[hugh3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

[bootload]

"... the law specifically gives ticket inspectors the power of arrest ..."

With very limited non sworn powers.

"... To deprive a person of their liberty is a serious matter. Authorised officers should only consider arrest as a last resort and when contemplating doing so, consistent with arrest powers under the Transport Act. The following guidelines must be followed. Persons will only be arrested under Section 219 of the Transport Act 1983 as a last resort. Specifically an authorised officer must believe on reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence against the Transport Act 1983 or any regulation made under that Act and arrest is necessary for one or more of the following reasons: ..."

but the act also warns

"... If an arrest is made outside the strict requirements of this section of the Act, an officer carrying out the arrest may be liable to civil and/or criminal action ..."

[0] CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORISED OFFICERS ~ http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/doi/internet/transport.nsf/h...

[barrkel]

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]

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]

"... 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/h...

[bootload]

"... 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

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 The transport company MTR Corp ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation (nee 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...

Easier to squeeze patrons than fix the real problem.

[usedtolurk]

@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]