Being secure at HOME assault

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

done mine mate - balls in your court.

---

No... You did what I already said - proved the quote. You still need to prove it's a majority of jurisdictions.

Come to think of it I've had a wait a minute thought...

Firstly

You say you have a big head for law... So if you know so much why did you disregard what I said i.e about how a reasonable person would act... After all a knowledgeable person in negligence would know that that term reasonable is a very important test. I.e How would a reasonable person act in a similar circumstance. Would a reasonable person have know that there actions would have caused harm...

Second

Lets put our wisdom heads on for a moment shall we - remembering that wisdom is the application of knowledge.

How many volumes do you think the law of negligence would fill? 10, 15... With that in mind how much do you think can be conveyed in 3 or 4 sentences by the authors? So a reasonably (there's that term again) wise individual would have realized that not much can be said in such limited space and would have applied some knowledge of their own and understood that every case is judged on the actions of a reasonable person acting in a reasonable way in similar circumstances, as I attempted to expand on for you in past posts but you ignored... Hell my knowledge base is real low, 1 semesters worth, and even I could see that! But, as I suspected early on, your the competitive type - arguments are to be won; they're not to exchange views and hopefully learn. That is evident by the one case you brought up and the scenarios you tried to use to prove your point - all of which were at the very least extreme examples. And your attempt to play me and draw me into trying to argue those worthless scenarios. OF COURSE the person in the case should have been sued - have you read it!

Lets also remember you said the law isn't exact so to think that you could pull up some extreme example and beleive that proves your point is weak at best.

Now show me some cases where a reasonable person acted. Something like what the original poster had done. There is no way a judge and or jury would have found him liable for negligence in any jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toolin Around

But, as I suspected early on, your the competitive type - arguments are to be won; they're not to exchange views and hopefully learn. That is evident by the one case you brought up and the scenarios you tried to use to prove your point - all of which were at the very least extreme examples. And your attempt to play me and draw me into trying to argue those worthless scenarios. OF COURSE the person in the case should have been sued - have you read it!.

---

Hi again

So what do you want me to do, discuss it or not. You threw a tantie at post 64 and again now.

Where did I say I had a "big head for law". Just block copy that for us.

At post 43 you posted this;

The easiest way to prove or disprove it is to find a relevant case that's gone before the courts in australia. And let us know when you find it.

We've all heard all the rumours of such phantom cases of monkey sues victim... but I've never found one from a credible source. Doesn't mean they don't happen but I'm a little suspect of their validity.

Okay, I have gone and found a recent case that demonstrates such a phantom case. Now you want me to go and find you more. Do it yourself. As I have said already show me a case where the legislation spoken of has been used and I will tell all and sundry that I am wrong. Cant get any better than that.

The reasonableness arguement is very simple. Is it reasonable for a person to show "no duty of care" and the reasonable answer would be that it isnt reasonable. Just because the person is committing a crime doesnt remove the requirement at common law.

Though I suppose I should have just posted what I thought in the first instance, however I felt it playing the man, but I suppose by example thats fine by you, and that is that your initial post was rather, how to put this, mmmmm - poor, given that if you were to throw away your duty of care to the extent that you would consider legislation that prevents you being sued then the thing you would be worried about is spending time in prison for AOBH or manslaughter.

"Hey ma its okay, they caint sues me!. Oh, my new wifes name is bubba." :wink:

If you show "no duty of care" criminally you are screwed. :)

So back on topic.......Whatever you do, stop when you have removed the threat or bubba will be getting his textas out :q

Thanks Dazzler, not a very nice system we have hey:no:, can rely on it to let us down.
Will not let it beat me, just a lesson learnt. Now back to having fun, as soon as my back is ok, a fishing I will go
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hi again

So what do you want me to do, discuss it or not. You threw a tantie at post 64 and again now.

Where did I say I had a "big head for law". Just block copy that for us.

At post 43 you posted this;

The easiest way to prove or disprove it is to find a relevant case that's gone before the courts in australia. And let us know when you find it.

We've all heard all the rumours of such phantom cases of monkey sues victim... but I've never found one from a credible source. Doesn't mean they don't happen but I'm a little suspect of their validity.

Okay, I have gone and found a recent case that demonstrates such a phantom case. Now you want me to go and find you more. Do it yourself. As I have said already show me a case where the legislation spoken of has been used and I will tell all and sundry that I am wrong. Cant get any better than that.

