Use of Force Law

[BrendanF]

I see.

He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."

Which you claimed was wrong. It isn't. Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation. You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences. Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.

 

[jobo]

I see.

He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."

Which you claimed was wrong. It isn't. Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation. You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences. Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.

I've just google that phrase and it appears to be Nigerian law, it might even be American, but it's not English, as provocation is never a defence under English law, well not for assualt anyway

perhaps giving a link may be helpfull

 

[BrendanF]

The one I quoted is Australian. There's a lot which can be said, but here's a link you can read

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk...tification_and_Excuse_in_the_Criminal_Law.pdf

 

[jobo]

The one I quoted is Australian. There's a lot which can be said, but here's a link you can read

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk...tification_and_Excuse_in_the_Criminal_Law.pdf

I'm not spending my Saturday whilst you jump round the world quoting random laws, . why on earth would you think an Australian statute was relivant?or wading through pdf files to find they dpnt agree with you, then you post some more random laws?

if there is a relevant bit in that quote i then tie that to the actual law

 

[BrendanF]

No worries Jobo, I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can. There are two types of defences in criminal law; statutory and common law. Statutory defences are what you'll note I mentioned in my first, and every, post on this thread. Statutory defences are those written in law. There are many (yes, in the UK too). These are laws written specifically providing a defence to a crime.

Perhaps you can describe to me how it is possible that they don't operate as Rat described? To clarify; if you were to write a law providing a legal defence to a crime on the grounds of self defence, how would you write it such that it didn't concede that the person defending themselves had committed the crime they are entitled to the statutory defence for?

How can you have a discrete legal defence for a crime without admitting that the person the defence applies to has committed the crime in the first place? I really don't know what you're arguing here, other than 'no'.

I didn't jump around the world, I just pulled up my first year law school notes.

 

[jobo]

No worries Jobo, I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can. There are two types of defences in criminal law; statutory and common law. Statutory defences are what you'll note I mentioned in my first, and every, post on this thread. Statutory defences are those written in law. There are many (yes, in the UK too). These are laws written specifically providing a defence to a crime.

Perhaps you can describe to me how it is possible that they don't operate as Rat described? To clarify; if you were to write a law providing a legal defence to a crime on the grounds of self defence, how would you write it such that it didn't concede that the person defending themselves had committed the crime they are entitled to the statutory defence for?

How can you have a discrete legal defence for a crime without admitting that the person the defence applies to has committed the crime in the first place? I really don't know what you're arguing here, other than 'no'.

I didn't jump around the world, I just pulled up my first year law school notes.

they have a defence, so no guilt, no crime was committed, that's what trials are for???

you agree to a set of circumstances, some of which may be that you hit him and these injuries were sustainedI.

why you hit him and if these injuries were justifiable, is the nature of the defence, your not admitting to a " crime" by accepting some or all the circumstances the prosecution present

this is ussually establish when you enter a not guilty plea,

now there is a subtle difference between assault, which is what you said and gbh which is what rat said

 

[BrendanF]

"They have a defence, so no guilt, no crime was committed"

If no crime was committed, why do they need a defence?

 

[jobo]

"They have a defence, so no guilt, no crime was committed"

If no crime was committed, why do they need a defence?

with mens rea offences there is no crime till a court of law says there was, ?

how can there be? the state of mind of the defendant is what decides if a crime was committed or not

in my experience you need a defence when the police or other authorised body, charge you with an offence, at that point you are commonly refered to as " the accused" because it hasnt yet been established if a crime has taken place and or if you were responsible.

homicides is slightly different, as it will have been subject to an inquest, which may have declared it " unlawful"

 

[BrendanF]

No, the crime is committed when the crime is committed. The court determines criminal responsibility. Mens rea is only one element among several, and is not necessarily the determining factor you seem to think it is.

Again I'll ask - if there is no crime committed - why would there be a need for a statutory defence? Or a trial?

 

[jobo]

1l

No, the crime is committed when the crime is committed. The court determines criminal responsibility. Mens rea is only one element among several, and is not necessarily the determining factor you seem to think it is.

