BATTERY: The injection of the GMO ('covid vaccine') against your will or by coercion, is battery.
"The good news is the story is not over." They are all guilty. We need to define "they".
Click on the picture below:
Click on the picture below:
Understanding Assault and Battery: Legal Distinctions and Implications
Assault and battery are two distinct legal terms often used interchangeably in everyday language. However, they represent separate offences with unique elements and implications under the law. Here I aim to elucidate the differences between assault and battery, their legal definitions, the required elements for conviction, potential defences, and the penalties associated with these crimes.
Legal Definitions
Assault
Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that causes another person to fear imminent harm or offensive contact. It does not require physical contact; the mere threat or attempt to inflict harm is sufficient. For instance, raising a fist in a threatening manner can constitute assault if it causes the victim to reasonably fear that they are about to be struck.
Battery
Battery, on the other hand, involves the actual application of unlawful force to another person. It requires physical contact, which can range from a minor touch to severe physical harm. The contact must be intentional and without the victim's consent. For example, slapping someone in the face during an argument is considered battery.
Elements of Assault
To secure a conviction for assault, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
1. Intentional Act: The defendant must have acted intentionally or recklessly. The jabber’s bosses.
2. Reasonable Apprehension: The victim must have reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of harm.
3. Imminence: The threat of harm must be immediate, not a distant or future threat.
Elements of Battery
For a battery conviction, the prosecution must establish:
Intentional Contact: The defendant must have intentionally made contact with the victim.
2. Unlawful Force: The contact must be unlawful, meaning it was without consent and not legally justified.
3. Physical Contact: There must be actual physical contact, though it does not need to result in injury. The penetration of a persons skin with a needle without consent does result in injury.
Legal Distinctions
The primary distinction between assault and battery lies in the presence of physical contact. Assault focuses on the threat or attempt to cause harm, while battery involves the actual infliction of harm. This distinction is crucial in legal proceedings, as it affects the charges, defences, and penalties involved.
Defences to Assault and Battery
Several defenses can be raised against charges of assault and battery, including:
Self-Defense
A defendant may claim self-defense if they used reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced.
Defense of Others
Similar to self-defence, this defence applies when the defendant used force to protect another person from imminent harm.
Consent
If the victim consented to the contact, such as in contact sports, the defendant may use this as a defense. Consent can be either explicit or implied from the circumstances.
Duress
A defendant may argue that they committed the act under duress, meaning they were forced to act due to threats of serious harm or death. A jabber doctor fearful of losing one’s job.
Penalties for Assault and Battery
Assault and battery are distinct legal offenses with specific elements and implications. Understanding the differences between these crimes is essential for both legal professionals and the general public. While assault involves the threat or attempt to cause harm, battery requires actual physical contact. Various defenses can be employed to contest these charges, and the penalties can range from minor fines to lengthy prison sentences, depending on the severity of the offense. Recognizing these distinctions helps ensure that justice is appropriately administered in cases involving assault and battery.
Forcing a person to take medication against their will can indeed be considered battery under certain circumstances. Battery, in the legal context, involves the intentional and unlawful physical contact with another person without their consent. In the medical setting, this principle applies to any treatment, including the administration of medication, performed without the patient's valid consent.
Legal Framework for Battery in Medical Treatment
In the medical context, battery includes any medical procedure or treatment administered without the patient's consent. Consent is a fundamental defence against a claim of battery. If a patient consents to a treatment, the treatment is lawful. Conversely, if a treatment is administered without consent, it can be considered battery. For consent to be valid, it must be informed, meaning the patient must be fully aware of the nature, risks, and benefits of the treatment. If a patient is not adequately informed, the consent may not be considered valid, potentially leading to a claim of battery.
Specific Contexts of Forced Medication
In non-emergency situations, administering medication without the patient's consent is generally considered battery. This is because the patient has the right to make autonomous decisions about their own body and medical treatment. In emergencies, where immediate treatment is necessary to save a life or prevent serious harm, consent may not be required. In such cases, the administration of medication without consent is typically not considered battery, provided the treatment is necessary and there is no time to obtain consent.
In the context of mental health, the laws can be more complex. Forcible medication may be permitted under specific legal frameworks, such as involuntary treatment orders, where the patient is deemed incapable of making informed decisions due to their mental state. These orders are typically subject to strict legal criteria and oversight to ensure they are used appropriately and only when necessary to prevent harm.
If a person is coerced into being injected with a substance known to have serious adverse reactions, including death, this situation can potentially constitute battery and other very serious legal violations. Coercion undermines the validity of consent. If a person is coerced into taking a vaccine, their consent is not considered voluntary. This can be seen as a violation of their bodily autonomy and can legally be classified as battery. The situation is further complicated if the substance in question is known to have serious adverse reactions, including death. This raises additional ethical and legal concerns. For consent to be valid, the patient must be fully informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the treatment. If the risks include serious adverse reactions or death, this information must be disclosed to the patient.
Medical professionals have a duty of care to their patients, which includes ensuring that treatments are safe and that patients are fully informed about potential risks. Administering a known toxic substance without proper consent breaches this duty. Coercing someone into taking a vaccine with known serious risks is battery, as it involves non-consensual physical contact. If the adverse reactions occur, the medical professional or institution is liable for negligence, especially if they failed to inform the patient of the risks or coerced them into taking the vaccine.
Coercing someone into taking a potentially harmful substance can also be seen as a violation of their human rights, particularly the right to bodily integrity and autonomy. Various legal discussions and court cases have addressed the issue of vaccine mandates and coercion. For example, the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that certain COVID-19 vaccine mandates were unlawful, highlighting the importance of voluntary consent and the right to refuse medical treatment. Cases involving adverse reactions to vaccines, such as the class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca for its COVID-19 vaccine, demonstrate the legal complexities and potential liabilities when serious side effects are involved.
Coercing a person into being injected with a substance known to have serious adverse reactions, including death, constitutes battery and other legal violations, including in my opinion, manslaughter or even murder. The lack of valid, voluntary consent and the presence of significant risks elevate the ethical and legal stakes, potentially leading to liability for battery, negligence, and human rights violations. Legal and medical professionals must ensure that consent is fully informed and voluntary to avoid such serious implications.
From Academia. Not much practical advice here. Not much wisdom. No idea of the totality of scientific information available. Click and read the article.
Our story is continuing!
Ian Brighthope
I love that we are talking about these unjust mandates as assault and battery
My nurse friend was coerced (forced) into jabs to keep her job AND visit her mum in care. She had 2, got reactions from both and now has to keep getting exemptions from a doctor to keep her job. (She works in Victoria that still has mandates in health care).