The reasonableness arguement is very simple. Is it reasonable for a person to show "no duty of care" and the reasonable answer would be that it isnt reasonable. Just because the person is committing a crime doesnt remove the requirement at common law.

Though I suppose I should have just posted what I thought in the first instance, however I felt it playing the man, but I suppose by example thats fine by you, and that is that your initial post was rather, how to put this, mmmmm - poor, given that if you were to throw away your duty of care to the extent that you would consider legislation that prevents you being sued then the thing you would be worried about is spending time in prison for AOBH or manslaughter.

"Hey ma its okay, they caint sues me!. Oh, my new wifes name is bubba." :wink:

If you show "no duty of care" criminally you are screwed. :)

So back on topic.......Whatever you do, stop when you have removed the threat or bubba will be getting his textas out :q

---

You say I've thrown tantrums!?!?! You must be or something. Lay off the grog before you reply next time - OK? I'll let you in on a little secret... I don't put much if any emotion in what I write like smilies and such. So any tone interpreted is completely yours - i.e. the tantrum was in your head not mine.

What part of my last post do you need explaining or do you always just conveniently ignore what said and repeat what's already been addressed. You found one case that doesn't do much cause it's an extreme example. Find the phantom cases that involve the 99.9% of the population where a reasonable person acts and is sued. You know as well as I do there will always be extreme examples that are rare but the media hypes them up and they circle the globe and cause all sorts of panic and rumours. Yes technically you "proved a point" but the proof used is so insignificant that it renders your point useless. I am trying to address realistic situations not argue silly semantics. Would you also like to argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - that's just about as useful as that case in proving anything.

What I suspect is happening to you is you found one of the elusive man bites dog, dog sues man and wins cases and you can' t find much of anything else and that's why you keep regurgitating what's already been addressed. How far off the mark am I.

Here's another wait a minute thought...

I was thinking about the statement you made - a very good one for anyone to remember.

Just remember the line - "I was only trying to remove the threat". and "I stopped as soon as the threat stopped"

Now it would be easy to say you are an expert in this. But! that statement supports the quote I posted and what I tried to expand on completely. The example you gave completely counters it. You are trying to say that in all cases there will be legal consequences. But as your statement implies a reasonable person would counter a threat with reasonable force and then stop when the threat was stopped. And as the quote said the civil liabilities act would back them in the majority of jurisdictions. So what exactly is your point.

Pretty much sums up what I've been trying to get through to you all the way through what has been a stupid argument. Act reasonably (there's that term again) and you have nothing to worry about the civil law will back you up.

So are all these authors full of shyte also - should they consider enrolling in the Dazzler school of law?

Something tells me you knew such documents were out there as these but you've kept that to yourself as they didn't fit with the game you're playing. How far off the mark am I.

