I have to say thank you again for your videos. They help me so so much, more than my actual tutors. I rewatch them over and over again and I tell others on my degree course to watch them too and they've agreed that they're very helpful. Thank you!!
I admire your ability to explain any legal concept in an engaging way. Your video tutorials have helped me massively to understand how the law works. Please carry on with more tutorials !!!! THANK YOU
Excellent video and has made me feel a lot better on the subject of a Home invasion ...Reasonable force can be lethal which is something that the police tend to forget
In R v Lindsay was it not the fact that his sole intention to have a sword was to protect himself by harming the people who might attack him due to his cannabis dealings? So it would be regarded as offensive weapon in the first place and not something he just picked up to defend himself? Also would you not say that slashing the person repetitively would be seen excessive as he already could have disarmed him without taking it as far as killing him? p.s I find you videos very helpful thanks just a bit confused with this case.
Well there are a number of factors and all of them have to be weighed up. I'm not sure the cannabis element will have played a huge role in the decision because this is a separate offence but certainly the repetitive slashing in this case was seen as excessive because, like you say, Lindsay could have stopped after disarming the intruders.
I really appreciate your videos. Spent a lot of time going through your EU law ones last semester, didn't know you had criminal law ones as well. I'm studying in Ireland by the way. Different legislations for criminal law, however, both are common law jurisdiction. Thanks again.
My understanding regarding R v Lindsay was that the occupant was a known drug dealer and the 4 guys with guns were the competition. Just something else to understand, if you are a known criminal or on the police radar (known associate, previous non/convictions) they will try everything they can to deal with you as well.
I often find the mens rea and actus reus to be most usefully described in relation to different crimes rather than overall. The mens rea for murder is very different to the mens rea for theft as one example.
Hello, thank you for uploading this video.. Its really insightful. I was wondering if I could ask your opinion. Im potentially being taken to court for defending myself against a cyclists. I was driving on a narrow country lane behind a cyclist, I followed for perhaps 200 - 300 meters. The cyclist didn't bother to pull over to let me past so when the road got wider I slowly overtook. When I overtook he punched the rear of the car. I pulled over to check the car and the cyclist was already at my door shouting and threatening me, in my face as I got out. As I got out we immediately got into a bit of a scuffle, he punched me in the face and I fell forward onto his bike (which broke), a scuffle broke out in which I hit him to stun him and then put him into a hold to restrain him until he calmed down. When he said he would stop and calm down a got off him and let him up. We exchanged words as I left, be noticed his bike was damaged and said he's going to call the police; which he did. Because his bike was apparently £7000 he is trying to take me to court for supposedly attacking him and smashing up his bike. I don't know if he had video footage, if he did he won't submit it because it proves I did nothing wrong. But as I let him up there where three oncoming Cars stopped in the toad ahead of me and all the would have seen is the middle of the scuffle and me restraining him around the top of his shoulder and u see his arm. So to them, I probably looked like the aggressor but that's not the case. I could have quite easily gone to town on him but I didnt. I asked him to calm down and as soon as he put his arms out to the side and said yes, I let him go. He is saying that I speeded past him, hit him with my wing mirror (which I didnt) so he punched my car. I got out, assaulted him, broke his bike and tried to strangle him. I'm not really sure what to do because I didnt think to stop and look for witnesses , and I have no hard proof to prove that his version of events is false and that I didn't do anything wrong. My partner was in the car at the time but she disabled and only got out of the car when I was in the process of restraining him. I can't really afford legal defense at the moment so I was wondering if there is any advice that you (or anyone) could offer please. Either way, thank you for uploading the video because it really helped.
Hi Marcus this question concerns the evidentiary and conclusive presumptions under SOA 2003..is it the judge who decides whether a presumption will succeed?
I believe so, since under s76 one of the factors that makes it a conclusive presumption is deception as to the nature or purpose and I'm pretty sure its the jury who decides whether there has been a deception. Anyways I could be wrong, but i'm fairly certain. Either way it wont likely be necessary to know that detail for an exam.
I have to say thank you again for your videos. They help me so so much, more than my actual tutors. I rewatch them over and over again and I tell others on my degree course to watch them too and they've agreed that they're very helpful. Thank you!!
Thank you so much that means a lot!!!
I admire your ability to explain any legal concept in an engaging way. Your video tutorials have helped me massively to understand how the law works. Please carry on with more tutorials !!!! THANK YOU
You have really changed my mental attitude in making me a reasonable thinker relating to criminal issues. Thank you
Good to hear!
Excellent video and has made me feel a lot better on the subject of a Home invasion ...Reasonable force can be lethal which is something that the police tend to forget
Thank you Marcus. Respect. Quite clear and easy on the ears.
