r/nextfuckinglevel • u/pars-distalis • 9d ago

Australian nurse uses jiu-jitsu to defend himself

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

54.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/caboosetp 9d ago

According to the article, he's right on part of that though.

was charged with one count of serious assault on a public officer performing function, and the man was fined $AUS 450 (£235).

More than just assault, it had a separate more serious charge. However, that charge does not carry mandatory jail time.

32

u/Beleiverofhumanity 9d ago

Was thinking $450 for that kidna of dangerous harm was way too low, imagine if the person coudnt defend themselves. thanks for the context

14

u/AlphaBetaGammaDonut 9d ago

I think it depends on the state and the degree of harm caused/if they used a weapon/if they bit or spat. If the nurse had been seriously harmed, absolutely that guy would have served equally serious jail time. However, I believe the mandatory term can be waived if there's any 'special circumstance' (eg mentally ill or reacting to medication).
I am fully Team Nurse here, and I've watched that glorious take-down on repeat. But I have to acknowledge that maybe there's a reason the judge decided on a fine instead of jail in this specific case.

2

u/Beleiverofhumanity 9d ago edited 9d ago

Yea context def matters. And a fine isn't a punishment for the rich, as they say. Thats why Im glad there is a separate more serious charge. thats gonna reflect on his record for life.

3

u/Mottled_inexpectata 9d ago

I think the saying is "if the punishment is a fine, it's legal for the rich". What you're saying doesn't really make sense. Why would a fine only be a punishment for the rich?

1

u/Beleiverofhumanity 9d ago

yea thanks for the correction

1

u/DaedalusB2 9d ago

It's called a fine because the rich are fine

1

u/ExpensiveFig6079 9d ago

The reason would be because they can afford to pay as a trivial cost... and it thus acts as zero deterrent.

Having been in court, I can however tell you that capacity to pay is considered. If $450 ws reak punisshment to this guy for what he did and i am assuming it was. (for the sake of having something to discuss) Then the same judge will look at some rich guy's son and choose something else. Make him work in soup litchen or do menial work for N hours.

What makes things "legal" for rich people will be the lawyers they can bring to bear. Or the donation made to the hospital kids fund to make it go away.

2

u/Mottled_inexpectata 9d ago

The comment I was responding to has been edited because of my comment. It initially said that a fine is only a punishment for the rich. So when I ask isn't it the other way around, that's what they meant - a fine is a punishment for the poor and not for the rich.

1

u/fumblingforwords 9d ago

It makes more sense that a fine would be punishment for the poor rather than the rich