Enjoy the read.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/se...ry%20note).pdf
Self-defence and recovery by criminals
(i) Proposed Part 7 (see Schedule 1 [5]) limits liability for injury or death or
damage to property resulting from self-defence or arising from criminal
conduct as follows:
(i) there will be no civil liability for injury or death or damage to property
arising from conduct that is in self-defence in response to unlawful
conduct,
Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Bill 2002 [Act 2002 No 92]
Explanatory note
Explanatory note page 6
(ii) in a case where the defendant believes he or she is acting in selfdefence
but the defendant’s actions are not a reasonable response in the
circumstances (and so do not qualify as self-defence), there will be no
civil liability unless the court considers the case exceptional and that
damages should be awarded to avoid harshness or injustice (in which
case the limits that apply to the recovery of damages under Part 2 of
the Principal Act will apply, and there will be no recovery for noneconomic
loss),
(iii) no damages will be recoverable against a defendant in respect of the
death of or injury to a person or damage to a person’s property in the
course of the commission of a serious criminal offence by the person
unless the defendant’s conduct itself constituted an offence.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/8474.htm
Criminal activity
In South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, no liability for damages arises if a court is satisfied that the accident occurred while the injured person was engaged in conduct constituting an indictable offence (in SA and the ACT) or a serious offence (in Tasmania) and that the injured person’s conduct contributed materially to the risk of injury. Courts have a discretion to award damages in exceptional circumstances.
In Victoria, courts are to consider whether a plaintiff was engaged in an illegal activity in determining whether a defendant’s duty of care has been discharged.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...02161/s50.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 50
No recovery where person intoxicated
50 No recovery where person intoxicated
(1) This section applies when it is established that the person whose death, injury or damage is the subject of proceedings for the recovery of damages was at the time of the act or omission that caused the death, injury or damage intoxicated to the extent that the person’s capacity to exercise reasonable care and skill was impaired.
(2) A court is not to award damages in respect of liability to which this Part applies unless satisfied that the death, injury or damage to property (or some other injury or damage to property) is likely to have occurred even if the person had not been intoxicated.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the death, injury or damage to property (or some other injury or damage to property) is likely to have occurred even if the person had not been intoxicated, it is to be presumed that the person was contributorily negligent unless the court is satisfied that the person’s intoxication did not contribute in any way to the cause of the death, injury or damage.
(4) When there is a presumption of contributory negligence, the court must assess damages on the basis that the damages to which the person would be entitled in the absence of contributory negligence are to be reduced on account of contributory negligence by 25% or a greater percentage determined by the court to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(5) This section does not apply in a case where the court is satisfied that the intoxication was not self-induced.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...02161/s52.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 52
No civil liability for acts in self-defence
52 No civil liability for acts in self-defence
(1) A person does not incur a liability to which this Part applies arising from any conduct of the person carried out in self-defence, but only if the conduct to which the person was responding:
(a) was unlawful, or
(b) would have been unlawful if the other person carrying out the conduct to which the person responds had not been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the conduct.
(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
(3) This section does not apply if the person uses force that involves the intentional or reckless infliction of death only:
(a) to protect property, or
(b) to prevent criminal trespass or to remove a person committing criminal trespass.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/n...02161/s53.html
New South Wales Consolidated Acts
CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - SECT 53
Damages limitations apply even if self-defence not reasonable response
53 Damages limitations apply even if self-defence not reasonable response
(1) If section 52 would operate to prevent a person incurring a liability to which this Part applies in respect of any conduct but for the fact that the conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceived them, a court is nevertheless not to award damages against the person in respect of the conduct unless the court is satisfied that:
(a) the circumstances of the case are exceptional, and
(b) in the circumstances of the case, a failure to award damages would be harsh and unjust.

What can you do?

Send your wife for extensive karate training.

Then if an assialant comes in the lady was defending herself against rape.

I assume you have jury trials if an assailant tried for compensation or the law charged her.

Just an idea.

Ummm..I might be throwing petrol on the fire but I make swords also as messing around with chainsaws and wood.My swords are medieval in type not katanas(sumurais).They are made of hardened spring steel and you can shave with them.Legal...you bet,at least in Sth Aust.36" of sharpened steel deters most people.

Trouble with having Skills in any form of self defense, whether you are a beginner or someone like me haven't trained for over 12 yrs (spinal fusion), we are considered to be "Experts" and should not hurt any poor little diddums that comes smashing their way into our lives, too bad if you had no training, as we are seeing with the increase in deaths, and some very gross end results of home invasions. These lesser than ape humans, hang on thats an insult to Apes:no:, these cockroaches:2tsup:?sp are cowards pure and simple, always pick on someone smaller, weaker, lot older than they are, and if they are worried that there might be resistance then they will come at you in numbers, again all too common these days. Swords would be good, could get a really sharp Katana, but that would be classed as a lethal weapon, got a set of Sais and some Tonfa, all used in martial arts weaponry, no longer sitting in the cupboard as mementos, ready to be used with extreme prejudice:o. System sucks. Much as I hate the thought but vigilanteism will have to come back. Friend at church witnessed a break in three yrs ago, owners were home, rang the Police, Cops said we won't attend unless something happens, friend said, well they are bashing the hell out of one of the occupants, 20 minutes it took to get there, assailants, GONE, never caught and still out there, owners left the area out of fear as did friend:((. WA is getting bad, ppl are scared to go out after dark, ooops another mistake the CRIMS are not scared to go out after dark. Where is Spiderman, Batman, Superman ?, sheesh even these guys would be scared to leave home. Guess all we can do is make our homes as safe as we can and hope it never happens again or does happen a first time, can't rely on Cops, they take forever and can't be bothered when you say I want the person charged, they actually were annoyed I wanted to press charges, even tried to convince me it is a lot of paper work and we would have to go to the Cop Shop, they were not happy when I said Fine, we will be there to make a statement, we felt like we were guilty of something there.
Glad I am a Christian now, cos I would have in the old days gone after the bugga and showed him what pain is really about.

An example in a British court on the above subject this week.

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

Typical, woman fearing for her daughter and self gets community order etc, bet he got nothing, more than likely sued for damages and won, mental duress. Where is the justice?

Keep it nice please.