₦airaland Forum

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

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.

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

Nooooo! There is a legal difference between negligence and recklessness

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:
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.

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.

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.?

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]

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

MizMyColi:
Moderation is key, in everything.

Case in point, me.

I like to be pampered.
No sane lady doesn't.

However, some of us (ladies) are too controlling in that regard.
We expect the man to go out of his way for us, we expect him to know just what to say to us, how to and when to.
We really don't care about him, except he cares about us.
Ideally, it shouldn't be that way.

A man thinks differently from a woman, there are those times when he just can't bring himself to pamper and be all lovey dovey.
This is why it is dangerous for ladies to base their sense of self worth on people's validation.
Let all the validation you need come from within, not without.

That way, when the pampering becomes less or totally absent, you're able to carry on without loosing confidence in your man/relationship.

To both sides of the divide, I have this to say.

A healthy relationship is about so many + factors.
One major + factor is; Compromise, healthy compromise.

I agree except the going out of his way. When I love/care for someone I will go out of my way to make them happy that's just how I am naturally and that is just how i see it and I expect the same in return. Now, everyone is different, I have been with someone who loves but has never been the one to make that 'effort' and I have been with someone who loves and goes all out for me. There is nothing wrong with a man who has his limits to what he would do for someone he loves but he just has to do that with someone who doesn't mind. You shouldn't go off at those who believe that a loved one should go out of their way to make them happy. I knew someone who liked to be treated like a 'king', I gladly met his needs because he would never hesitate to do the same for me. We all should treat people how we want to be treated. It's not just women who like being pampered, any sane human with emotions does. If your statement is talking about women who take take take but never give then I agree with everything.

coogar:
ask mondi?
a long jail term is guaranteed then. mondi would argue assault in court for a blatant murder case.

Lmaoo

coogar:
no mediation. this debt has been going on longer than all the x-factor series. it's time to take the law into my hands.

besides, i want to see you in court. your wig, your black robe and your objections. i am ready to pay £300 per hour.

deal or no deal?

lool ask mondisweets.

coogar:
i do but i never knew this bit.
kandii the solicitor. i might have a case later in december. my debtor has refused to pay & i am thinking of going to her house to have her ravaged by my pitbull.

can you defend me?

Taa! You wish you knew me.

That will be a criminal act, the fact that you have mentioned it here is evidence if police catch you. Why not try a different route instead of court? Mediation?

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

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.

coogar:
kandiikane na lawyer?

I thought you knew everything about me na.

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.

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?


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.

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:
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

@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

wonlasewonimi:
How can you have gender equality when one gender cannot piss into a bottle without spillage.

A woman can piss in a bottle without spillage.

BananaBender:
aawww Mondi

Don't mind kandiikane, she's been inhaling too much salicylic acid.

lol

@Mondisweets I apologise if you took offence to that statement but I use to get that a lot when I use to do group work, people failed to read and come to argue with irrelevant points.

Remember this is a criminal case and not a tortious one, don't confuse the two.

coogar:
he retaliated in self defence. would the man have smacked the girl if she didn't hit him first?


.

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!

Mondisweets:
I respect you as a woman and I don't understand why you have to make it personal, because I never wanted to take it there in the first place. lets stick to the purpose of the thread.

so was the harm caused on the other passengers "was applied as it was received"?

which other passengers? Who else did you see being hit except for those who jump on him?

Mondisweets:
HOW MANY TIMES WILL I SAY SHE TOO WAS AT FAULT AND SHE COMMITTED A CRIME there is something called joint wrongdoers look it up! I really don't understand what your problem is sef

You don't understand my problem? I understand yours, stop copying your friends' notes. Joint wrong doers/contributory negligence is a defence used in tort and we are talking about a criminal case here. Even if it was a case in tort, someone must suffer damages. Now let say he suffered some injury, tell me how the guy contributed to injuries he sustained from the fight since he is the one suing them here. Remember this has now become a tortious case. Where is the negligence on his own part?

Mondisweets:
I still am. what degree do you have?

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.