One of the staff was involved I believe, I'm not sure what banks or building societies you go in but in mine they have people at desks and reception areas.