Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:blah

blah

blah

blah

There's a reason it's called "Assault and Battery", not "Battery".

You've only had your hand for six years? Huh. Weird.

That's right. Assault is still assault. A reasonable threat can also be charged as assault - that does not mean that it will be ultimately enforced. Brandishing a weapon is automatically assault. He said he was going to kill an identifiable person and it was recorded - that's proven intent to harm. The inevitable defense of 'reasonable doubt' (regarding intent) will typically get the offender off with a slap on the wrist and an AVO at worst.

I only recently figured out you could do that with your hand, but since then, I've never looked back. I won't hear your slurs against Ms. Palmer! I'll assault you on a schoolbus to defend her honour!
(Does anyone know how I can tell if my hand is pregnant?)

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Threats of such are still assaults.

Uh, actually they're not.

"Assaults" actually involve physical contact. At most, you'd get something for threats, inappropriate behavior in the presence of minors(depending on the age of the kids on the bus), etc.

Welcome to the schoolbus. Here's your free condom. That's for your protection while you get LEARNED.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:blah

blah

blah

blah

There's a reason it's called "Assault and Battery", not "Battery".

You've only had your hand for six years? Huh. Weird.

That's right. Assault is still assault. A reasonable threat can also be charged as assault - that does not mean that it will be ultimately enforced. Brandishing a weapon is automatically assault. He said he was going to kill an identifiable person and it was recorded - that's proven intent to harm. The inevitable defense of 'reasonable doubt' (regarding intent) will typically get the offender off with a slap on the wrist and an AVO at worst.

No, "proven intent to harm" is that if he had actually made steps at attacking the kids or had a weapon(which bumps the level of intent up a bit).
Very very very rarely will you ever see assault by itself being charged, simply because of the language regarding what constitutes an assault.
Can people be held for threats?
Sure. But whenever they do it, it tends to be for a "cooling-off" period. If the person seems serious about it...that's when charges start getting filed.

I only recently figured out you could do that with your hand, but since then, I've never looked back. I won't hear your slurs against Ms. Palmer! I'll assault you on a schoolbus to defend her honour!
(Does anyone know how I can tell if my hand is pregnant?)

Is your hand leaking a discharge?
If yes, congratulations on your new digits!

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:blah

blah

blah

blah

There's a reason it's called "Assault and Battery", not "Battery".

You've only had your hand for six years? Huh. Weird.

That's right. Assault is still assault. A reasonable threat can also be charged as assault - that does not mean that it will be ultimately enforced. Brandishing a weapon is automatically assault. He said he was going to kill an identifiable person and it was recorded - that's proven intent to harm. The inevitable defense of 'reasonable doubt' (regarding intent) will typically get the offender off with a slap on the wrist and an AVO at worst.

No, "proven intent to harm" is that if he had actually made steps at attacking the kids or had a weapon(which bumps the level of intent up a bit).
Very very very rarely will you ever see assault by itself being charged, simply because of the language regarding what constitutes an assault.
Can people be held for threats?
Sure. But whenever they do it, it tends to be for a "cooling-off" period. If the person seems serious about it...that's when charges start getting filed.

So, a person CAN be charged with assault for verbal treats? Huh.

Shouldn't the bus driver get charged with negligence or something if kids are getting beat up tc on his bus?

Something about duty of care?

Emperors Faithful wrote:So, a person CAN be charged with assault for verbal treats? Huh.

With very specific circumstances present(such as a history of violent acts), or it being witnessed by an officer and the stars aligning in such a way that Jupiter and Mars are one.

So for all intents and purposes:
It doesn't happen.

From a teacher's point of view, let me assure you that catching bullies is an SOB.

Schools are aware of the problem, we have hours of PD to learn how to stop it.

Teachers know who the bullies are - it's not hard to figure out.

What's hard to do is *catch* them. Bullies tend to be very good at what they do. What's worse, it's like pulling teeth trying to get a student to "snitch" on what's going on. Even then, we need a good paper trail to nail the bullies. Parents fight tooth and nail because NOBODY has a bully for a child. We have the wrong kid!

I'll agree that teachers do try to overlook a lot of stupid crap. I assure you we catch more than we let on. It's just a balancing act of wasting time on a blip vs calling out a behavior that's going to lead to more problems.

If I had a kid that wasn't disabled I would incourage them to stand up for themselves but in this case I think what the father did the right thing.

I wouldn't ever allow for my child to be pick on because he/she is disabled.

I would say kids can be cruel but even kids know whats right and wrong and what these kids did was completly unjust.


They deseverd what they got.

Good on the dad to look after his daughter

I think most everyone supports the Dad standing up for his kid, good on him. I mean, most kids are pretty horrible but picking on a kid with cerebral palsy is miles beyond what's acceptable.

