Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And what was his intention? Might it have been to protect himself and those around him from drunk and disorderly individuals who had no concept of boundaries to the point where they were mounting the counter and sliding over into the staff area?
    Give up, CareFree is right (coming from another Law student). There is no defence in criminal law of self-defence where there is no evidence of a clear and present threat. The fact that someone is drunk does not itself constitute a threat; clearly if it did, every man and his dog would suddenly have the right to use force against anyone who was drunk.

    The touching could and probably would be battery, subject to a finding that it was not touching of the type that one ordinarily encounters on a daily basis and which one impliedly consents to.

    That's all I have to contribute.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And what was his intention? Might it have been to protect himself and those around him from drunk and disorderly individuals who had no concept of boundaries to the point where they were mounting the counter and sliding over into the staff area?
    Not sure that'd work but it's a nice angle...

    His intention was to touch them, obviously some defences are available but i dont think any of them apply here, if they didnt consent and it wasn't an everyday jostling (bumping into someone on a crowded street for example for which there is implied consent) it was a battery.
    Thats all me and chocolemon were saying, we didn't say it wasnt undeserving or defending the girls we simply stated that legally it was a common assault and he should have been more careful and handled the situation differently.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    Criticism can be helpful and constructive, useless belittling for no real reason, insulting for no real reason is utterly pathetic, "maybe you should reconsider where your life is going and where your behaviour is getting you" is always preferable to "Slut"

    I dont actually consider slut to have any real meaning or effect...people have sex..some more than others...some with more people than others...so what.
    I agree with your latter statement. I just consider the former to be neither here nor there. I feel the same way as I do if someone were to say "hey, your red cap is STOOPID". They have a right to say it and it doesn't make a difference to anyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    Not sure that'd work but it's a nice angle...

    His intention was to touch them, obviously some defences are available but i dont think any of them apply here, if they didnt consent and it wasn't an everyday jostling (bumping into someone on a crowded street for example for which there is implied consent) it was a battery.
    Thats all me and chocolemon were saying, we didn't say it wasnt undeserving or defending the girls we simply stated that legally it was a common assault and he should have been more careful and handled the situation differently.
    Except you have absolutely no impetus to make the statements in bold. If there were any grey area - it'd be for a court to decide. In any case, this is self-defence. And your notion that these people can't possibly be committing a crime worthy of defending against (by having to touch them) because they're "just white, semi-attractive females" is pretty atrocious.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I agree with your latter statement. I just consider the former to be neither here nor there. I feel the same way as I do if someone were to say "hey, your red cap is STOOPID". They have a right to say it and it doesn't make a difference to anyone.
    and i still say you didnt deserve it and it was unnecessary... just as she didnt deserve to be called a slut...even if it did have a real meaning and effect it was used in the wrong context she was being a drunk and disorderly idiot..not a slut "stop being an idiot" would've made more sense...i simply disagree with how he handled the situation, there's police to deal with drunk and disorderly people for a reason.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Because you're laying down a standard for what is and isn't acceptable when I can be almost certain that you wouldn't have the same expectations for a 'person of colour'.
    Almost certain, huh? No, you're just wrong. That isn't what I think, at all. I would think exactly the same thing. You're trying to make this into a race-related hypocrisy, and it isn't. I would think exactly the same if they were black and/or male.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    It's your notion that "they can't possibly be dangerous because look at them! they're female, they're no threat" that is suspect here and the same paradigm carries over into race.
    Please quote where I have said anything that suggests that my opinion in infuenced by race or gender.

    I'm not saying that can't be dangerous. I am saying that, as of the moment that the man chose to assault them, they weren't a danger to themselves or others, and therefore he should not have touched them.

    The defences to assault are:

    Consent
    Arrest
    Prevention of Crime
    Defense of Property

    I know that you will leap on the last two, so I'll use them right now.

    Prevention of Crime
    Their crime of disorderly conduct and criminal damage (if it's even that, I.E. the mess they've made) has already been committed, therefore he was not preventing a crime.

    Defense of Property
    We can't really use this, as homeowners are only allowed to use force considered reasonable at the time of the offence on burglars. So a civilian who is not a staff member or owner of the building has no legal standing to defend the property.




    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Do tell me which subsection of common assault this comes under? I'm not going to accept answer other than one that links to a law which accepts your claim that this man assaults them. Until then, your statement isn't true.
    Why don't you go and look at the definition of assault? R v Constanza and R v Wilson show that words alone can be an assault, and R v Ireland even shows that silence can be an assault. Grabbing someone is most definately an assault.

