If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"jaybird" > wrote
> Now that one I did find a little info on, but not the legal statute. From > what I read the beggar hasn't comitted an assault, he just aggressively > panhandled. That looks like a separate offense. Also, (and correct me if > I'm wrong on this assumption) from what I read it is a city ordinance, not > a state law. That's kind of a weird statement. You'd enforce a state assault law but not a city/county one if it were more flexible/inclusive? You keep saying that "the law is the law", but now you're splitting hairs because one's in the city code and one's in the state? Floyd |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message ... > "jaybird" > wrote >> "fbloogyudsr" > wrote >>> Look, Jaybird, many states have many laws regarding what constitutes >>> assault. Many of them are far more inclusive than your example. For >>> instance, in WA state, say you're a parent at a soccer game that your >>> son is red-carded in. After the game, you approach the *minor* referee >>> to complain. You have just committed a fourth degree felony assault. >>> (If the ref wasn't a minor, it would be a misdemeanor.) >> >> I wish you'd provide a link. I've been trying to look those laws up, but >> all I get is newspaper articles; no legal sites. > > http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...-1474/1465.pdf > http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...-1599/1578.pdf > > In WA state, coercion can be assault. It becomes a felony when > the referee is a child. 4th degree is a grab bag for anything > not 1st, 2nd, 3rd. > > 9A.32.041 is 4th degree > (a.36.120, 130 & 140 is assault of child. > 9A.82.070: Influencing the outcome of sporting event. > > Yeah, I know it's not specific, but gangsters were > jailed for tax violations. Now I'm not too familiar with WA law, but the two posts you offer are just bills, not enacted law. I did finally find the Revised Code of Washington and it still points to physical harm as a definition of assault. The title of 9A.36 RCW is "Assault -- Physical Harm". Section 9A.32.041 is the least of the offenses and still states that for that offense a person has to be assaulted in a lesser degree than the higher ones. When you revert back to those they state that there at least has to be the intent to cause bodily injury. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message ... > "jaybird" > wrote >> Now that one I did find a little info on, but not the legal statute. >> From what I read the beggar hasn't comitted an assault, he just >> aggressively panhandled. That looks like a separate offense. Also, (and >> correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption) from what I read it is a city >> ordinance, not a state law. > > That's kind of a weird statement. You'd enforce a state assault law > but not a city/county one if it were more flexible/inclusive? You keep > saying that "the law is the law", but now you're splitting hairs because > one's in the city code and one's in the state? No, no and I did say "correct me if I'm wrong". I re-read your post and you did make the distinction that it was Seattle law. My intent was not to say it shouldn't be enforced in the city, I just thought the statement had been made that it was state law. Nevermind. The first part still stands though that assault and aggressive panhandling are different offenses. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:31:49 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >>> Why? You're the first person to behave as though Texas law applies to >>> the entire universe; why is it suddenly invalid for me to choose my >>> own convenient definitions? >> >>I'm merely using it as an example of what constitutes assault. > > IN TEXAS. > >>>>The bum never made >>>>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP. >>> >>> Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening. >> >>Perhaps, but that still doesn't meet the elements of Assault. > > IN TEXAS. In Washington too, apparently. See, as I stated before, most states have about the same elements for major crimes. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:34:36 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >> >>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:12:32 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: >>> >>>>>>Assault is acting in a manner that causes another fear or apprehension >>>>>>for his physical safety. This guy was clearly assaulted. >>>>> >>>>> Jaybird knows full well it was assault. He's just being his usual >>>>> obtuse, obstinate, argumentative self. >>>> >>>>Even people who disagree with me most of the time are agreeing with me >>>>on >>>>this one. >>> >>> You mean like Motorhead Lawyer, who is directly contradicting you in >>> the quote above? >> >>You mean that he's the only person posting in this ng? > > I didn't know birds could tapdance as well as fly. > > Face it, you're wrong. Not that you'd ever admit that, but it's > obvious to anyone still reading this thread. Actually I ended up being right again. The elements are along the same lines for Texas and Washington. I am curious though.... you keep claiming that I'm wrong all the time yet you've never actually engaged in any research or productive information to back up your claims. Just saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" doesn't make it so. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote: >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote >> Approaching someone to complain is now assault? Remind me never to >> move to Washington. > >This law's been on the books for 15 years at least. Mostly it's there >to protect the older boys/girls that ref the young kids' games; I attended >a couple of games my son was reffing just to be sure he was safe - >some parents are complete bozos. Like I said, remind me never to move to Washington. