kandiikane:

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)

well my study records shows something else entirely different, and it doesn't change that fact

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

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

making irrelevant points in an argument aren't we? i guess you are the one who doesn't have anything sensible to bring up which is why you have gone back to personal attacks
civil actions and criminal actions can both the brought in a High Court, so i don't see the point you are trying to make

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.

wait negligence is not a form of fault in both a criminal case and a civil case? last time i checked it a form of fault in both

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

i saw 2 male passengers in that video that were hit while trying to stop the fight, but hey i guess you can't call them getting hit suffering harm now can you

kandiikane:


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 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.

so hitting people all over a public train to the extent that some people have to move away from the scene to safeguard themselves doesn't constitute as gross conduct?

kandiikane:


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.

you are the one who claimed that mens rea has to be present for conduct to be considered negligent and you think im the one arguing pointlessly hilarious

Dheartless:

1.well then, there are no dead innocent persons or even dead guilty persons in that video
2.there are no innocent victims affected

if no one was affected why did other passengers move away? and if no innocent passenger was harmed, what do you call hitting those passengers who tried to stop the fight?

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.

do you call the beat-down he gave to the second girl "minimal"?

3.the only person who would've have gotten a chance to proove a crime committed against him would be the guy (crime for both verbal and physical abuse, and also crime for possible threat of reoccurrance of the committed crimes against him)

and the passengers plus the video cannot prove that both parties acted violently in public?
please tell me why its called public violence again?

Mondisweets:
well my study records shows something else entirely different, and it doesn't change that fact


making irrelevant points in an argument aren't we? i guess you are the one who doesn't have anything sensible to bring up which is why you have gone back to personal attacks
civil actions and criminal actions can both the brought in a High Court, so i don't see the point you are trying to make


wait negligence is not a form of fault in both a criminal case and a civil case? last time i checked it a form of fault in both


i saw 2 male passengers in that video that were hit while trying to stop the fight, but hey i guess you can't call them getting hit suffering harm now can you

Mondi like I wrote before before I don't know where you are but where are am, county courts deal with civil matters and magistrates courts deal with criminal matters(yes, this may sometimes deal with civil too) but as you can see, the courts have different functions. Even the high court and different courts within which deals with different things.
you still don't get the point, you cannot argue a tort in criminal. The criminal court will deal with it's own side and the civil will deal with it's own. It's not personal, it's plain old fact. If someone is being stup!d they should be told.
Here is a break down of the UK court system.
[img]http://law.duke.edu/images/library/UKcourts2009.jpg[/img]

kandiikane:


Mondi like I wrote before before I don't know where you are but where are am, county courts deal with civil matters and magistrates courts deal with criminal matters(yes, this may sometimes deal with civil too) but as you can see, the courts have different functions. Even the high court and different courts within which deals with different things.
you still don't get the point, you cannot argue a tort in criminal. The criminal court will deal with it's own side and the civil will deal with it's own. It's not personal, it's plain old fact. If someone is being stup!d they should be told.
Here is a break down of the UK court system.
[img]http://law.duke.edu/images/library/UKcourts2009.jpg[/img]

its also plain stu.pid to confuse classes of law with elements of law. you get elements of a crime, elements of a delict and elements of a contract, but when you are classifying law you call them classes of law not elements of law

private law and public law = classes of law not elements of law. learn the difference

Plexus:
ha, did you read his posts?

LML! Nooooooooo!

Did you?

Why do people do that shit? Arguing in public? Cursing at other people?


This girl can't be Nigerian. I've never seen a Nigerian girl act like this in public.

This is why I role with crowds within my standard; professional/ humble in public.

Mondisweets:


if no one was affected why did other passengers move away? and if no innocent passenger was harmed, what do you call hitting those passengers who tried to stop the fight?

do you call the beat-down he gave to the second girl "minimal"?

and the passengers plus the video cannot prove that both parties acted violently in public?
please tell me why its called public violence again?

