Causation # 3 - Intervening Acts

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 24 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 26

  • @SaeedKhan-pm7jn
    @SaeedKhan-pm7jn 2 роки тому +3

    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❄

  • @hazelkmorgan
    @hazelkmorgan 10 років тому +11

    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.

  • @TheLawBank
    @TheLawBank  11 років тому +32

    You are welcome

  • @xgdetailersserikembangan1489
    @xgdetailersserikembangan1489 4 роки тому +2

    It's 2020 and your video is still relevant

  • @porschemmalebna1921
    @porschemmalebna1921 3 роки тому +4

    Thank you!! Very helpful. From Ghana 🇬🇭 ❤️

  • @owurakyei3647
    @owurakyei3647 2 роки тому +1

    I love this lecturer

  • @aere.perrenius7200
    @aere.perrenius7200 4 роки тому +3

    Thank you so much. I just started A Levels and I was so confused on this

  • @AquafinaFlow32
    @AquafinaFlow32 10 років тому +2

    Great videos! Thank you. They have helped me so much.

  • @timfowo6657
    @timfowo6657 7 років тому

    you are just too amazing 1m% better than my Criminal law lecturer

  • @Squirreljess
    @Squirreljess 10 років тому

    Love all your videos!

  • @sally-annehungwe5757
    @sally-annehungwe5757 10 років тому +1

    thank you so much this really helps. God bless

  • @jordananthonymagtoto5928
    @jordananthonymagtoto5928 10 років тому +1

    Amazing work.

  • @allyourcode
    @allyourcode 3 роки тому

    I like that the word "daft" is a legal term of art XD That is just hilarious to me.

  • @Damms_
    @Damms_ 7 років тому

    hi, please how do I apply Child destruction act in a problem question, where its not entirely sure how far gone the victim is ?

  • @hajaratukargbo7059
    @hajaratukargbo7059 3 роки тому

    Thank youuuuu
    You're a saviour OnG

  • @cyshen541
    @cyshen541 11 років тому +1

    thank you very much!

  • @daphine71
    @daphine71 10 років тому +1

    very informative!!!!!!! Thank you so much. Owesome!!!!!!!

  • @KidDavidFootball
    @KidDavidFootball 3 роки тому +2

    still useful 2021

  • @ginaharrison7329
    @ginaharrison7329 3 роки тому

    I feel bad that I understood this better than my lecturer. Thanks.

  • @davidkabwe1489
    @davidkabwe1489 4 роки тому +1

    Brilliant

  • @munkeemunks
    @munkeemunks 5 років тому

    I do hope you're doing well...

  • @benjamintambalebbie4455
    @benjamintambalebbie4455 3 роки тому +1

    Ee

  • @allyourcode
    @allyourcode 3 роки тому

    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.

    • @allyourcode
      @allyourcode 3 роки тому

      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.