50calibre:


The website looks like an ersatz version of NL, nothing special, nothing unique or attractive,

Lmao...I won't be surprised in they actually copied NL's html page source to build the interface.

You can tell straight-away by just looking at the site.

Anyway, they need to copy NL's CSS, and align everything properly, to make it a pseudo-NL forum.

BananaBender:


I doubt it, no shade but I really doubt it.

He is most likely just a mod as he was here. Albino monkey takes his mod career seriously.

They can outshine NL. My friends won't come on here because they think it's razz and full of 'pomo' sellers.

NL does not have a nice reputation, plus tech guys seem to hate the site's user interface. Let me not start with how rude S*eun and his mods are.

Well, never say never, I don't blame your friends one bit, this place can be very annoying, the owner is someone you'll love to slap but still, there's just something about it that makes it a tad hard to just up and leave in a swift.

I'm calling Sexkillz to come get you and shymex .

SirShymex:


Lmao...I won't be surprised in they actually copied NL's html page source to build the interface.

You can tell straight-away by just looking at the site.

Anyway, they need to copy NL's CSS, and align everything properly, to make it a pseudo-NL forum.

Hahahaha that website is DOA, dead on arrival, built to fail. Whoever designed this poor imitation of NL is so dumb & lacks foresight

I viewed it on my phone so the misalignment wasn't noticeable.

50calibre:


Hahahaha that website is DOA, dead on arrival, built to fail. Whoever designed this poor imitation of NL is so dumb & lacks foresight

I viewed it on my phone so the misalignment wasn't noticeable.

Check it on the laptop.

[img]http://media./media/4UWsamZbDCu5O/giphy.gif[/img]

BananaBender:


I can't dispute the highlighted, I can't argue with numbers or fact. I'm just saying the forum isn't a cheap version of NL at all. It is a better version of Nl.

They are not courting me, LOL!

Didn't u read my story on how I came about the site?

You saw an ad here on NL

Well I'm not impressed with it. I don't see anything that could motivate people to join. It has way lesser traffic/members, & that's a poor alternative for disgruntled NL users who want to leave as it has the chief online dictator himself Die Fuhrer Sexkillz.

50calibre:


You saw an ad here on NL

Well I'm not impressed with it. I don't see anything that could motivate people to join. It has way lesser traffic/members, & that's a poor alternative for disgruntled NL users who want to leave as it has the chief online dictator himself Die Fuhrer Sexkillz.

Lol, that guy is Hitler personified with the Third Reich.

Se.un has his problems, but you just can't compare the two.

If it had been one of the decent mods on NL...but that nyggah? And the other clown, just.wise in the travel section.

Two inconsequential and narcissistic bums.

SirShymex:


Lol, that guy is Hitler personified with the Third Reich.

Se.un has his problems, but you just can't compare the two.

If it had been one of the decent mods on NL...but that nyggah? And the other clown, just.wise in the travel section.

Two inconsequential and narcissistic bums.

LMAO! That's my number one turn-off.

I can't go to a site where I would be disrespected on a regular.

NL has calm down though. No more unnecessary battles btw mods and "oga" neither do I get banned every two days.

Sexkillz is still serving jail time in Aba..

kandiikane:

you are unbelievable so if you were in court right now, lets say (R v blackman on train) and you are trying to establish an assault case? Would you be arguing in tort? You are confused.

A delict and a crime was committed simultaneously, this is not a criminal case neither is it a civil case its a simply discussion on a public forum not a legal argument in court so I can raise my points from whichever angle I deem fit. Maybe if you stop focusing on other people's qualifications, you might make time to get your own too

Plexus:
Sexkillz is still serving jail time in Aba..

Did you even know what is going on here?

BananaBender:


Did you even know what is going on here?

Nah, please tell me

Dheartless:

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.

If negligence is sufficiently proven as a form of fault she can still be found guilty of assault not public violence. Same way Oscar Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to murder because the state prosecutor failed to prove an intention to kill.

I will give you an example of 2 similar cases were different judgments were given

In, Pinchin v Santam a pregnant woman was involved in a car accident and as a result of the accident she lost amniotic fluid and when her child was born, the child was born with a disorder. she managed to prove that there was a casual link between the car accident with caused her to lose amniotic fluid and the disorder her child developed. she was awarded compensation for damages.

