Assault

[spudchucka]

As for the MAF laws, if it only applies to serious reoffenders why does it still have to be gender specific?

Simply to recognise that it is a higher level of assault than common assault.

[The_Dover]

Simply to recognise that it is a higher level of assault than common assault.

Why is it a higher level of assault? Because of the gender of the perpetrator and the victim?

Bullshit.

[Ixion]

I remember a few years back, there was a local problem with several young females going round bashing up elderly men , sometimes robbbing them sometimes not. These were BIG females, maybe 18, 19, best part of 6 foot.

They'd pick on some old guy (I'm meaning 70, 80 maybe) doing his shopping or whatever, then follow him or lure him to a quiet place (mostly by asking for help "Hey, Mister can you help us please".) Then give him the bash

They got away with it for a long time. Most of the time the old boys, even if quite healthy and fit , were unwilling to fight back aginst females. And the few that reported it to the cops , the cops pretty much told them to piss off.

Only got caught when they went too far , and seriously injured a guy, to the point he nearly died. Cops had to take some notice then, and the previous stuff came out.

Reckon we oughta have a "Young person assaults old person" offence?

The statistic that more women get assaulted than men is cobblers. Most assaults on females get reported - as instanced in this thread. Only a tiny fraction of assaults on males are reported, because most guys realise that reporting will just get them laughed at. You try going to the cop shop and reporting that you've been given the bash by a chick. They'll laugh you out the door.

Not condoning assault by anyone on anyone (except maybe bikers assaulting bloody U turning taxi drivers - but I'd class that as pest extermination). Just pointing out.

[ManDownUnder]

Why is it a higher level of assault? Because of the gender of the perpetrator and the victim?

I don't think it is - no. But being a more prevalent crime the govt needs to be seen doing something about it... and making the "deterrent" larger should appease the masses.

That being said - I know where you're coming from, and I agree with you 100%. It is BS... but it's politics.

The max penalty available is one thing, but what counts (in my mind) is what actually gets passed down as a sentence for the various crimes. If the judiciary has a similar bias (i.e. they punish one type of crime more heavily than the other, based purely on the gender of those involved) then I have more of an issue with it.

[Hitcher]

"Silly old fart"?

You cannot be serious?

[ManDownUnder]

You cannot be serious?

Yes he can - he's done it 3 times now...!

[sAsLEX]

The fact that there is a specific offence (MAF) and that the penalties are higher recognises that NZ has a historical problem with domestic violence and that there are aggravating factors of a male assaulting a female that make the offence more serious than common assault.

As has been said before females use different tactics in warfare due to their general lack of physical presence, can they be charged with using that weapon? Sometimes it aint one sided, I mean poke a dog with a stick enough and you will get bit.



Oh and MDU they have finally made it fair in the Stat Rape thing with females being able to be charged with that now, so maybe the law is evolving slowly.

[Riff Raff]

Gotta agree that in this day and age it's not right that assualts on females are more likely to get results than those on males. I've attended to males who have nasty injuries inflicted on them by women.

In one case a couple with a long history of domestics had another argument - he pushed her, so she smashed a bottle over his head. The police wouldn't let him lay charges against her, because they felt they were both to blame. But I wonder if it had been him to smash the bottle over her head, would he have been charged?

I go to far more women who have been injured in domestic violence than I do men, but I think there is an increase in male injuries.

Society is becoming more violent, and believe me there are a lot of nasty women out there with the size and physical stamina to do some serious damage.

[ManDownUnder]

Oh and MDU they have finally made it fair in the Stat Rape thing with females being able to be charged with that now, so maybe the law is evolving slowly.

Yeah I know - fascinating how slow though eh? This MAF vs common assault discussion kinda highlights it yet again
MDU

[NotaGoth]

Maybe I am abit biased on this topic but saying sorry and doing something about it are 2 very different things. That sort of apology ain't worth SHIT!

No the apology that he gave me isn't worth shit, I do realize that.

[Winston001]

I think the Male Assaults Female provision in the Crimes Act dates from the 19th century. It arose as part of the social awareness which developed from writers such as Charles Dickens. Children used to go down mines, crawl up chimneys etc.

This became unacceptable and along with early laws to protect children, laws to protect women also evolved.

I'm not convinced MAF is inappropriate. The womens lib thing is about equal opportunity and rights. It doesn't say women have the same physical capabilities as men. The fact is that in a male/female assault, the vast majority of cases the guy does the bashing. Men are bigger than women.

The simple assault charge still applies if the assault isn't serious.

As to the assault we are discussing - can understand a guy pushing a women or hitting her on the arm out of sheer frustration. But a punch in the face? No way.

[NotaGoth]

Completely agree with the "leave him now" advice, but can't help but wonder if the views here are a little biased. There are a lot of people offering their opinion based on their [considerable] experience - but these seem to be representative of emergency workers and past sufferers of abuse who's dealings with offenders is probably leaning towards the more serious side of the spectrum.

There are instances of such events where, though not justifiable, the actions can be understood, and even forgiven. The previous poster who had the guts to put his side of the story up for example - the fact that he told this to help others understand the situation shows to me that he's not a scumbag who deserves a criminal record, but some one who let his emotions get the better of him, did something wrong and then did something about it.

Of course there are others who do need "sorting out", but each situation has it's own variables, circumstances and degrees. I don't know enough of this backgound of case to offer advice on whether to charge the guy - but again, I agree it's better to move on at the very least.

As for the MAF laws, if it only applies to serious reoffenders why does it still have to be gender specific?
STR.

And people missed the part where those posts where deleted by a mod due to the fact they were not correct. Someone should have thought before he posted.

[Streetwise]

post his cell number as Im sure he would love me to give him a call, we could do a ten thousand strong text bomb.

[Colapop]

I'm not going to lecture you or debate the issue. I won't even send you another PM (you probably been sent a million).

All I'll say is - I support you.

[scumdog]

Go to the cops, don't listen to your folks. A charge against him can go a long way

I agree, even if at the end of the day no action gets taken there will at least be a 'record' of this event so that he can't say "sorry officer, it's never happened before".