Missy89:


So do u think the word will go away if black folks dont stop using it?

What is ur proposed solution?

The word is here to stay.

And it's a word only black people can use...these folks need to deal with it.

kandiikane:


Mondisweets this is something that is also important in law. If it wasn't for the girl's action would the situation have turned out the way it did? And the fact that he was walking away? Causation!

there is also a casual link between the conduct of the guy and the harm caused on the innocent passengers. If you apply the reasonable person test to determine negligence you would also realise that if he had not defended himself by getting in the way of other innocent passengers, harm would not have been inflicted on innocent passengers too. I'm glad you know elements of a crime too

@mondisweets, where did it show in the video that he beat up innocent bystanders? Did I miss that part or what? If I am not wrong, all that mouthing and shyt talking that lady was doing could be considered as disturbing the peace, she should be fined for that.
It is not illegal to defend yourself in public, I have given you answers to questions which will be asked if public interest was to be considered. He passed.

You keep on mentioning innocent people? Who were the innocent people who got hit in that video?

What casual link? Do you know what causation is?

Mondisweets:

there is also a casual link between the conduct of the guy and the harm caused on the innocent passengers. If you apply the reasonable person test to determine negligence you would also realise that if he had not defended himself by getting in the way of other innocent passengers, harm would not have been inflicted on innocent passengers too. I'm glad you know elements of a crime too

kandiikane:



A woman can piss in a bottle without spillage.

Impossicant!

LOL.. funny vid

kandiikane:



Stop defending these women because I know you are doing so because they are women. They should be addressed as humans and their actions assessed as so.

I did say countless times that she is at fault so I don't see how i'm defending her. I kept expressing the fact that my concern is with the innocent parties that where involved so I don't see how they are linked to her

Mondisweets:
that's he took from his personal device and she had the right to request him not to do so, just like the same way you have the right to request or stop any other person from taking a picture of you, without your consent. why do u think celebrities always block the paparazzi's cameras when they don't want pics or videos of them taken without their consent? they have the right to stop them.

this is funny!

why are there papparazis in the first place if taking pictures in a public place is illegal? of course it's not illegal. you cannot ask anyone not to take your pictures or videotape you on a public transport.....the worst you can do is to block your face. you don't own his camera & you have no right knocking the camera off his hands.

he can sue you for criminal damage!

God knows why you keep bringing this up because I have already agreed that she was also at fault already.

fine by me, then!

coogar the reason why I brought up the public violence issue is because there were other people who where affected who are not the perpetrator.

that point is understood but this man didn't cause the situation. he was getting away & his retaliation was spontaneous. he didn't think about it - it was not premeditated, he acted out instinctively!

Failing to take standards of care where there is a duty to do so, is also a form of fault. intention is not the only form of fault for committing a crime. He could have taken standards of care and he would have sued for defamation and bodily harm and he would have made a charge against for assault, and he would have left the incident clean.

all these points are credible & valid if the victim had the time to think things through. if his reactions were spontaneous then the court can understand why he acted the way he did.

there's no way this man could be found guilty of common assault. he never yelled, never made any threatening moves or acted out wildly while he was being verbally abused. he even retreated & then he got whacked in the head.

surely, he's blameless!

kandiikane:


Did you study law at all?

As in.. her posts are so comical

She attends night school

Mondisweets:
I did say countless times that she is at fault so I don't see how i'm defending her. I kept expressing the fact that my concern is with the innocent parties that where involved so I don't see how they are linked to her

Address my questions joor!
Are you arguing in criminal or tort because you are mixing the two.
who were the innocent bystanders who got hit in that video

SirShymex:


Nah, it's deeper than the colour of skin. It's his understanding of the subject-matter.

The word "Nig.ger" itself was never a derogatory term. It came from "negro" - a Latin word for black. It was flipped during slavery to become a derogatory term for black people. And black people subsequently took power out of the same word - and made it a word for intra-race endearment.

Now, imagine taking that word out of the black vocabulary. How will that stop racists from using it in a contemptuous? Jews and Italians have racial words of endearment they call one another, in which you and I as outsiders can never use. However, I believe the whole thing about the use of "nyggah" today has to be because of the lack of privilege by other races of people, especially white folks, to use the same word. It's just white guilt - and the dark history.