In RAF v Mtati a pregnant woman was involved in a car accident and when the child was born the child developed brain damage. she could not sufficiently prove the casual link between the car accident and the brain damage her child suffered and her claimed was dismissed

in both cases the nasciturus rule was applied in the Pinchin case it was allowed and in the Mtati case it was denied. Each is considered on its own merits

Plexus:
Nah, please tell me

I mean *do! *ARgh!*

There is a site called www.yarn*me.com.ng.

(Remove the asterix symbol when you copy it)

Click on the romance section, there is a surprise waiting for you

Mondisweets:
A delict and a crime was committed simultaneously, this is not a criminal case neither is it a civil case its a simply discussion on a public forum not a legal argument in court so I can raise my points from whichever angle I deem fit. Maybe if you stop focusing on other people's qualifications, you might make time to get your own too

stop talking nonsense mehn! You are implying that you are more qualified than me yet you the "qualified" person knows nothing of the law. If this was simply a discussion on a public forum why did you quote me when I wrote about charges being brought. As an aspiring lawyer, every issue should be looked at legally, real life scenarios like these are always in court, that's how you improve and learn when you are outside your lecture room. There is no right or wrong answer in law, it is how you construct and argue your case that will give you the results you want. That's why you see people who are obviously guilty in day to day situations proven innocent in a court of law. It takes a damn good defence lawyer to analyse every issue and also prepare answers to that which will be thrown at him by the persecutioner. I don't focus on other people'a qualifications but if you are going to bring in something I have studied thoroughly and I am good at then just make sure you don't quote me on it. Criminal and tort are two seperate elements of law. If an issues arises where someone was assaulted and suffered loss, they can bring a case in criminal and tort but not at the same time, that's why you have different courts. You cannot bring a criminal charge in a civil court, neither can you bring a claim of tort in a criminal court. As I have written, you are confused.

A tort cannot be committed unless someone suffered damages/loss. You don't know whether the bystanders suffered damages. The matter as we see them is who attacked and who. If you were going to argue, you should have argued about the lady in particular and not the bystanders, that is why you quoted me. For now that's none of your concern. The bystanders will sue the guy and group of girls if they suffered any harm.

Mondisweets:

If negligence is sufficiently proven as a form of fault she can still be found guilty of assault not public violence. Same way Oscar Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to murder because the state prosecutor failed to prove an intention to kill.

how was she negligent in hitting him. He was walking away. She did it deliberately. Do you know the meaning of negligence even in the general sense? Is this a murder case?Madam go read your books.

Fyi. Criminal negligence arises primarily when someone is dead. This is why I ask you are you arguing in tort or criminal law. You keep mixing up the two. Argue them separately.

kandiikane:

how was she negligent in hitting him. He was walking away. She did it deliberately. Do you know the meaning of negligence even in the general sense? Is this a murder case?Madam go read your books.

if you took anytime at all to read the quote I posted you will realise that I gave that response according to the scenario the poster gave me and not that video. thank you for the encouragement, take your own advice and start reading posts before you reply for the sake of replying

Mondisweets:
if you took anytime at all to read the quote I posted you will realise that I gave that response according to the scenario the poster gave me and not that video. thank you for the encouragement, take your own advice and start reading posts before you reply for the sake of replying

Remember you mentioned negligence earlier and I asked you how, you failed to reply. I kept on asking is it criminal or tort you are arguing, you gave me nonsense.
You are still wrong with the answer given to that man's scenario because she lacked the mens rea to hit that particular woman and her offence of hitting is not that of strict liabilty.

Very Intelesting.

BananaBender:

I mean *do! *ARgh!*

There is a site called www.yarn*me.com.ng.

(Remove the asterix symbol when you copy it)

Click on the romance section, there is a surprise waiting for you

That can't be the real sexkillz, yes they're both shithouses but this one takes shithousing to an entirely new level.

Law school by nairaland

kandiikane:

stop talking nonsense mehn! You are implying that you are more qualified than me yet you the "qualified" person knows nothing of the law. If this was simply a discussion on a public forum why did you quote me when I wrote about charges being brought. As an aspiring lawyer, every issue should be looked at legally, real life scenarios like these are always in court, that's how you improve and learn when you are outside your lecture room. There is no right or wrong answer in law, it is how you construct and argue your case that will give you the results you want.

as someone who likes sounding more intelligent and knowledgeable your should know that litigation is not the only thing a person can do with an LLB you just because learnt you 2 new things on google and suddenly you are MissKnowItAll

That's why you see people who are obviously guilty in day to day situations proven innocent in a court of law. It takes a damn good defence lawyer to analyse every issue and also prepare answers to that which will be throw at him by the persecutioner. I don't focus on other people'a qualifications but if you are going to bring in something I have studied thoroughly and I am good at then just make sure you don't quote me on it.