I understand that you would want to stand your ground (right or wrong) since this is a debate or better an arguement .
a wise man once said " arguement only grows deeper and results into resentment and disagreement rather than agreement"
so I will let your opinions be .

but not before this last "fun"

answer to the last part of your post is:
one party (which constitute of a number of persons) violently attack a second party (which constitute of just a guy), and the second party resulted into self defense in the most careful way anyone could've defended himself/herself in same situation.

Mondisweets:
its also plain stupid to call classes of law elements of law. you get elements of a crime, elements of a delict and elements of a contract, but when you are classifying law you call them classes of law not elements of law

don't try to act smart with me because you clearly aren't. I could say classes of law is the wrong term to use instead you should have used "body"or instead of saying elements of crime, I could say you should have used "principles" or instead of using that I could say you should have used concepts or instead of that you should have used doctrines. Abeg, don't try to bullshyt me.

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.

please tell me how you came to the conclusion that I wrote you need mens rea for negligence after reading this.?

Dheartless:

answer to the last part of your post is:
one party (which constitute of a number of persons) violently attack a second party (which constitute of just a guy), and the second party resulted into self defense in the most careful way anyone could've defended himself/herself in same situation.

when one party attacks another and the other party retaliates without exceeding limits =self-defence
when one party attacks another then the other party retaliates and more people become part of the attack = public violence

I never said that the girl was not wrong. my argument is that they were both wrong for public violence

Mondisweets:


when one party attacks another and the other party retaliates without exceeding limits =self-defence
when one party attacks another then the other party retaliates and more people become part of the attack = public violence

I never said that the girl was not wrong. my argument is that they were both wrong for public violence

I am telling you there is no evidence in the video that showed he attacked anyone else. I had answered your question on public interest which relates to the public violence you are talking about. He won't be held liable because there is no evidence he caused harmed to the public. The circumstance is him being attacked if anything it is the girls that will looked at.

Even if he had hit someone, let's say someone trying to get away from the fight and he thought it was one of the girls coming to attack him, He may use the defence of mistake.

fia

kandiikane:

don't try to act smart with me because you clearly aren't. I could say classes of law is the wrong term to use instead you should have used "body"or instead of saying elements of crime, I could say you should have used "principles" or instead of using that I could say you should have used concepts or instead of that you should have used doctrines. Abeg, don't try to bullshyt me.

*body of law and classes of law -----> same thing
*body of law and elements of law ------> not the same thing


please tell me how you came to the conclusion that I wrote you need mens rea for negligence after reading this.?[/quote]

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.

I stated that she acted negligently (without a guilty mind). Just because she did not have the guilty mind to do so does not mean she can evade criminal liability.
if a doctor performs an operation and he recklessly fails to remove an instruments form the patient and stitches him up, if the falls sick as a result of it, you are telling me that he will be excluded from criminal liability because he didn't have have an intent to leave the object there?

kandiikane:

Even if he had hit someone, let's say someone trying to get away from the fight and he thought it was one of the girls coming to attack him, He may use the defence of mistake.

abusive girl was the only one attacked? do tell who the person he was beating up by the doors on the right is then?
he was attacking someone whilst the abusive girl was standing behind 2 other people who were trying to stop him from attacking whoever he was attacking.
mistake has replaced self-defence?

Mondisweets:
fia

*body of law and classes of law -----> same thing
*body of law and elements of law ------> not the same thing


please tell me how you came to the conclusion that I wrote you need mens rea for negligence after reading this.?

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 stated that she acted negligently (without a guilty mind). Just because she did not have the guilty mind to do so does not mean she can evade criminal liability.
if a doctor performs an operation and he recklessly fails to remove an instruments form the patient and stitches him up, if the falls sick as a result of it, you are telling me that he will be excluded from criminal liability because he he didn't have have an intent to leave the object there?