Again I'll ask - if there is no crime committed - why would there be a need for a statutory defence? Or a trial?

a statutory defence means, you agree to the circumstances but have committed no crime, as you have a statutory defence, it's some what circular

mens rea in mens rea offence is crucial to if a crime was committed or not, that why they are called mens rea " offences, no guilty mind" no offence", no offence, no crime, that's some what circular as well

 

[BrendanF]

1l

a statutory defence means, you agree to the circumstances but have committed no crime, as you have a statutory defence, it's some what circular

mens rea in mens rea offence is crucial to if a crime was committed or not, that why they are called mens rea " offences, no guilty mind" no offence", no offence, no crime, that's some what circular as well

Not really. You could probably just do some reading on your own and clear up your misconceptions. The short pdf I posted above would be a start.

 

[jobo]

Not really. You could probably just do some reading on your own and clear up your misconceptions. The short pdf I posted above would be a start.

yes really,

who is authorise to declare an event a crime? not you, not the police, that would be a court, show me were an english court has said " this is a crime, but we are letting you off coz....


except for an absolute discharge it never ever happens" they say " not guilty" and that's it

some years ago, I got pinged at 72 in a 50, the police though it was a crime, I chose to go to court and require the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, they failed to call witnesses, I left with a not guilty verdict, no crime was recorded by the court, who else is authorised to say it was ? the police and the prosecution got rather cross, but hey ho, justice in action

 

[BrendanF]

No. Not really.

You're discussing disparate and unrelated ideas, with such imprecise language I really don't even know how to continue trying to communicate with you.

No, a court is not "authorise to declare an event a crime" - that's what the legislature does.

 

[jobo]

No. Not really.

You're discussing disparate and unrelated ideas, with such imprecise language I really don't even know how to continue trying to communicate with you.

No, a court is not "authorise to declare an event a crime" - that's what the legislature does.

no, legislator sets a frame work, for the court to apply, it also says the statutory defence for the court to apply,
the court applies that frame work and the statutory defences, if applicable and reaches a conclusion and declares crime or no crime or guilty not guilty

the demarcation between the legislature and the court is a major eliment in democracy, that you believe the legislature declares crime or no crime is just silly, that's the job of the court,

the court can even ignore the law and declare it "not a crime "if they wish, it happens rarely, but it's possible, last one in this country that I'm aware of is about 20 years ago, where they just decided to ignore the pornography laws

 

[BrendanF]

Ugh. Like I said, your imprecise use of language just makes this discussion a waste of time.

The point I made was that Rat is correct - with regards to statutory defences. They do not operate as you seem to think they do. Your insistence doesn't change that. You can still just do some research and confirm this yourself.

 

[jobo]

Ugh. Like I said, your imprecise use of language just makes this discussion a waste of time.

The point I made was that Rat is correct - with regards to statutory defences. They do not operate as you seem to think they do. Your insistence doesn't change that. You can still just do some research and confirm this yourself.

the exactly exactly as I said and both you and rat are wrong.

I've asked you to support it by quoting the law, some thing you have so far failed to do, perhaps you've reach the limit of your first year law notes, which clearly didnt get as far as the separation of the the legislature and the judiciary

 

[BrendanF]

Yes yes, the exactly exactly as you said.

I did in fact quote a statutory defence showing how Rat is correct. I also explained the theory as to why he was correct; which you completely ignored. I'll ignore you now and leave you to it.

 

[jobo]

Yes yes, the exactly exactly as you said.

I did in fact quote a statutory defence showing how Rat is correct. I also explained the theory as to why he was correct; which you completely ignored. I'll ignore you now and leave you to it.

the one from Australia, in a discusion about english law, that was in you first year notes, yea that was relivant

 

[BrendanF]

Yep it was. I was just trying to help you understand better mate; once again I forgot you prefer willful ignorance. Enjoy.

 

[jobo]

Yep it was. I was just trying to help you understand better mate; once again I forgot you prefer willful ignorance. Enjoy.

your not doing a very good job of ignoring me.