Ain't no justice in the world

Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
(1 vote)
Results 51 to 75 of 105

  1. Post
    #51
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    The legal seriousness of an assault is usually based on the damage done. That's quite relevant if you're talking about females hitting males.

    Apply the same logic with children assaulting adults and you get to a similar place. It's not on and completely illegal but it's simply not the same as someone much bigger and stronger bashing someone that can't defend themselves.
    That assumes every males is bigger and willing to defend themselves. Some men will not hit a women out of conditioning (never hit a girl) or fear of prosecution (male is assumed to be the aggressor by default). So it is a complex issue. I would have though smashing someone over the head with a clock was significant enough to warrant a prosecution. Did she get prosecuted? If not why not?

  2. Post
    #52
    To say there ain't no justice in the world cos a man punched a woman in the head and got convicted for it is pretty weird.

  3. Post
    #53
    S.E.D. wrote:
    To say there ain't no justice in the world cos a man punched a woman in the head and got convicted for it is pretty weird.
    OP's going through divorce courts at the moment and I'm assuming it's not going so well

  4. Post
    #54
    w0lfbrains wrote:
    OP's going through divorce courts at the moment and I'm assuming it's not going so well
    Instead of assuming anything you could always acknowledge that (what you quoted) isn't what the OP said at all.

  5. Post
    #55
    DW wrote:
    Instead of assuming anything you could always acknowledge that (what you quoted) isn't what the OP said at all.
    That's what it boils down to though. You could make a case for umpteen other things proving there ain't no justice in the world, this is a strange one to highlight.

  6. Post
    #56

  7. Post
    #57
    S.E.D. wrote:
    To say there ain't no justice in the world cos a man punched a woman in the head and got convicted for it is pretty weird.
    That is not what was said. What was said was both parts committed violent assault (as well as one interfering with the operation of a motor vehicle that could have result in injuries or death) and only one got charged.

    You appear to have a serious case of misandry.

  8. Post
    #58
    Vulcan wrote:
    That is not what was said. What was said was both parts committed violent assault (as well as one interfering with the operation of a motor vehicle that could have result in injuries or death) and only one got charged.

    You appear to have a serious case of misandry.
    Cos the one that did the worst violence and with the previous convictions for violence got convicted of said violence. I'm glad justice was served.

  9. Post
    #59
    S.E.D. wrote:
    Cos the one that did the worst violence and with the previous convictions for violence got convicted of said violence. I'm glad justice was served.
    Ahh, so as long as you don't do the "worst" you don't need to be charged with a crime?

  10. Post
    #60
    Vulcan wrote:
    Ahh, so as long as you don't do the "worst" you don't need to be charged with a crime?
    This is the applicable law:

    Crimes Act 1961 s 194A Assault on person in family relationship:

    (1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—
    (a) assaults another person; and
    (b) is, or has been, in a family relationship with that other person.

    So he's clearly assaulted her. In a tit for tat domestic violence spat, the one who did the most damage (and males almost always are those) is the one that will get charged presumably.

  11. Post
    #61
    S.E.D. wrote:
    This is the applicable law:

    Crimes Act 1961 s 194A Assault on person in family relationship:

    (1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—
    (a) assaults another person; and
    (b) is, or has been, in a family relationship with that other person.

    So he's clearly assaulted her. In a tit for tat domestic violence spat, the one who did the most damage (and males almost always are those) is the one that will get charged presumably.
    No where in there does it say "only the person who did the most damage gets charged".

    It says "Everyone is liable".

  12. Post
    #62
    S.E.D. wrote:
    That's what it boils down to though. You could make a case for umpteen other things proving there ain't no justice in the world, this is a strange one to highlight.
    No it isn't. You're either missing the point, or purposely contorting it to suit your narrative, for whatever reason.

  13. Post
    #63
    No where in there does it say "only the person who did the most damage gets charged".

    It says "Everyone is liable".
    The law isn't black and white, police have discretion where to apply it.

    No it isn't. You're either missing the point, or purposely contorting it to suit your narrative, for whatever reason.
    Nope, just following the law, like everyone else knowledgeable on the subject and who are not easily triggered by Stuff headlines.