You just can't give these folks that privilege to dictate to us. And definitely not a nutter like Piers Morgan.

K

kandiikane:

law

Stop copying your friends notes and actually read by yourself.
if you were being attacked by that many people I don't see how a reasonable man would be thinking about the person that didn't hit him.

The level of forced used was reasonable.
There is no evidence of death or serious injury
the force was applied the same way it was received. There were no use of weapons
He didn't premeditate the violence

These are all answers from questions that will be asked if public interest was to be considered.

Stop defending these women because I know you are doing so because they are women. They should be addressed as humans and their actions assessed as so.

wonlasewonimi:

Mondisweets the defender of the hoodrats.

OUCH!!!

kandiikane:
@mondisweets, where did it show in the video that he beat up innocent bystanders?

if I push someone im fighting with against you or if I harm you in the process of fighting with someone else,
-will you still not be affected by my actions?
-will you still not be harmed by my actions?

Did I miss that part or what? If I am not wrong, all that mouthing and shyt talking that lady was doing could be considered as disturbing the peace, she should be fined for that.

well sorry I didn't know that disturbing the peace of other innocent parties is not nuisance shouting like that alone without even adding insult to it is a disturbance of peace of others, why don't you show me exactly where I said she was not at fault?

It is not illegal to defend yourself in public, I have given you answers to questions which will be asked if public interest was to be considered. He passed.

to every ground of justification there has to be a restriction applied to it, just like to every act of freedom there have to be limits applied to it.

You keep on mention innocent people? Who were the innocent people in hit in that video?

the other passengers that did not engage themselves directly in the fight, im sure you can identify them when you watch the video again. its not everyone that shows in that video that jumped into the fight

I dont see what is so endearing about a black man referring to another by a hate word (if used by a white) as a term of endearment

The word should be binned

Nothing fancy about the N - word

The problem is that its a white guy who said it
Other blacks have being saying it for eons

Mondisweets:
making personal attacks instead isn't arguing with relevant points either. Always try to lead by example. anyway its all good

I am sorry but that wasn't personal. You don't seem to know anything about law. Why are you arguing mixing criminal and tort arguments. You will fail if you do this in your exams. We are arguing in criminal, let establish that first before moving to tort.

Mondisweets:
if I push someone im fighting with against you or if I harm you in the process of fighting with someone else,
-will you still not be affected by my actions?
-will you still not be harmed by my actions?


well sorry I didn't know that disturbing the peace of other innocent parties is not nuisance shouting like that alone without even adding insult to it is a disturbance of peace of others, why don't you show me exactly where I said she was not at fault?

to every ground of justification there has to be a restriction applied to it, just like to every act of freedom there have to be limits applied to it.

the other passengers that did not engage themselves directly in the fight, im sure you can identify them when you watch the video again. its not everyone that shows in that video that jumped into the fight

Wait so are you telling me he hit everyone in that video. I watched this video twice after you posted this and I don't see him hitting anyone except those that attacked him. This is a criminal case, read on assault and self defence and then come back to me.

kandiikane:


I am sorry but that wasn't personal. You don't seem to know anything about law. Why are you arguing mixing criminal and tort arguments. You will fail if you do this in your exams. We are arguing in criminal, let establish that first before moving to tort.

THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
-conduct
-unlawfulness
-fault
-causation
-liability

THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A DELICT
-conduct
-unlawfulness
-fault
-causation
-damage
-cupability

so, what exactly was I mixing up?

kandiikane:


Wait so are you telling me he hit everyone in that video. I watched this video twice after you posted this and I don't see him hitting anyone except those that attacked him. This is a criminal case, read on assault and self defence and then come back to me.

if you failed to understand what I said in my previous post, even though I used simple English then I don't know how else I can help you

Mondisweets:
if I push someone im fighting with against you or if I harm you in the process of fighting with someone else,
-will you still not be affected by my actions?
-will you still not be harmed by my actions?

Mondisweets:


THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
-conduct
-unlawfulness
-fault
-causation
-liability

THESE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A DELICT
-conduct
-unlawfulness
-fault
-causation
-damage
-cupability

so, what exactly was I mixing up?

