OMG me too! I literally read the first chapter and though, yeah nah, I'm going to youtube for this... bam here I am 100% more confident on what these two concepts mean! lol
There is another element (lack of defence). People can commit a prohibited act and still not bear any liability if there is a defence- if they did it out of self-defence, if they are mad, duress or pressure.
This is incorrect. Motive is irrelevant when considering mens rea. what you need to consider is whether the result was the aim or purpose of the defendant in causing the result.
Blood Iron thanks for the comment, but not sure what the distinction is? When I google motive it's ' a reason for doing something', isn't that the same as an aim and purpose? Or is the way I've explained it unclear in the video? Sorry if so! Not an expert in the law, just a Legal Studies Teacher!
Not really the same thing. Look at the case of Chandler v DPP. As an example, if a person mercifully kills a VERY sick relative who would rather like to die than be in pain from the illness, then even though the person had the benevolent MOTIVE, but his INTENTION was still to kill the relative. In other words, his MOTIVE was to relieve the relative of her suffering, but his AIM/PURPOSE was still to cause the death of the relative. Hope I was clear in drawing out the distinction.
Ah yes I think I get what you mean, thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. I don't want to confuse anyone, are you ok if I delete this video (I assume this conversation would be deleted too) and think about how to say it more clearly?
Question in regards to the baseball bat example: in tort law would the weak heart be seen as a pre existing injury or would it fall under the eggshell skull principle?
Hey, your music is great and I’m really getting into it, but is it really necessary to talk all over it like that. I could not make out much of what the lyrics were, something about men’s rears or something. Can you do an edit without the talkie stuff?
So we just forget the most important element of crime, for traffic infractions?!?!?! Which also lets you bypass the fact there is no concrete INJURY from traffic infractions. No human is injured by a seatbelt not being worn or failing to use a turn signal. Sounds legit.
You uncle had an embolism. This being hit with a baseball bat is a sufficient intervening cause that brought on the lethal sequence of events. That's a cause of death. Coronary embolism due to blunt force trauma. Manner of death would be homicide.
This video helped me a lot more than my $50 textbook.
OMG me too! I literally read the first chapter and though, yeah nah, I'm going to youtube for this... bam here I am 100% more confident on what these two concepts mean! lol
There is another element (lack of defence). People can commit a prohibited act and still not bear any liability if there is a defence- if they did it out of self-defence, if they are mad, duress or pressure.
That would result in a affirmative defense. Better be a solid defense if used.
This is incorrect. Motive is irrelevant when considering mens rea.
what you need to consider is whether the result was the aim or purpose of the defendant in causing the result.
Blood Iron thanks for the comment, but not sure what the distinction is? When I google motive it's ' a reason for doing something', isn't that the same as an aim and purpose? Or is the way I've explained it unclear in the video? Sorry if so! Not an expert in the law, just a Legal Studies Teacher!
Not really the same thing. Look at the case of Chandler v DPP.
As an example, if a person mercifully kills a VERY sick relative who would rather like to die than be in pain from the illness, then even though the person had the benevolent MOTIVE, but his INTENTION was still to kill the relative. In other words, his MOTIVE was to relieve the relative of her suffering, but his AIM/PURPOSE was still to cause the death of the relative.
Hope I was clear in drawing out the distinction.
Ah yes I think I get what you mean, thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. I don't want to confuse anyone, are you ok if I delete this video (I assume this conversation would be deleted too) and think about how to say it more clearly?
Wimble Don hahaha no issues at all. It's your video man!
if you need any help at all, you are most welcome to contact me.
Hey guys I’m doing A level law and I came across this video could you expand on what you mean by Aim and purpose of the result
I LOVE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU WHY AS THIS VIDEO BETTER AND EASIER THAN MY TEXTBOOK AND 2HOUR LECTURE
This video was really helpful thanks
these are just basics of self defence either at the dojo or in court
Question in regards to the baseball bat example: in tort law would the weak heart be seen as a pre existing injury or would it fall under the eggshell skull principle?
Hmmm, I don’t have enough specific knowledge of tort law to answer that sorry ☹️
@@Wimbledonchannel unfortunate:(
5 Elements of crime on Finger's tips. Plz watch Sher Aman Law Classes- " Five Elements of Crime"
Good
Easy and concise! Thank you
Hey, your music is great and I’m really getting into it, but is it really necessary to talk all over it like that. I could not make out much of what the lyrics were, something about men’s rears or something. Can you do an edit without the talkie stuff?
Very well explained, thank you!
Glad to hear it Parimita!
bruh what is this song?
dunno fam im bopping
Video would be more effective without distracting music
Thanks for the tip
Please upload more videos over law
So we just forget the most important element of crime, for traffic infractions?!?!?! Which also lets you bypass the fact there is no concrete INJURY from traffic infractions. No human is injured by a seatbelt not being worn or failing to use a turn signal. Sounds legit.
Alguien sabe si está en español este video? Gracias.
Sorry Luis my Spanish is a little rusty
Mente culpable y actividad culpable
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
You're welcome!
The wild beats effect strip out mens rea in any trial
DONT DO IT
spot on
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
is this a party or a lecture lol
“Why can’t it be both?” 😉
You uncle had an embolism. This being hit with a baseball bat is a sufficient intervening cause that brought on the lethal sequence of events. That's a cause of death. Coronary embolism due to blunt force trauma. Manner of death would be homicide.
Thanks for the clarification Lauren
Actus Reus - Cultist