  14. Post
    #64
    S.E.D. wrote:
    Nope, just following the law, like everyone else knowledgeable on the subject and who are not easily triggered by Stuff headlines.
    We're not talking about the law, we're talking about what OP said. But keep moving the goalposts as much as you need.

    S.E.D. wrote:
    To say there ain't no justice in the world...

  15. Post
    #65
    S.E.D. wrote:
    The law isn't black and white, police have discretion where to apply it.
    Ahhh and here is the point. Despite a violent assault police appear to have not decided the prosecute the women even though it sounds clear she committed assault (and the judge even acknowledged it). That shows a bias that she is not prosecuted simply based on her gender. If you don't see an issue with that then misandry is confirmed.

  16. Post
    #66
    Vulcan wrote:
    Ahhh and here is the point. Despite a violent assault police appear to have not decided the prosecute the women even though it sounds clear she committed assault (and the judge even acknowledged it). That shows a bias that she is not prosecuted simply based on her gender. If you don't see an issue with that then misandry is confirmed.
    It's based on her gender to the extent that male assaults female is a specific crime, albeit he was charged under that assault in a family relationship section. Presumably if he hadn't punched her in the head she would have been charged, idk.

  17. Post
    #67
    Vulcan wrote:
    That assumes every males is bigger and willing to defend themselves. Some men will not hit a women out of conditioning (never hit a girl) or fear of prosecution (male is assumed to be the aggressor by default). So it is a complex issue. I would have though smashing someone over the head with a clock was significant enough to warrant a prosecution. Did she get prosecuted? If not why not?
    There are plenty of unisex charges if you actually hurt the person you're bashing.

    Also this is the contentious law, not what was referenced above: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329383.html

    It's sexist by definition but that doesn't mean it isn't practical. You could say the laws against bashing children are similarly biased.

  18. Post
    #68
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    Also this is the contentious law, not what was referenced above: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329383.html
    No, he pleaded guilty to four charges; two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship, one of theft under $500, and one of driving whilst forbidden.

  19. Post
    #69
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    There are plenty of unisex charges if you actually hurt the person you're bashing.

    Also this is the contentious law, not what was referenced above: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...DLM329383.html

    It's sexist by definition but that doesn't mean it isn't practical. You could say the laws against bashing children are similarly biased.
    I don't think it's that contentious, it comes from a time when it was needed.

    And in no way does that stop her being charged for assault.

  20. Post
    #70
    I thought the complaining was more general.

  21. Post
    #71
    DW wrote:
    No it isn't. You're either missing the point, or purposely contorting it to suit your narrative, for whatever reason.
    Tormenta confirmed!

  22. Post
    #72
    Vulcan wrote:
    Ahh, so as long as you don't do the "worst" you don't need to be charged with a crime?
    Well that explains this dry spell

  23. Post
    #73
    S.E.D. wrote:
    To say there ain't no justice in the world cos a man punched a woman in the head and got convicted for it is pretty weird.
    Both parties assaulted each other, one of them even used a weapon, but only one got charged. Ain't no justice in the world, man.

    w0lfbrains wrote:
    OP's going through divorce courts at the moment and I'm assuming it's not going so well
    Lol @ divorce court. It was Family Court, and I have had full custody of all of my children since July last year. They are thriving at school and making new friends and experiencing new things. Their mother is in Australia and still crazy. You assumed very wrong. I have to say, the FC was wonderful and very focused on the wellbeing of my kids. Obviously it's only one experience, and other people may have a different view, but I was impressed tbh.

    Although coincidentally, I have applied for divorce, the hard part was serving her the papers without an address, luckily she responded to an email from AaronAFK, so I was able to apply for substituted service by email. Fun fact - you can also serve people legal papers via Facebook.

    She does have 21 days to request a hearing challenging the divorce, but a) I doubt it and b) there's no grounds to, so my divorce should be sealed on Wednesday.

    All that aside, no, my ex-wife or "muh menz rights" is not why I posted this article.

  24. Post
    #74
    i believe the correct term is dissolution of marriage. Sorry to hear

  25. Post
    #75
    S.E.D. wrote:
    i believe the correct term is dissolution of marriage. Sorry to hear
    Cheers, but no need for to be sorry, sure, divorce isn't anyone's life goal, but far better than continuing in a toxic relationship.