Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Max wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... at Northern Beaches Hospital are all locked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the moment, that appears to me to be just outright
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlawful. Either way, it's a singularly bad idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been going through the National Building Code,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which it turns out is accessible on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to sign up, and it wants an ABN, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted a bunch of zeros.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turns out that a fire exit door can be locked provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "(iv)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fitted with a fail-safe device which automatically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocks the door upon the activation of any sprinkler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system (other than a FPAA101D system) complying with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification E1.5 or smoke, or any other detector
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system deemed suitable in accordance with AS 1670.1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed throughout the building, and is readily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> openable when unlocked; "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought a compelling reason would be needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this option to be used, because it limits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availability of the exits to those specific kinds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency, but there is no such requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So that just leaves the false imprisonment issue. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a criminal offence at common law, and it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how short the period of imprisonment is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been researching how the element of "intent" fits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the common law offence of false imprisonment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And made very little progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there never was any intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the problem seems to be that this scenario - a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of incidental false imprisonment - is so rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it happens all the time with lifts that fail,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with car accidents and even jammed fire doors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of those have the required intent to do the act that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leads to the detention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong with lifts that stop when its dangerous to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with train doors which require someone to allow them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be opened when the train has derailed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case in the record, it seems to have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abundantly clear that the specific intent was to detain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that isn't the case with your incident, so you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It just means the issue hasn't been adjudicated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn’t because there is no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the issue of whether intending to do something else,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the detention being merely a foreseen outcome,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just hasn't been a live one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there needs to be an intent to imprison and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lacking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're assuming the issue that's in question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No assumption involved. To prove criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment, that's what needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not aware that I have ever before been in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building but been unable to leave if I wanted to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get out more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transportation vehicles - yes, but there's an implied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consent to that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But no intent to IMPRISON, just keep you safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in a building, never.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If due to my carelessness I lock someone in a room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereby keep them trapped, surely I am guilty of something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, carelessness, which isn't a crime. Not criminal false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because there was no intent to imprison anyone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it does happen at times, particularly with cool rooms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which don’t have any way to open the door from the inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, bad design, but that isn't a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying if someone was locked in a basement for week
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to my fault, where there is food, shower and toilet, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am guilty of no crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that there was no intent to imprison Else.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked
>>>>>>>>>>>> the door to prevent other people from stealing the food?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Still no intent to imprison anyone. Same with cool rooms that
>>>>>>>>>>> have the door shut to keep the cool in, which cant be opened
>>>>>>>>>>> from the inside, with someone accidentally left inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or old fashioned fridges with the traditional door latches
>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a modern magnetic latch with a child inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a car where a child can lock themselves in but cant
>>>>>>>>>>> work out how to open it while inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a parked train and an intruder who cant work out
>>>>>>>>>>> how to get the door to open once inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or a criminal who manages to get into a roof space
>>>>>>>>>>> but cant work out how to get out again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're carefully avoiding this specifics of the scenario, that
>>>>>>>>>> involve locking a door knowing that someone is getting locked in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That didn’t happen in your case, no individual locked the door.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And with aircraft, trains, cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms,
>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>> buildings and houses, an individual did lock the door knowing that
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> was someone inside and none of that is criminal false
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For transportation, there is implied consent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For international arrivals at airports, there is a statutory power
>>>>>>>> to detain for a period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is no period defined in the statute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For your other examples, locking a door doesn't necessarily confine
>>>>>>>> a person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse it does when you don’t have the key.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be deliberately avoiding the specific scenario where a
>>>>>>>> person is confined without their consent (implied or otherwise)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. I keep rubbing your nose in the
>>>>>>> fact that no individual has any intent to imprison you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and without any legal basis for doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as always. There is an obvious legal
>>>>>>> basis for doing what is safer with the lift.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are desperately attempting to stop them doing
>>>>>>> what is perfectly legal for them to do. Just like with
>>>>>>> all the other example I rubbed you nose in.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is an intent to do an action that would imprison then that
>>>>>> is enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always. Most obviously with aircraft, trains,
>>>>> cars, airport arrivals, cool rooms, plenty of buildings
>>>>> and houses, prison visitors, an individual who did lock
>>>>> the door knowing that there was someone inside and
>>>>> none of that is criminal false imprisonment.
>>>>
>>>> All of those situations involve the implied consent of the person being
>>>> trapped.
>>>
>>> Now you've made a fatal mistake. Rod Bot will focus on the fact that
>>> there are situations where that's not the case, and continue to ignore
>>> the specific scenario of interest.
>>
>> I have never ignored your original scenario, I have in fact kept
>> rubbing your nose in the fact that there was never any INTENT
>> to imprison anyone. At most a poorly designed system.
>>
>>> Not that avoiding fatal mistakes will get you much further. The bot will
>>> just go round in circles, desperate to avoid the conclusion that it was
>>> wrong in the first place.
>>
>> You are the one who keeps doing that.
>
> You have carefully ignored:

You are lying, again.

> "Suppose, knowing that someone was in the basement, Max locked the door to
> prevent other people from stealing the food?"

I rubbed your nose in the fact that in individual did
anything like that in your original scenario. No individual
locked any doors to stop anything being stolen.