In R v Lindsay was it not the fact that his sole intention to have a sword was to protect himself by harming the people who might attack him due to his cannabis dealings? So it would be regarded as offensive weapon in the first place and not something he just picked up to defend himself? Also would you not say that slashing the person repetitively would be seen excessive as he already could have disarmed him without taking it as far as killing him? p.s I find you videos very helpful thanks just a bit confused with this case.
Well there are a number of factors and all of them have to be weighed up. I'm not sure the cannabis element will have played a huge role in the decision because this is a separate offence but certainly the repetitive slashing in this case was seen as excessive because, like you say, Lindsay could have stopped after disarming the intruders.
I really appreciate your videos. Spent a lot of time going through your EU law ones last semester, didn't know you had criminal law ones as well. I'm studying in Ireland by the way. Different legislations for criminal law, however, both are common law jurisdiction. Thanks again.
Hi is this ocr a level law and can I use it for my exam Thursday
pls can you do a video on legal and evidential burden please and how this is discharged by parties
My understanding regarding R v Lindsay was that the occupant was a known drug dealer and the 4 guys with guns were the competition. Just something else to understand, if you are a known criminal or on the police radar (known associate, previous non/convictions) they will try everything they can to deal with you as well.
Mr M Simply the best👍
Thankyou for ur interesting expalnation on self defence in criminal law
Self defence is also covered by Common Law.
Can you please do some videos for criminal evidence and PACE? Your videos are always my only hope to a decent grade 😭😭😭😭😭
Really useful content ad very engaging, thank you!
Thank you so much for these videos. Could you make some videos on the sexual offences act please. Much obliged.
Hi Marcus have you included an outline of men's rea and actus reus anywhere, cheers Richard
I often find the mens rea and actus reus to be most usefully described in relation to different crimes rather than overall. The mens rea for murder is very different to the mens rea for theft as one example.
Ok Thank you
Hello, thank you for uploading this video.. Its really insightful. I was wondering if I could ask your opinion. Im potentially being taken to court for defending myself against a cyclists. I was driving on a narrow country lane behind a cyclist, I followed for perhaps 200 - 300 meters. The cyclist didn't bother to pull over to let me past so when the road got wider I slowly overtook. When I overtook he punched the rear of the car. I pulled over to check the car and the cyclist was already at my door shouting and threatening me, in my face as I got out. As I got out we immediately got into a bit of a scuffle, he punched me in the face and I fell forward onto his bike (which broke), a scuffle broke out in which I hit him to stun him and then put him into a hold to restrain him until he calmed down. When he said he would stop and calm down a got off him and let him up. We exchanged words as I left, be noticed his bike was damaged and said he's going to call the police; which he did.
Because his bike was apparently £7000 he is trying to take me to court for supposedly attacking him and smashing up his bike.
I don't know if he had video footage, if he did he won't submit it because it proves I did nothing wrong. But as I let him up there where three oncoming Cars stopped in the toad ahead of me and all the would have seen is the middle of the scuffle and me restraining him around the top of his shoulder and u see his arm. So to them, I probably looked like the aggressor but that's not the case. I could have quite easily gone to town on him but I didnt. I asked him to calm down and as soon as he put his arms out to the side and said yes, I let him go.
He is saying that I speeded past him, hit him with my wing mirror (which I didnt) so he punched my car. I got out, assaulted him, broke his bike and tried to strangle him.
I'm not really sure what to do because I didnt think to stop and look for witnesses , and I have no hard proof to prove that his version of events is false and that I didn't do anything wrong. My partner was in the car at the time but she disabled and only got out of the car when I was in the process of restraining him. I can't really afford legal defense at the moment so I was wondering if there is any advice that you (or anyone) could offer please. Either way, thank you for uploading the video because it really helped.
get an attorney man its the best way
Hi Marcus this question concerns the evidentiary and conclusive presumptions under SOA 2003..is it the judge who decides whether a presumption will succeed?
a jury will decide, just like in the assange case
Katya Kulba are you sure? I think a judge directs a jury to a guilty verdict if the presumption is held to apply
I believe so, since under s76 one of the factors that makes it a conclusive presumption is deception as to the nature or purpose and I'm pretty sure its the jury who decides whether there has been a deception. Anyways I could be wrong, but i'm fairly certain. Either way it wont likely be necessary to know that detail for an exam.
Katya Kulba haha exam was last week
@@jhiggsuncc Makes a mockery of having a Jury
very informative thank you.
Thanks this was wonderful
Please do Tort and trust law aswell
Excellent explanation skills
May you live longer :p
Very interesting thanks
Thank you for this video 😊
thank you dear dear
I couldn't help Mom by replacing breathing tube that were detached by Medical Predators @ WSAMCS 2016.
i love you
420 likes, sorry but i cant mess that up. reply to this if someone else messes it up