Suddenly I noticed, after writing a difference between a victim and a survivor, that there is a subjectivity that can rightly claim to have been abused. I don't think it's a coincidence that I just learned from the Shell skull rule.
It's worth knowing. This is a technical description of the Skull Shell rule:
A doctrine that makes the defendant liable for unforeseeable and unusual reactions of the plaintiff to the negligent or intentional complaint of the defendant. If the defendant is crying the plaintiff without full defense, the defendant is liable for any damage aggravated by the particular characteristics of the plaintiff.
A simpler explanation is:
It is usually said that the unexpected fragility of the injured person in a case of damage is not a valid defense for the seriousness of the damage that occurs to these people.
In the most common language, the rule of the eggshell Skull prescribes that when a person is hit on the head by a force-induced pen and suffers from an injury because his skull consists of an eggshell, guilt is completely on the feet of Alwa PE that brings the spring. It's scary, isn't it?
If we hurt someone, whether we wanted it or not, and are under unpredictable prejudice and above all a rare disease, we are responsible.
This rule is a principle accepted by customary law. This law is the type practiced in courts where a person can be prosecuted for damages. It's not the kind of court that sends you to prison.
This means that we cannot tell a person that there is not enough power or reason to be able to claim abuse. This means that the abuse is not now defined by the law against the person, but by the injuries, they have suffered.
They may be particularly vulnerable people, and the damage caused would not cause a more resilient person to suffer from such damage.
The good thing about this legal principle is that it protects the weakest. The uplifting news for the person in question or overcomer of maltreatment is that they do not have to prove that the extent of the abuse is unacceptable. You have proof of your being.
The way I understand it when a person has a post-traumatic stress disorder and has not had it in advance, and only one event has been triggered, in this case, is the (potential) evil false-civil. And this rule will probably be far beyond this specific example.
What we can say is that we have to be very careful with what we call a false accusation of a true assertion.
There is an idealistic case of the woman who, sometimes separated, seems to speak of a sexual encounter and on the other hand claims to be sexually assaulted on the other side. Some would say that it was a false assertion because they talked recklessly about it. Maybe it was part of a bizarre (but not unusual) manipulation mechanism. It may not seem right. Later, as he reflects, he recognizes the mental and emotional tribute. She's depressed, desperate, incapable of functioning. She may have been diagnosed with PTSD. You may feel pity for the man, because of the way he spoke before. This is just a theoretical example. I know how much discussion This example might produce, but my prayer is that we are just thinking about this rule and its clear power for vulnerable people.
I am thankful that there are many views on this issue.
I also have strong opinions, and they change a bit when they are exposed to new information. I am thankful for the eggshell skull rule because it provides protection for those who have been accidentally or intentionally injured.
It doesn't make a difference what you did or didn't do. What makes a difference is an impact. This administer is intended to make us contemplate how we connect with other individuals.
It is expected to spur us to deal with individuals since what better inspiration to secure themselves?
You could consider the law a jackass, yet it's dependably the law, and it's simply to satisfy the insight.