You brought in contributory negligence which is a defence in tort. We are arguing on self defence here which is a criminal defence.

Mondisweets:

if I push someone im fighting with against you or if I harm you in the process of fighting with someone else,
-will you still not be affected by my actions?
-will you still not be harmed by my actions?

but in this video, what you highlighted above didn't happen. i saw a man that defended himself against all the idiöts that put their hands on him.

there's nowhere in the law where it says self defence cannot be acted out in public. in this video, all the innocent folks managed to be out of harm's way.

so why is this guy the one to blame?

BABE3:


I heard shequina friend-zoned him prior to that fight. He thought defending her would take him out of the zone; instead, he lost the fight like a huge sissy. Back to square one for him.




Jesus Christ.

Eiyah to them, what a disappointment.

Guys!!

So I mistakenly clicked on one of s*eun's advert, and it directed to me to a site called yarn*me. I didn't cancel initially because I noticed it was a forum. As I was surveying the forum, I clicked on the romance tab and what did I find?

Sexkillz, and dygeezy were the moderators of the section. Omo, I didn't know ............. #factfinders #gossip of the day #I didn't know one could mk a career out of being an online mod. KAI!

Mondisweets:
he was suppose to defend himself without affecting other passengers who had nothing to do with their fight. you can never be wrong if you defend yourself provided that it does not affect the interests of any other person who is not your attacker.

I take it you didn't watch the video because I don't see how his actions affected any other person but his attackers.

BananaBender:
Guys!!

So I mistakenly clicked on one of seun's advert, and it directed to me to a site called yarn*me. I didn't cancel initially because I noticed it was a forum. As I was surveying the forum, I clicked on the romance tab and what did I find?

Sexkillz, and dygeezy were the moderators of the section. Omo, I didn't know being an online moderator is a career oh. KAI!

Lmao. My day has been made. Link us, please.

You have to Google it, "Oga at the top" banned the word

Remove the asterix symbol in www.yarn*me.com.ng

kandiikane:

You brought in contributory negligence which is a defence in tort. We are arguing on self defence here which is a criminal defence.

kandiikane na lawyer?

kandiikane:

You brought in contributory negligence which is a defence in tort. We are arguing on self defence here which is a criminal defence.

a crime and delict can exist simultenatously where are a person commits a wrongful act did you try and Google that up too?

BananaBender:
You have to Google it, "Oga at the top" banned the word

Remove the asterix symbol in www.yarn*me.com.ng

Bruh, that place is like mini NL; all the usernames their are familiar.

And the love triangle story even continued over there.

I've bookmarked the page. Juicy af.

Plexus, SirShymex, 50calibre, abiL ...........I need y'all to take a look at this website.

@BABE3: You have sharp eyes oh, post the link to where I can find d juicy details
TBH, it looks like a better NL.

Mondisweets:


if you failed to understand what I said in my previous post, even though I used simple English then I don't know how else I can help you

You should try helping yourself first. You still don't get it. We are arguing in criminal, the man did not attack any other persons except those he was defending himself against, he has case. He tried removing himself from the situation but was attacked, the force was reasonable. That reasonableness is judged around the circumstances of how he believed it to be(subjective).

Trying to assess whether he caused harm to those people due to negligence should be assessed in tort but that's not what we are arguing here. Those people are the ones who will have to sue him but even at that that man won't be held liable because that decisive action that lead to the fight which may cause bystanders harm was made by the woman so the woman would be the one they should sue not the man.

The latter is non of your business because as you can see from evidence no bystander was attacked. If you see a fight and you stand there like an ediot instead of moving yourself from harm's way then you were also negligent. but as I have written our business is the assault(criminal) in this case.

coogar:


kandiikane na lawyer?

I thought you knew everything about me na.

Mondisweets:
definitely, like I said he had the right to retaliate but it had to be within reasonable and justifiable means.

tell me something "master in law",
if a girl was in a train and was about to be raped by 4 men and then she tries to defend herself with a weapon (say a golf stick ),she missed one of the rapist and hit a fellow lady who was in the train.
when this case get to the court will she be charged for public disturbance and violent on an innocent person?
I just want to know.