That said, there was a lot of kids on that bus that had nothing to do with what happened, and didn't deserve to hear the Dad go off like that. It's cool he apologised to them.

From what I can see, it looks like some donkey-caves got yelled at, and apologies were offered to people who deserved them. I don't see how the situation is improved by dragging criminal charges in, against anyone involved.

sebster wrote: I don't see how the situation is improved by dragging criminal charges in, against anyone involved.

Because we must uphold the LAW!!!!! specially when things like this get on TV and public officials loss face. As Frazz said the obstruction to justice is a petty charge to show that angry father that he is nothing.

I remember a case back around 2001 in which an AA pilot was fired and the charged with robbery (or something similar) for going in his plane and grabbing a pickaxe that its stored in the cockpit to make a point to some TSA officials that he did not need the little scissors they took from him in case he wanted to kill the copilot and crash the plane. They were humiliated so as usual then they proceed to bend the law and get on top by charging him with a made up crime.

M.

Miguelsan wrote:Because we must uphold the LAW!!!!! specially when things like this get on TV and public officials loss face. As Frazz said the obstruction to justice is a petty charge to show that angry father that he is nothing.

I'd think it's more a case of wanting to look active while remaining politically neutral. So they charge the Dad with something minor and give a press release about investigating the bullies.

The AA example does sound very much like a petty bureaucracy trying to score a win over a guy who was right.

Both the father and the people on that bus are lucky that the father wasn't more reactive.

Was this necessary? No, it wasn't necessary to run into a bus and fart paternally in the faces of all the children on that bus.

On the other hand.

PBBBBHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTT!!!

IN. YOUR. FACE. PUNKS.



The guys daughter has a serious disability, whomever picked on this child should feel as crappy as they really are.

13 years old or not, the kid/s responsible should be considered as the douche/s they really are.

Wimps, when I were at school, I bullied great white sharks, silverback gorillas and megatron off the transformers.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Wimps, when I were at school, I bullied great white sharks, silverback gorillas and megatron off the transformers.

I always felt sorry for Starscream. Truly the 'middle child' of the Decepticons.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I always felt sorry for Starscream. Truly the 'middle child' of the Decepticons.

I always felt he was the youngest, loud and attention grabbing. Soundwave was the middle child, mostly overlooked, small circle of cassettes, quiet, mostly happy to go along with the eldest's ideas... only when he was away from Megatron did he truly shine and demonstrate excellent decepticon leadership not based on simplistic revenge but on sound logic, science and hostile psychology. In those episodes of the comics where he took charge, things got done. His only failings were his loyalty to megatron and his lack of self confidence to go it alone or challenge.

There is really only one awesome Decepticreep..

MeanGreenStompa
I just have to know: what is your avatar and where did it come from? I find myself staring at it for who knows how long whenever I visit dakka.

sebster wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:Because we must uphold the LAW!!!!! specially when things like this get on TV and public officials loss face. As Frazz said the obstruction to justice is a petty charge to show that angry father that he is nothing.

I'd think it's more a case of wanting to look active while remaining politically neutral. So they charge the Dad with something minor and give a press release about investigating the bullies.

The AA example does sound very much like a petty bureaucracy trying to score a win over a guy who was right.

Exactly.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:MeanGreenStompa
I just have to know: what is your avatar and where did it come from? I find myself staring at it for who knows how long whenever I visit dakka.

It's Brian Blessed - no doubt involved in some UK/Asian Endurance show or promotion thereof.

Is Brian Blessed the guy with wings from Flash Gordon?

Of course he is.

Hehe, I've wondered about Meangreen's avatar for awhile now. My childhood was clearly not wasted then!

Indeed! Come next month, you'll also be able to have him on your satnav!

He might even frighten rampant fathers off your schoolbus!

ok.... so why is he yelling/travelling down a tunnel of light thingamabob?

reds8n wrote:There is really only one awesome Decepticreep..

Shockwave, the man the myth. Once again, like Soundwave a superior junior officer held in thrall by an egomaniacal over his head boss.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ok.... so why is he yelling/travelling down a tunnel of light thingamabob?

If memory serves, he's flying through the air anime style yelling 'BANZAII!!!!!'

AbaddonFidelis wrote:ok.... so why is he yelling/travelling down a tunnel of light thingamabob?

It's taken from an advert for Unbeatable Banzuke that I found funny every time it was on tv.

http://fliiby.com/file/125337/ivfd10izu5.html

reds8n wrote:There is really only one awesome Decepticreep..

Ah, the only Robot Hero fig I nabbed off my sons, He's mine, mine I tell you. Plus he guards my PC, got to have some dependable to do that.