This is eidiotic! If you have nothing to argue about then don't bring in something stup!d! You didn't even comprehend what I wrote and you are here telling me nonsense. I am certain if I had written "areas" your myopic mind you would have told me it would have been the wrong term to use. I have never ever come across "classes of law" in any books, journals or lectures I have had but you don't see me using it as a point to argue because it's irrelevant. As long as thone you are referring to understand what you mean, you are correct.


I am talking about a bloody criminal case. You cannot say she would have being negligent for assault or some nonsense like that. If you cannot comprehend my statement reread my quote I referred you to. She lacked mens rea and it is not strict liabilty and cannot be charged for negligence what then?

Oh so now you use the correct term RECKLESS, you have learnt something today.

kandiikane:

This is eidiotic! If you have nothing to argue about then don't bring in something stup!d! You didn't even comprehend what I wrote and you are here telling me nonsense. I am certain if I had written "areas" your myopic mind you would have told me it would have been the wrong term to use. I have never ever come across "classes of law" in any books, journals or lectures I have had but you don't see me using it as a point to argue because it's irrelevant. As long as thone you are referring to understand what you mean, you are correct.


I am talking about a bloody criminal case. You cannot say she would have being negligent for assault or some nonsense like that. If you cannot comprehend my statement reread my quote I referred you to. She lacked mens rea and it is not strict liabilty and cannot be charged for negligence what then?

my dear stup.idty is not knowing that you can evade criminal liability only if both elements of intent and negligence are not present. if intent is absence but negligence is present you don't escape criminal liability!

kandiikane:


Oh so now you use the correct term RECKLESS, you have learnt something today.

acting recklessly and acting negligently is the same thing

Mondisweets:
abusive girl was the only one attacked? do tell who the person he was beating up by the doors on the right is then?
he was attacking someone whilst the abusive girl was standing behind 2 other people who were trying to stop him from attacking whoever he was attacking.
mistake has replaced self-defence?

did you not see the girl he was beating up attacking him?!

He got hit by the one talking shyt and he slapped her and the another girl started attacking him, he fought back and they all started hitting him. The girl he was fighting at the door attacked him first. Here is the video to refresh your mind just in case you miss that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czb4rImsph0

Mondisweets:
acting recklessly and acting negligently is the same thing

Nooooo! There is a legal difference between negligence and recklessness

Mondisweets:


my dear stup.idty is not knowing that you can evade criminal liability only if both elements of intent and negligence are not present. if intent is absence but negligence is present you don't escape criminal liability!

Stup!dity is failing to comprehend and see where one wrote that there is no case of negligence in this criminal case but of recklessness.

Mondisweets:
acting recklessly and acting negligently is the same thing

Woman you should stop fighting already ,go home you're drunk.

kandiikane:

did you not see the girl he was beating up attacking him?!

he blocked the attack and hit her with his other hand, then continues to bit her exceeding the limits of defending himself. The moment be blocked her hand that was enough to succeed with self-defence and the moment he kept punching her and swerving from on exit to the other, it exceeded the limits of self-defence and it become an unlawful attack!

He got hit by the one talking shyt and he slapped her and the another girl started attacking him, he fought back and they all started hitting him. The girl he was fighting at the door attacked him first. Here is the video to refresh your mind just in case you miss that part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czb4rImsph0

so if they all started fighting and limits of defending oneself where exceeded they all won't be found guilty of public violence?

Truckpusher:
Woman you should stop fighting already ,go home you're drunk.

hey you. u just reminded me there is something i wanted to tell you

Mondisweets:
hey you. u just reminded me there is something i wanted to tell you

offline?

@mondisweets

It doesn't matter whether he blocked the slap or not. All he is doing is defending himself from an attack by several people.

Do you need glasses? if I knew how to edit videos I would quick use a red mark to show you the sequence of events .

Like I told you, if he has taken out a gun or knife then that would have been seen as excessive force. The reasonable force is subjective and that's how the defendant saw the circumstance. You fail to see many relevant points in that video which are great clues to the guy's success. He was mostly quiet when that girl was going off. It was the girl that was behaving in a threatening manner and the friends egging her on(did you know the friends could be charged for that?). The guy took a precautionary measure to take himself out of the situation. All this is in the guy's favour, he had every right to defend himself and guess what even if he didn't walk away he still has a case.

