News Michael Johnson - Charged with assault

[ydraw]

There's a clear assault on Johnno's missus.

No, there isn't. You are allowed to use reasonable force to try to prevent someone from stealing your property. Grabbing someone by the arm as they are walking off with your property is reasonable.

 

[ydraw]

What would have happened if Tim hadn't have taken a video without permission.

You don't need permission to take a video. This has been covered.

 

[PurpleFist]

No, there isn't. You are allowed to use reasonable force to try to prevent someone from stealing your property. Grabbing someone by the arm as they are walking off with your property is reasonable.

Clearly, you're an eagles fan, don't let the door hit you on the way out!!!!11!!

 

[ydraw]

This is not to say Johnson wouldn't still have a genuine defense, if he didn't see what was happening and thought someone was assaulting his wife.

But regardless of what he thought, attempting to stop someone from stealing your phone is not assault unless you use excessive force to do it. E.G. Grabbing them by the arm, putting them in a headlock or a submission hold, these are probably reasonable force. Hitting them in the head with a cricket bat, not so much.

FWIW I doubt Johnson would face assault charges from this incident as it looks to me that he genuinely thought someone was harassing his wife (when actually it was the other way around). He might face disorderly conduct charges though.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Cool.

This is how I see it - objectively - Johnson strolls into kebab shop at 330am, most likely tanked after spending the day drinking at Lee Spurrs wedding, drops his pants for not apparent reason - draws attention of those in the kebab shop, one of whom is a bright spark and decides to snapchat incident.

MJ's wife, more sober of the two notices, realised MJ could be in strife if images gets out - snatches phone off Tim the Teacher, time attempts to retrieve his property, Johnson reacts to another man approaching his wife - drops him, his mate flies in for a go and MJ drops him too.

(all allegedly)

Is that an unreasonable synopsis?

There are several points of dispute:
1. Your assertion that Johnson is "most likely tanked after spending the day drinking" is complete conjecture;
2. It is not clear that MJ dropped his pants. That implies a deliberate action. Rather the pants appear to just fall down, although it's pretty clear his belt is undone.
3. The pants dropping draws the attention of nobody other than Tim, who is clearly not very bright if he thinks it's a good idea to take photos of men in their underwear.

Your synopsis highlights the unreasonableness of your earlier post.

 

[salim malik]

You don't need permission to take a video. This has been covered.

There are arguments to this stance but maybe good manners and some common sense from some one who is teaching our children might've come into the equation.Tim being a teacher out on a school night at 3.30am pissed and videoing strangers and then flogging the video to 7 doesn't exactly put him in the good citizen category.

 

[ydraw]

There are arguments to this stance but maybe good manners and some common sense from some one who is teaching our children might've come into the equation.Tim being a teacher out on a school night at 3.30am pissed and videoing strangers and then flogging the video to 7 doesn't exactly put him in the good citizen category.

Irrelevant. What he did was completely legal and he's under no obligation to delete his video or give up his phone.

Also I'm fairly certain that Saturday night is not a school night, but keep clutching at those straws.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

No, there isn't. You are allowed to use reasonable force to try to prevent someone from stealing your property. Grabbing someone by the arm as they are walking off with your property is reasonable.

From the discussion Mrs Johnson had with Tim earlier, her intentions are clearly to view and/or delete images of her husband, not steal his phone.

 

[Nodgey]

Is there a pool table in this kebab shop? Praps Johnno's a poor pool player.

 

[Vintage]

There are arguments to this stance but maybe good manners and some common sense from some one who is teaching our children might've come into the equation.Tim being a teacher out on a school night at 3.30am pissed and videoing strangers and then flogging the video to 7 doesn't exactly put him in the good citizen category.

Tim is a Sunday school teacher?

 

[ydraw]

From the discussion Mrs Johnson had with Tim earlier, her intentions are clearly to view and/or delete images of her husband, not steal his phone.

She took his property without permission, that is stealing.

If I took your car for a joyride, even if my intention was simply to take my missus to a drive in and then bring it back, guess what? Still stealing.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

She took his property without permission, that is stealing.

If I took your car for a joyride, even if my intention was simply to take my missus to a drive in and then bring it back, guess what? Still stealing.

Taking a car for a joyride removes it from the immediate vicinity. The phone hadn't even left the building.

If I take your car keys away from you because I think you've been drinking too much, which at this point seems a distinct possibility, I'm not stealing them.

 

[salim malik]

Irrelevant. What he did was completely legal and he's under no obligation to delete his video or give up his phone.