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Civilians have a right to protect themselves and have every right to protect the sanctity of a public area. Being drunk and disorderly is not an acceptable crime to commit in a public area and people have every right to take reasonable measures to ensure their safety.
    He's not protecting himself. They're not being aggressive or making threats. Can you show me anything that proves that he is entitled to physically assault someone in order to prevent them from throwing more food on the floor?

    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Except simply touching someone who is committing a crime in a given establishment isn't assault. I'm waiting for your evidence.
    I'm waiting for anything that shows that you're allowed to assault someone who has not shown themselves to be a danger, has not attempted an offence and is not even on your property. Do you have something that says that? If you do, I'll read it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    and i still say you didnt deserve it and it was unnecessary... just as she didnt deserve to be called a slut...even if it did have a real meaning and effect it was used in the wrong context she was being a drunk and disorderly idiot..not a slut "stop being an idiot" would've made more sense...i simply disagree with how he handled the situation, there's police to deal with drunk and disorderly people for a reason.
    And since when did all dialogue have to be "necessary" in order to be valid? I believe this is called free speech.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    Except you have absolutely no impetus to make the statements in bold. If there were any grey area - it'd be for a court to decide. In any case, this is self-defence. And your notion that these people can't possibly be committing a crime worthy of defending against (by having to touch them) because they're "just white, semi-attractive females" is pretty atrocious.
    There isnt a grey area and it wasn't self defence, where's the immediate harm to him?

    i dont get the last bit, where did i say anything about being white attractive females?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    and this is right below the 'we have no need for feminism anymore' thread. oh, the irony.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And since when did all dialogue have to be "necessary" in order to be valid? I believe this is called free speech.
    Doesn't make it right though does it? For someone who is not at all promiscuous or even sexually active being called something like a slut can be really very hurtful and damaging (assume she'd remember it the next morning) it's just plain cruel and makes him no better than the girls he insulted.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    Because people are sexist, its becoming more acceptable in females.

    By "complications" I didn't mean by way of other people's doing. I mean by way of, "hmm, feeling lonely, better fill that void with sex!", then later complaining they find it difficult to find someone genuine.

    but its the wrong term, she wasn't even being promiscuous...calling someone a slut for being drunk and disorderly just doesnt make sense

    You are correct there. Slut wasn't really the right word, more just idiotic.

    find someone else then ¬.¬ That's you're issue not theirs, why should they stop doing something they enjoy for you?

    I have found others, I am just quite sick of this particular pattern happening, and that is a valid justification for disagreeing with it. I would not want to cause those same feelings in a girl that might be interested in me, and naturally I would prefer if everybody else felt the same.

    thats they're life choice, they're hurting only themselves and thats their decision, again they dont deserve to be belittled for their life choices, if it bothered them that much they'd stop, they're obviously getting some enjoyment from it.

    Sure, like I said they can do what they want, but like with politics, religion, etc. people may hold the right to disagree with other people's life choices. Nobody deserves to be free from judgement for lifestyle choices. If person A does something, person B has every right to disagree and judge them on that behaviour.

    then she's an idiot with no self control not a "slut".

    By my personal definition, in that context, they are exactly the same thing.
    :unimpressed:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Almost certain, huh? No, you're just wrong. That isn't what I think, at all. I would think exactly the same thing. You're trying to make this into a race-related hypocrisy, and it isn't. I would think exactly the same if they were black and/or male.
    Your feverish and almost obsessive defence of their criminal behaviour leads me to believe you have a double standard that just isn't evident in egalitarian society.

    Please quote where I have said anything that suggests that my opinion in infuenced by race or gender.
    It's an inference I'm making because, as I've said above, you appear to have an inherent desire to protect these females from any/all criticism and notably from the idea that they could be harmful to anyone.

    I'm not saying that can't be dangerous. I am saying that, as of the moment that the man chose to assault them, they weren't a danger to themselves or others, and therefore he should not have touched them.

    The defences to assault are:

    Consent
    Arrest
    Prevention of Crime
    Defense of Property

    I know that you will leap on the last two, so I'll use them right now.

    Prevention of Crime
    Their crime of disorderly conduct and criminal damage (if it's even that, I.E. the mess they've made) has already been committed, therefore he was not preventing a crime.

    Defense of Property
    We can't really use this, as homeowners are only allowed to use force considered reasonable at the time of the offence on burglars. So a civilian who is not a staff member or owner of the building has no legal standing to defend the property.

    I already shot some guy in the head, the crime has been committed therefore apprehending the gunman wouldn't be preventing a crime". Yeah, this rationale really doesn't hold up. In any case, disorderly conduct was clearly on going they were mounting the table and making an advance toward the staff when he'd stepped in.