I am just repeating my self because this is something I have written several times.

check your messages

Truckpusher:
offline?

Mondisweets:
check your messages

Sure.

kandiikane:


Do you need glasses? if I knew how to edit videos I would quick use a red mark to show you the sequence of events .

Like I told you, if he has taken out a gun or knife then that would have been seen as excessive force. The reasonable force is subjective and that's how the defendant saw the circumstance. You fail to see many relevant points in that video which are great clues to the guy's success. He was mostly quiet when that girl was going off. It was the girl that was behaving in a threatening manner and the friends egging her on(did you know the friends could be charged for that?). The guy took a precautionary measure to take himself about of the situation. All this is in the guy's favour, he had every right to defend himself and guess what even if he didn't walk away he still has a case.

I am just repeating my self because this is something I have written several times.

"applying reasonable force" is sucker punching an attacker severally when you managed to block her second attempt to hit you? he may claim self-defence where he slapped the first person back, but he will still be charged with public violence because of the attack on the second person. This is something i said on several occasions too

kandiikane:
@mondisweets

It doesn't matter whether he blocked the slap or not. All he is doing is defending himself from an attack by several people.

those were 2 individual attacks on 2 different people that occurred at different times not one attack by several people at the same time.

Like I told you, if he has taken out a gun or knife then that would have been seen as excessive force.

attacking a person in order to defend yourself is only limited to using reasonable force to stop the attack from continuing, not throwing several punches when there is no need protect yourself from further attack, that's called an unlawful attack!

Mondisweets:
"applying reasonable force" is sucker punching an attacker severally when you managed to block her second attempt to hit you? he may claim self-defence where he slapped the girl who slapped him back, but he will still be charged with public violence regardless. This is something i said on several occasions too

He would not be charged for public violence because self defence is based on evidence and is no evidence he attacked anyone who didn't attack him. I showed you a quote on reasonable force and how the judge said that,

"where there has been an attack where self-defence is necessary, it will be recognised that the person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought in the moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken"
I am certain if nairalanders were the jurors, they would all say reasonable for was used.


These are criterias in relation to public interest

:

-self- defence, being an absolute defence, is a matter of evidence and is not in itself a public interest consideration.

In many cases in which self-defence is raised, there will be no special public interest factors beyond those that fall to be considered in every case. However, in some cases, there will be public interest factors which arise only in cases involving self-defence or the prevention of crime.

These may include:

Degree of excessive force: if the degree of force used is not very far beyond the threshold of what is reasonable, a prosecution may not be needed in the public interest.
Final consequences of the action taken: where the degree of force used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime is assessed as being excessive, and results in death or serious injury, it will be only in very rare circumstances indeed that a prosecution will not be needed in the public interest. Minor or superficial injuries may be a factor weighing against prosecution.

The way in which force was applied: this may be an important public interest factor, as well as being relevant to the reasonableness of the force used. If a dangerous weapon, such as firearm, was used by the accused this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.

Premeditated violence: the extent to which the accused found themselves unexpectedly confronted by a violent situation, as opposed to having planned and armed themselves in the expectation of a violent situation.

Mondisweets:
those were 2 individual attacks on 2 different people that occurred at different times not one attack by several people at the same time.

attacking a person in order to defend yourself is only limited to using reasonable force to stop the attack from continuing, not throwing several punches when there is no need protect yourself from further attack, that's called an unlawful attack!

You are indeed drunk you must have been watching a different video. I have made my point and you have argued many wrong and irelevant points some of which you didn't know of.

Good night.

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.

Hahaha nah!! It's incomparable, that's like jumping from a frying pan into the fire.

That guy frustrated the hell out of me, I considered leaving NL for good at one point.