Oppo Camp The Non-North Footy Discussion & Matchday Chat Thread (NNFD&MCT) IX

Remove this Banner Ad

Is that the case? Or just an assumption?

My point is that punching someone in the head can do just as much damage as glassing them so it's a weirdly arbitrary distinction to make.
The law would disagree. Assault occasioning bodily harm has a massive spectrum, hospital for some stitches no big deal. Unlawful wounding by glass to the face and cuts is gaol time and rightfully so. One punch can kill but it's very rare and there are thousands of fights across Australia over a weekend. If you choose to smash or stab someone with a bottle or glass it is a completely different charge, again rightfully so.
 
The law would disagree. Assault occasioning bodily harm has a massive spectrum, hospital for some stitches no big deal. Unlawful wounding by glass to the face and cuts is gaol time and rightfully so. One punch can kill but it's very rare and there are thousands of fights across Australia over a weekend. If you choose to smash or stab someone with a bottle or glass it is a completely different charge, again rightfully so.

Are we talking explicitly about the legal definitions here though? It's foolish to hold your personal standards to the letter of the law as they are by definition created to account for a wide range of scenarios and therefore have a huge amount of grey area.

In my opinion if you are choosing to attack someone's head with the intent of causing them harm it doesn't matter a huge amount if it's with your fists or with a glass. Maybe you get 'lucky' and the glass only causes a bruise and a few cuts, or maybe you get 'unlucky' and your punch fractures the skull and causes contusions in the brain which lead to long term damage, or worse. It doesn't mean you should just brush off the risk entirely because of the outcome, at least not in a non-legal sense.

Afaik we don't know the whether or not Balta acted in self-defense, but you seem to be weirdly defensive about the specifics of whether he allegedly attacked someone 'just' with his fists or not. Trying to downplay it even.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Are we talking explicitly about the legal definitions here though? It's foolish to hold your personal standards to the letter of the law as they are by definition created to account for a wide range of scenarios and therefore have a huge amount of grey area.

In my opinion if you are choosing to attack someone's head with the intent of causing them harm it doesn't matter a huge amount if it's with your fists or with a glass. Maybe you get 'lucky' and the glass only causes a bruise and a few cuts, or maybe you get 'unlucky' and your punch fractures the skull and causes contusions in the brain which lead to long term damage, or worse. It doesn't mean you should just brush off the risk entirely because of the outcome, at least not in a non-legal sense.

Afaik we don't know the whether or not Balta acted in self-defense, but you seem to be weirdly defensive about the specifics of whether he allegedly attacked someone 'just' with his fists or not. Trying to downplay it even.
There are thousands of fights across the country every weekend. People get punched, that will never stop. For the most part it's a few cuts and bruising and some damaged ego's, the rate of serious injury from a fist fight is minimal. The rate of serious injury from glassing would be huge, it's an odd argument. I couldn't give two ****s for Balta but for people to say he glassed someone without knowing the truth is disgusting.
 
There are thousands of fights across the country every weekend. People get punched, that will never stop. For the most part it's a few cuts and bruising and some damaged ego's, the rate of serious injury from a fist fight is minimal. The rate of serious injury from glassing would be huge, it's an odd argument. I couldn't give two ****s for Balta but for people to say he glassed someone without knowing the truth is disgusting.
It may never stop, but thankfully prevalence rates have gone down in the last 15 years (for men, from 10% experiencing physical violence in 2005 to 6% in 2022).
Hopefully that number continues to decline, but it won't if we are dismissive of physical violence because it's "just a punch on".
 
It may never stop, but thankfully prevalence rates have gone down in the last 15 years (for men, from 10% experiencing physical violence in 2005 to 6% in 2022).
Hopefully that number continues to decline, but it won't if we are dismissive of physical violence because it's "just a punch on".
Yep, 💯 trending the right way. I have teenagers and I'm amazed by the lack of fighting that happens in their age range. I don't look at the stats but the sample size in my town amongst the 18-24yr olds is exceptional. Education of consequences I'm thinking is the major reason.
 
You would struggle to get bail for glassing someone and be charged with unlawful wounding. I think it's just people making shit up.
Once upon a time glassing someone had an English definition, stabbing someone with a broken glass or bottle. But sometime in the 1990s or 2000s people started referring to hitting someone with glass that wasn't broken (ie breaking a bottle or not breaking it) as glassing.
 
It may never stop, but thankfully prevalence rates have gone down in the last 15 years (for men, from 10% experiencing physical violence in 2005 to 6% in 2022).
Hopefully that number continues to decline, but it won't if we are dismissive of physical violence because it's "just a punch on".
Compared to the 70s and 80s there's been a constant decline.

We used to sneak out to pubs in high school in the days when you could borrow your mates older brothers photocopied birth extract to get in. Within a couple of years - by the time I was legally going to the same places there was alot less aggro and violence.

Maybe it was the influence of the Smiths or a few years of unleaded petrol being available. .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Remove this Banner Ad

Oppo Camp The Non-North Footy Discussion & Matchday Chat Thread (NNFD&MCT) IX

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top