[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.