Interesting scenarios, whats your opinion?

[Orlymam]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Hi Guys,

Basically you have to tell me whether you think these scenarios are provoked or unprovoked. I heard them from a friend of mine who also is studying law.

1) Mr. A and Mr. B are arguing. Mr. C (who is Mr. B's brother) believes that Mr. A is annoying his brother, so he throws his shoe at him.

2) A boy throws a brick at a very crowded tram, and it hits Mr X. The boy did not know that Mr X was on the tram.

It will be interesting to see what you all think ????

[Lara1986]

Is this for an assignment?

If so, don't expect too many serious replies....

If not - sorry but it sounds a lot like students who basically ask others to answer things for them so again, don't expect too many serious replies

[Orlymam]

It was an assignment lol, not mine but my friends.
However, the answers that he got were quite suprising to me thats why I am interested in other people's opinions

[chewy123]

The first is assault, the latter is battery.

Unless C can prove that he's acting to ensure the safety of B, then he got no case, otherwise i can punch someone and claim his existence provoked me.

These answers are useless, i m just a first yr student who dun like law.

[Orlymam]

Originally Posted by chewy123

The first is assault, the latter is battery.

Unless C can prove that he's acting to ensure the safety of B, then he got no case, otherwise i can punch someone and claim his existence provoked me.

These answers are useless, i m just a first yr student who dun like law.

C was not provoked however, thats how I see it. The argument between A and B was not physical and did not directly involve C. However, C still took it upon himself to intervene and throw a shoe. So he was not provoked? See what im saying lol.

And your answers arent useless, im trying to open up a debate here lol. Thanks for your input

[chewy123]

Originally Posted by Orlymam

C was not provoked however, thats how I see it. The argument between A and B was not physical and did not directly involve C. However, C still took it upon himself to intervene and throw a shoe. So he was not provoked? See what im saying lol.

C could argue the fact that the involved person is his brother and this somehow provoked him and thus indirectly forced him to be involve, like how a mother protects her child. Whether C is "involved" in the matter isn't all that important.
C's argument could be made stronger if the annoyance caused B or C to feel that a threat is imminent. Unless this is the case his argument will be very week indeed.

(if only law is like this minus all the readings, i would be staying)

[Lara1986]

Originally Posted by Orlymam

Hi Guys,

Basically you have to tell me whether you think these scenarios are provoked or unprovoked. I heard them from a friend of mine who also is studying law.

1) Mr. A and Mr. B are arguing. Mr. C (who is Mr. B's brother) believes that Mr. A is annoying his brother, so he throws his shoe at him.

2) A boy throws a brick at a very crowded tram, and it hits Mr X. The boy did not know that Mr X was on the tram.

It will be interesting to see what you all think ????

I would say neither were provoked (not based on my knowledge of Criminal Law though - i did it back in 2005 so my memory of this aspect of it is very limited ).

(1) - if it said in the question "annoying" his brother i wouldn't think that would be sufficien to be provocation as annoyance and threatening/harming etc are very different.Depends on what is meant by 'annoyance' and the nature of the argument - eg was there any physical aspect to it?

(2) i wouldn't think would be as there is no connection between Mr X and the boy - if he wasn't aware he was on the train, how could he have provoked him to throw the brick?


But again - in terms of the applicable law, I may be incorrect as I don't recall this area from criminal law in first year

[bell531]

Originally Posted by Orlymam

Hi Guys,

Basically you have to tell me whether you think these scenarios are provoked or unprovoked. I heard them from a friend of mine who also is studying law.

1) Mr. A and Mr. B are arguing. Mr. C (who is Mr. B's brother) believes that Mr. A is annoying his brother, so he throws his shoe at him.

2) A boy throws a brick at a very crowded tram, and it hits Mr X. The boy did not know that Mr X was on the tram.

It will be interesting to see what you all think ????

1. The argument, for Mr C being provoked, to have been put forward by most people so far, rely's on Mr C being Mr B's brother, but doesn't the "paternal protection" rule (maybe that's the wrong word, perhaps "kinship") only apply for those people who have a responsibility to protect others? E.g. a father over his children, or even his nephews and nieces, whereas Mr B is assumed to capable of looking after himself and therefore doesn't need protection from Mr C.

2. This one confuses me: how has the boy been provoked by anyone at all? The boy didn't know Mr X was on the train, and therefore couldn't have been provoked...?

[Marmalade.]

Neither of those are provocation. I don't think we actually studied provocation in crim, but I can guarantee that the provocation defense doesn't extend to "he was annoying my brother". Is provocation a full defense or only a partial defense?

Originally Posted by bell531

1. The argument, for Mr C being provoked, to have been put forward by most people so far, rely's on Mr C being Mr B's brother, but doesn't the "paternal protection" rule (maybe that's the wrong word, perhaps "kinship") only apply for those people who have a responsibility to protect others? E.g. a father over his children, or even his nephews and nieces, whereas Mr B is assumed to capable of looking after himself and therefore doesn't need protection from Mr C.

I don't know why you specified about male parents. Obviously if it applies to men it will apply to women.

[simonloo]

just kiss and make up