    Why don't you go and look at the definition of assault? R v Constanza and R v Wilson show that words alone can be an assault, and R v Ireland even shows that silence can be an assault. Grabbing someone is most definately an assault
    .

    And defending people and himself is most "definately" not an assault.


    He's not protecting himself. They're not being aggressive or making threats. Can you show me anything that proves that he is entitled to physically assault someone in order to prevent them from throwing more food on the floor?
    They are (ironically by your own definition) committing an assault against the staff-workers of which whom she is sliding herself towards whilst exposing herself and making lewd comments about her breasts (early in the video).

    I'm waiting for anything that shows that you're allowed to assault someone who has not shown themselves to be a danger, has not attempted an offence and is not even on your property. Do you have something that says that? If you do, I'll read it.
    If your notion that every unsolicited touch were an assault, there'd be no such thing as bouncers :facepalm: Bouncers are allowed to do what they do, despite not being officers of the law, because they are keeping a public establishment free from people committing the crime of being drunk and disorderly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think we're all agreed that Australians and their accents are hot as feck, and Mr Harold Bishop is a massive prick!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    There isnt a grey area and it wasn't self defence, where's the immediate harm to him?

    i dont get the last bit, where did i say anything about being white attractive females?
    1. He is defending himself from sharing a public space with someone who is guilty of the crime of being drunk and disorderly as well as defending the staff who are, oddly enough, being assaulted by the woman sliding herself on top of the counter, exposing herself and making lewd comments.

    2. It's an inference I'm making due to your feverish protection of white females guilty of crimes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    1. He is defending himself from sharing a public space with someone who is guilty of the crime of being drunk and disorderly as well as defending the staff who are, oddly enough, being assaulted by the woman sliding herself on top of the counter, exposing herself and making lewd comments.

    2. It's an inference I'm making due to your feverish protection of white females guilty of crimes.
    Not a defence.

    2. Please show me my protection of white females guilty of crimes? i quite clearly said in one of my posts that im not defending them and that they were idiots and he simply handles the situation badly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kenocide)
    Give up, CareFree is right (coming from another Law student). There is no defence in criminal law of self-defence where there is no evidence of a clear and present threat. The fact that someone is drunk does not itself constitute a threat; clearly if it did, every man and his dog would suddenly have the right to use force against anyone who was drunk.

    The touching could and probably would be battery, subject to a finding that it was not touching of the type that one ordinarily encounters on a daily basis and which one impliedly consents to.

    That's all I have to contribute.
    :facepalm:

    The crime is not "being drunk", it's "being drunk and disorderly".

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/91
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    Not a defence.

    2. Please show me my protection of white females guilty of crimes? i quite clearly said in one of my posts that im not defending them and that they were idiots and he simply handles the situation badly.
    As I explain above, if it weren't a defence - then apprehending a gunman would also be a crime :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    As I explain above, if it weren't a defence - then apprehending a gunman would also be a crime :rolleyes:
    A Gunman poses a threat of immediate harm.

    and you still havent shown my feverish protection of white females guilty of crimes.

    I (and chocolemons) said he committed an assault he did.
    there is no grey area.
    no nothing.
    he did it.
    even if there was a defence it doesnt mean he didnt do it, it just means he wont be convicted of it.
    he did commit a common assault
    it is really that simple and that is all we said.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Care-Free)
    A Gunman poses a threat of immediate harm.

    and you still havent shown my feverish protection of white females guilty of crimes.

    I (and chocolemons) said he committed an assault he did.
    there is no grey area.
    no nothing.
    he did it.
    even if there was a defence it doesnt mean he didnt do it, it just means he wont be convicted of it.
    he did commit a common assault
    it is really that simple and that is all we said.
    And she, by deciding to mount the separation between customer and staff whilst drunk and disorderly after having recklessly trashed the place, poses a threat of harm.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    And she, by deciding to mount the separation between customer and staff poses a threat of harm.
    She didn't really rhough did she..she climbed the counter there was no reason to assume she was going to harm anyone, you have to have reasonable grounds for believing there was immediate (or at leadt imminent) threat of harm, she was a good few meters away from the the nearest person. She was being a drunk and disorderly pain in the backside, not a threat.

    And still like i said - It doesnt matter if there's a whole world of defences available to him he still committed the offence which is what we were saying, we didn't say he'd be convicted of it did we? we simply said he did it. which he did.

    And again, please show me my feverish protection of white girls committing crimes.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.