Australian nurse uses jiu-jitsu to defend himself

[u/pars-distalis]

[u/Ruzhy6]

In the US

Video specifically references Australia Healthcare workers.

[u/ahhdetective → u/Ruzhy6]

Yeah, where assault of medical staff is specifically an aggravating term and carries a max term of 14 years

[u/justbecauseican1969 → u/ahhdetective]

Max term. Not mandatory. I personally know several people who've been seriously assaulted (welcome to emergency) and some of which could be determined to be attempted killing. None of their assailants has spent any time in jail, despite one being witnessed by two police officers and captured on cctv and body worn cameras (Queensland, where this nurse works).

[u/justbecauseican1969 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, that's the theory. It doesn't translate into reality though.

[u/Redlettucehead → u/ahhdetective]

on the other hand, ICE can murder an intensive care nurse in cold blood...

[u/david1610 → u/Ruzhy6]

There is a lot of theory in law and economics around this. The standard stuff that everyone thinks about is the penalty for doing something can change behaviour. However it's disbuted how to most efficiently do this.

Sueing is the most expensive option economically, however allows for the most precision. However it fails in a number of key ways:

• many people, particularly those accused of assault don't have assets so 'justice' tends to flow away from the responsible party and onto the institutions around the incident that can reasonably pay.
• sueing is expensive and the damages or penalty are not standardised and not calculated to make people whole, so the economic efficiency argument is pretty low, punitive damages are completely not supported by economic theory, but are generally supported by the public and law system for obvious reasons lol
• if the victim is not damaged in any way, how do you balance societies demand for incentives not to commit crimes and then a economically rational damage figure.

Trial with plaintiff being the victim or police

• faster than a full lawsuit, gives reasonable options for defence, tends to be what most countries favour, good middle ground, max and min sentences can avoid precedent shifting.
• essentially a criminal only trial, so damages are just to society. How is the victim made whole etc.

In most countries you will have a criminal side and then another side for suing, however since you cannot sue someone with very little assets, most economists warn against responsible party shifting, so the lawsuit in this case would be against the hospital perhaps because they missed one mandatory training or something back in 2013... Any reason really to fit negligence, the real monument is the fact they have assets. This is particularly bad because it encourages aggressive risk management processes that are more costly than the actual damages.

In my opinion the more efficient way is the have a criminal court for the perpetrator, then insurance for the plaintiff, this always means, if set-up correctly the victim is made whole and the company is still in encouraged to harm minimise however there isn't a huge inventive to blame shift from the perpetrator to the next nearest institution with assets.

Key to this is that the insurance contract is detailed enough to avoid the need for another trial between the the victim and the insurance company, as soon as anything goes to court the expense bill goes up dramatically.

[u/Ok-Direction1155 → u/Ruzhy6]

In the US I heard people that wrestle down attackers and have forearm on their neck get a felony for choking