Criminal and tort are two seperate elements of law.

you just learnt something new today classes of law are not the same thing as elements of law

If an issues arises where someone was assaulted and suffered loss, they can bring a case in criminal and tort but not at the same time, that's why you have different courts.

the correct phrase would, they will be raised in different actions not different courts.

You cannot bring a criminal charge in a civil court, neither can you bring a claim of tort in a criminal court. As I have written, you are confused.

this is a discussion on NL not a legal argument in the High Court so why can't I discuss the issue from both angles?

A tort cannot be committed unless someone suffered damages/loss. You don't know whether the bystanders suffered damages. The matter as we see them is who attacked and who. If you were going to argue, you should have argued about the lady in particular and not the bystanders, that is why you quoted me. For now that's none of your concern. The bystanders will sue the guy and group of girls if they suffered any harm.

suffering harm is suffering damage! that's why people claim for damages for defamation of character

kandiikane:


Remember you mentioned negligence earlier and I asked you how, you failed to reply. I kept on asking is it criminal or tort you are arguing, you gave me nonsense.
You are still wrong with the answer given to that man's scenario because she lacked the mens rea to hit that particular woman and her offence of hitting is not that of strict liabilty.

I did mention in the previous post that the guy failed to take standard of care when he had the duty to do so. i.e. he failed to make sure that his retaliation did not affect other people apart from the person that attacked where he had a duty to do so. then again you kept saying that I was defending the girl, even though I expressed in bold letters that "she was at fault too" I guess so long im not agreeing with your opinion, then I'm wrong

She was the aggressor and she hit him first. I don't support ill-mannered, beastly people.
As per physical abuse in response to verbal abuse, both affirmative and non-affirmative answers to this question can be bastardized.
If we said no, physical abuse should not be the response to verbal abuse, human beings would take advantage and shoot their mouth faster than a speeding bullet. Then we say physical violence is justifiable, oh dear I'm sure some people on this thread would turn their houses into a WWE monday night smackdown.
Our responses are subjective at the end of the day.
People should just act with manners and respect each other. But I know this is just an idealized speech, hehehe.

you guys are still arguing....

what else is there to argue? the babe committed common assault on 3 counts. verbal abuse, physical abuse on the primary victim & a 2nd physical abuse on the secondary victim.

the man simply stood his ground - he retreated like the law of NY state says on SYG policy but he still got assaulted by the girl. his reaction wasn't planned or premeditated, he only acted out of instinct.

if an officer of the law was on that train. both would have been arrested. the babe would get a felony count while the man can only get a count for misdemeanour. that's pretty much the summary of this case.

you law-girls should go & save thousands of innocent detainees in nigerian prisons instead of boring us with crime & tort stories. better still, go & cook porridge for your respective husbands.

Mondisweets:

If negligence is sufficiently proven as a form of fault she can still be found guilty of assault not public violence. Same way Oscar Pistorius was charged with culpable homicide as opposed to murder because the state prosecutor failed to prove an intention to kill.

I will give you an example of 2 similar cases were different judgments were given

In, Pinchin v Santam a pregnant woman was involved in a car accident and as a result of the accident she lost amniotic fluid and when her child was born, the child was born with a disorder. she managed to prove that there was a casual link between the car accident with caused her to lose amniotic fluid and the disorder her child developed. she was awarded compensation for damages.

In RAF v Mtati a pregnant woman was involved in a car accident and when the child was born the child developed brain damage. she could not sufficiently prove the casual link between the car accident and the brain damage her child suffered and her claimed was dismissed

in both cases the nasciturus rule was applied in the Pinchin case it was allowed and in the Mtati case it was denied. Each is considered on its own merits

so then according to your post, kandikane is correct,
because he (the man in the video) MAY only be charged if a passenger claims to be affected by his(the man in the video) actions to defend himself and also he (the man in the video) MAY only be guilty if the said passenger is able to proove that he or she was tangibly affected by the actions of "the man in video"
if I didn't come clear, let me know.

kandiikane:

You are still wrong with the answer given to that man's scenario because she lacked the mens rea to hit that particular woman and her offence of hitting is not that of strict liabilty.

dear when you lack a "guilty mind" it means you lack an intention to do something, (you were negligent). negligence is when you act without a guilty mind but cause a wrongful act because you failed to take precaution when you were supposed to do so. where there is a presence of a guilty mind, the sufficient form of fault to be proven is intent and where there is no presence of a guilty mind the sufficient form of fault to be proven is negligence

before you get too excited and just bringing up latin terms, try and make sure you understand them

Plexus:
That can't be the real sexkillz, yes they're both shithouses but this one takes shithousing to an entirely new level.

