ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
ต่อไป
เล่นอัตโนมัติ
Mens Rea # 5 - Strict LiabilityThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 74K
Causation # 1 - 'But For'The Law Bank
มุมมอง 157K
Criminal Courts # 3 - SentencingThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 26K
LightSource เบื้องหลังงานคอนเสิร์ตใหญ่ๆ รายได้ 300 ล้าน #ธุรกิจ #คอนเสิร์ต #nwfinanceNew World Finance by Thanayos Kongpichetkul
มุมมอง 981K
แมนยู Corner : คุยหลังเกมแดงเดือด แมนฯยูแพ้ลิเวอร์พูล ราบคาบ 0-3Fluke Family
มุมมอง 273K
ถ้าทำตัวแบบนี้ออกไปเลย #หกฉากครับจารย์WorkpointOfficial
มุมมอง 2M
Mens Rea # 1 - Direct and Indirect intentionThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 139K
Causation in Law | Criminal LawThe Law Academy
มุมมอง 4.8K
Intoxication - The General RuleThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 39K
Loss of Control | Criminal LawThe Law Academy
มุมมอง 2.4K
Mens Rea # 3 - Transferred MaliceThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 45K
Introduction to mens reaLawWithAnna
มุมมอง 2.5K
Mens Rea | Criminal LawThe Law Academy
มุมมอง 6K
Involuntary IntoxicationThe Law Bank
มุมมอง 17K
Fake watermelon by Secret VlogSecret Vlog
มุมมอง 2.7M
ครัวไรอ่ะ! EP.192 : พูดภาษาอังกฤษ ห้ามขำ V3 เจมส์500 ซิตี้แคมป์ohana clip
มุมมอง 825K
LIVE CONTINENTAL FUTSAL CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH 8 THAILAND v GUATEMALA l ถ่ายทอดสด พร้อมบทวิเคราะห์ช้างศึก - ฟุตบอลทีมชาติไทย
มุมมอง 637K
การแข่งขัน RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | รอบเก็บคะแนน Week 3 Day 3Garena RoV Thailand
มุมมอง 1.4M
เล่นพลาดเท่ากับ #shortsZz Man
มุมมอง 1.5M
ไฮไลท์ฟุตบอล พรีเมียร์ลีก 2024/25 สัปดาห์ที่ 3 : แมนเชสเตอร์ ยูไนเต็ด พบ ลิเวอร์พูลTrueVisionsOfficial
มุมมอง 2.5M
เปิดใจ ส.ศิวรักษ์ จากคนเคยรักทักษิณ ถึงวันที่ หันหลังไม่สนับสนุน และวิจารณ์อย่างตรงไปตรงมา | TODAYTODAY - สำนักข่าวทูเดย์
มุมมอง 717K
I cannot appreciate you enough as to the amount of good you did to me. I'll be participating in a moot competition tomorrow and really needed to understand the concepts of chain of causation, but for test, legal causation and interrupting causation. Very well explained and it was very fun to watch actually, you using all this funny pictures and all really helped in visualising the cases. Thank you sooo much. God bless❄
TOO AWESOME! Great method of instruction and summarizing everything.
Love the pictures as well because they give me mental pictures to remember when trying to think about a topic. Much love from Canada.
You are welcome
Thank you!! Very helpful. From Ghana 🇬🇭 ❤️
You're so welcome!
It's 2020 and your video is still relevant
Thank you so much. I just started A Levels and I was so confused on this
Great videos! Thank you. They have helped me so much.
Amazing work.
I love this lecturer
you are just too amazing 1m% better than my Criminal law lecturer
thank you so much this really helps. God bless
Love all your videos!
thank you very much!
hi, please how do I apply Child destruction act in a problem question, where its not entirely sure how far gone the victim is ?
still useful 2021
Thank youuuuu
You're a saviour OnG
I do hope you're doing well...
Brilliant
I like that the word "daft" is a legal term of art XD That is just hilarious to me.
very informative!!!!!!! Thank you so much. Owesome!!!!!!!
I feel bad that I understood this better than my lecturer. Thanks.
wait, I can't jump out of a car if someone tries to rob me!?
Ee
I honestly don't see much difference between the two cases of victims jumping out of a car. Based on the facts given, I feel that it should have been held that the chain of causation remained intact in the wallet case for similar reasons as the clothing case. Different holdings smack of sexism to me: the woman victim received proper sympathy, but not the man.
The refusal to receive a blood transfusion case also seems a bit messed up. Definitely, the defendant is guilty of something heinous (e.g. attempted murder, grave bodily injury), but the outcome was exaggerated by a wacky (not just unforeseeable) situation outside of the defendant's control. There's a difference between being born with a thin skull vs. intentionally choosing to not receive standard medical care, because the latter is the victim's choice; whereas, the former is not. I guess my main problem here is, why is the victim's religion being treated as a rock falling from the sky, when we all know darn well that it's her choice??
I don't see this as an infringement on the woman's religious rights. To the contrary, being able to choose your religion means you choose the consequences, one being that doctors will not be able to revive you when they otherwise probably would have been able to.
It's like our current problem with anti-vax. People are failing to protect society, and we are letting them get away with it, because "choice". I'm sorry, but I don't get to choose to swerve all over the road. Not vaccinating is exactly the same: it is a form of swerving. That's true even if it has a basis in religion, and should be looked upon with prejudice. We do not have a religious exception for human sacrifice; those who practice it would be found guilty of murder.