But if you read up on the law a restaurant is not a public place. Its a private place if there are rules in place and all restaurants have a dress and behaviour code.
There is a public nuisance law and taking videos without permission could be deemed as a being a nuisance. A good brief would no doubt push that point.

 

[ydraw]

But if you read up on the law a restaurant is not a public place. Its a private place if there are rules in place and all restaurants have a dress and behaviour code.
There is a public nuisance law and taking videos without permission could be deemed as a being a nuisance. A good brief would no doubt push that point.

Wrong on all counts. Why is it so hard for you accept that photography is not illegal? The relevant laws have been posted here a number of times. Just quit while you're behind.

Even if the restaurant had a law banning photography, that still gives nobody any right to touch your phone or take it from you. All they can do is ask you to leave if they don't like what you're doing.

 

[ydraw]

Taking a car for a joyride removes it from the immediate vicinity. The phone hadn't even left the building.

If I take your car keys away from you because I think you've been drinking too much, which at this point seems a distinct possibility, I'm not stealing them.

If you take a stranger's car keys you are 100% stealing them. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

If you take a stranger's car keys you are 100% stealing them. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Haven't done your RSA, have you?

 

[salim malik]

Tim is a Sunday school teacher?

3'30 am is more Monday than Sunday. So no.

 

[ydraw]

Haven't done your RSA, have you?

You can ask someone to give you their keys. You can stop serving them alcohol. You cannot forcibly take them away.

 

[ydraw]

3'30 am is more Monday than Sunday. So no.

It was 3:30am Sunday morning. Which is what comes after Saturday Midnight.

 

[Clems Knee]

Irrelevant. What he did was completely legal and he's under no obligation to delete his video or give up his phone.

Also I'm fairly certain that Saturday night is not a school night, but keep clutching at those straws.

As he is a teacher, there may be a case that taking videos of people in a state of undress without their permission contravenes the teacher's Code of Conduct.

The school night bit was funny though!

She took his property without permission, that is stealing.

If I took your car for a joyride, even if my intention was simply to take my missus to a drive in and then bring it back, guess what? Still stealing.

Is this analogy really that useful? Maybe reversing a car down the driveway would be closer.

This is not to say Johnson wouldn't still have a genuine defense, if he didn't see what was happening and thought someone was assaulting his wife.

But regardless of what he thought, attempting to stop someone from stealing your phone is not assault unless you use excessive force to do it. E.G. Grabbing them by the arm, putting them in a headlock or a submission hold, these are probably reasonable force. Hitting them in the head with a cricket bat, not so much.

FWIW I doubt Johnson would face assault charges from this incident as it looks to me that he genuinely thought someone was harassing his wife (when actually it was the other way around). He might face disorderly conduct charges though.

I think putting a woman in a headlock or submission hold would be classed as excessive force. Grabbing them by the arm is also debatable, in this case. But if Tim's mate is also a teacher, he would know that.

I agree with you regarding the likelihood of any charges being brought to bear. At most disorderly conduct.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

You can ask someone to give you their keys. You can stop serving them alcohol. You cannot forcibly take them away.

Why are you so intent on being right when you're not?

 

[ydraw]

I think putting a woman in a headlock or submission hold would be classed as excessive force. Grabbing them by the arm is also debatable, in this case. But if Tim's mate is also a teacher, he would know that.

Not if the woman is stealing your property, it would not be, no. The gender of the thief is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much bodily damage you stood to inflict relative to the crime.

 

[ydraw]

Why are you so intent on being right when you're not?

Go on then, show me in the liquor act where it says you're allowed to steal people's stuff. Otherwise I'm just going to go ahead assuming you're making s**t up.

 

[Clems Knee]

Not if the woman is stealing your property, it would not be, no. The gender of the thief is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much bodily damage you stood to inflict relative to the crime.

Do you law? You seem to think that the legal process is a very black and white affair. My experience so far has been that there is a lot of grey. The bodily damage you are likely to inflict is greater when inflicted on children and women - because both are smaller.
Confiscation is not automatically theft.

 

[salim malik]

Wrong on all counts. Why is it so hard for you accept that photography is not illegal? The relevant laws have been posted here a number of times. Just quit while you're behind.

Even if the restaurant had a law banning photography, that still gives nobody any right to touch your phone or take it from you. All they can do is ask you to leave if they don't like what you're doing.

You're wrong ,what part of that dont you understand . Read up on Australian law re public and Private. Its irrational that you think you're always right. Guess what you're as dumb as the rest of us. Where was it mentioned by me about confiscating phones. I said they could be charged with being a nuisance if permission hadn't been granted. If Tim had not have acted like a knob and taken the video and then tried to make a dollar out of it then we wouldn't be discussing this.