Lol, it's him jo. His co-mod is also an ex NL member.

Mondisweets:
as someone who likes sounding more intelligent and knowledgeable your should know that litigation is not the only thing a person can do with an LLB just because learnt you 2 new things on google does not make you MissKnowItAll

you should try Google it seems your tutors aren't doing a very good job. That's where I buy all my books.
Talk all you want, all I am saying you cannot argue a criminal case in eg. Contract(haaah, oh look I know of contract too. That's 3 things now google taught me already)

you just learnt something new today classes of law are not the same thing elements of law

I am just going to act like I didn't see this.

the correct phrase would, they will be raised in different actions not different courts.

Again, I will ignore this. I guess in your village every single case from murder to who stole a single potato are brought a single court

this is a discussion on NL not a legal argument in the High Court so why can't I discuss the issue from both angles?

Because it is stup!d in the way you are arguing it. For someone that doesn't study law, they would assume from what you wrote that negligence in tort can be argued in a criminal case or that criminal negligence arises in this case or in any situation like this.

suffering harm is suffering damage! that's why people claim for damages for defamation of character

Wow! This is still tort! How many times have i mentioned harm/loss/damages. Of course, they are the same thing in tort!!

Dheartless:

so then according to your post, kandikane is correct,
because he (the man in the video) MAY only be charged if a passenger claims to be affected

look up res ipsa locquitur. if the facts speak for themselves there will be no need for a passanger to expressly claim that he/she was affected. do you wait for a dead victim to express a claim that he was killed before you charge someone with murder?

by his(the man in the video) actions to defend himself

i never refused that he retaliated after being attacked.

and also he (the man in the video) MAY only be guilty if the said passenger is able to proove that he or she was tangibly affected by the actions of "the man in video"
if I didn't come clear, let me know.

the moment the fight escalated to include other people it exceeded limits of defence, it became an act of violence in the public

BananaBender:


Lol, it's him jo. His co-mod is also an ex NL member.

ha, did you read his posts?

Mondisweets:


look up res ipsa locquitur. if the facts speak for themselves there will be no need for a passanger to expressly claim that he/she was affected. do you wait for a dead victim to express a claim that he was killed before you charge someone with murder?


i never refused that he retaliated after being attacked.

the moment the fight escalated to include other people it exceeded limits of defence, it became an act of violence in the public

1.well then, there are no dead innocent persons or even dead guilty persons in that video
2.there are no innocent victims affected by the guys self defense and if there was any, the degree of its effect would've have been minimal and would've not been a very serious case against the guy.
3.the only person who would've have gotten a chance to prove a crime committed against him would be the guy (crime for both verbal and physical abuse, and also crime for threat of possible reoccurrence of the committed crimes against him)

Mondisweets:
dear when you lack a "guilty mind" it means you lack an intention to do something, (you were negligent). negligence is when you act without a guilty mind but cause a wrongful act because you failed to take precaution when you were supposed to do so. where there is a presence of a guilty mind, the sufficient form of fault to be proven is intent and where there is no presence of a guilty mind the sufficient form of fault to be proven is negligence

before you get too excited and just bringing up latin terms, try and make sure you understand them

again, I mention to you that this is criminal not tort. You cannot say if negligence is sufficiently proven as form of fault it will be assault. It is the wrong term to use. Negligence is rarely brought in a criminal case unless there has been some gross conduct such as the death of the victim. Recklessness could be brought in because although the woman didn't have the mens rea to hit the woman she had the intention to hit the rapists. She did not intend for the woman to be harmed but her action was to cause harm, she knew it wold do so and still went ahead to cause the harm which resulted in an unintended victim being hit.


Listen, I have the flu and I don't see the point in going on with this if you keep on mixing tort and criminal. You are draining my energy by arguing pointlessly.