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:08:12 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >>> Yeah - I keep making the mistake of expecting the law to follow the >>> tenets of common sense. >>> >>> According to http://www.dictionary.com "assault" means >>> >>> 1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another. >>> 2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting >>> to injure another. >>> >>> The bum's attack on the OP clearly meets this definition. No doubt >>> you're going to tell me that Texas law defines "assault" differently. >> >>I see this mistake in your long list of them for this case... Rather than >>getting your definition from www.dictionary.com you need to get it from >>the >>legal definition as it applies to the law in question. > > Why? You're the first person to behave as though Texas law applies to > the entire universe; why is it suddenly invalid for me to choose my > own convenient definitions? Leave the Texas part of it aside since we've already established that most states' laws are pretty similar on what meets the elements of the offense of Assault. To properly apply the word to law, you must first start with a legal definition. > >>The bum never made >>or attempted to make any bodily injury to the OP. > > Any reasonable person would consider the bum's actions threatening. Perhaps... but not an assault. Standing in front of a car yelling might scare someone, but does not show sufficient intent to commit assault. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message news > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:19:48 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >> >>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message . .. >>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 05:08:12 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: >>> >>>>> Yeah - I keep making the mistake of expecting the law to follow the >>>>> tenets of common sense. >>>>> >>>>> According to http://www.dictionary.com "assault" means >>>>> >>>>> 1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another. >>>>> 2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting >>>>> to injure another. >>>>> >>>>> The bum's attack on the OP clearly meets this definition. No doubt >>>>> you're going to tell me that Texas law defines "assault" differently. >>>> >>>>I see this mistake in your long list of them for this case... Rather >>>>than >>>>getting your definition from www.dictionary.com you need to get it from >>>>the >>>>legal definition as it applies to the law in question. >>> >>> Why? You're the first person to behave as though Texas law applies to >>> the entire universe; why is it suddenly invalid for me to choose my >>> own convenient definitions? >> >>Leave the Texas part of it aside since we've already established that most >>states' laws are pretty similar on what meets the elements of the offense >>of >>Assault. To properly apply the word to law, you must first start with a >>legal definition. > > Which is what Motorhead Lawyer did. He agreed with me that the offense > described in the story does, in fact, meet the legal defintion for > assault. > > What's really interesting here is how YOU keep arguing the point. Well I know I can't change your mind, although your blind faith is quite strange. I would've thought you'd do some research on your own. Does it constitute a physical assault?... maybe an implied assault?... or an assault by threat? Is he talking about a criminal definition?... maybe civil?... Anyway, this thread has become tiresome and I'll just leave you with the information that you couldn't get a criminal Assault charge filed, or really even reported in most states based on what the OP presented. Good day. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
jaybird wrote: > > Perhaps... but not an assault. Standing in front of a car yelling might > scare someone, but does not show sufficient intent to commit assault. I think there are a couple of concepts that are unclear here. First, assault as I know it is not a *specific intent* crime as you're attempting to define it here. It is enough that one intend to act in the way one did, not that one intended to frighten or harm anyone. I doubt TX law is any different or you'd *never* manage to make any simple 'bad conduct' charges stick. Second, the apprehension of fear is sometimes defined by the *recipient* of the threat (as in defining some kinds of sexual harassment), not the 'reasonable person' standard. That *may* depend on the state's statute. IOW, if the person being yelled at is *actually* in fear as a result, it may not matter what else happens nor whether you or anyone else *might* be placed in fear. It matters *whether* actual fear was induced. Now, I know a short, overweight, balding 50-ish lawyer isn't going to frighten *you* much, but I daresay that there *are* some physical types that have raised your hackles in the past, even through a closed car window. It sounds like that happened here. There was a frightening character standing there yelling and the driver got away as quickly as possible as a result of his *fear*. Under those circumstances, a citation should be issued regardless of your subjective judgment of whether a conviction can be obtained. That's not *your job*; it's the prosecutor's. -- Ol' C.R. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message oups.com... > > jaybird wrote: >> >> Perhaps... but not an assault. Standing in front of a car yelling > might >> scare someone, but does not show sufficient intent to commit assault. > > I think there are a couple of concepts that are unclear here. > > First, assault as I know it is not a *specific intent* crime as you're > attempting to define it here. It is enough that one intend to act in > the way one did, not that one intended to frighten or harm anyone. I > doubt TX law is any different or you'd *never* manage to make any > simple 'bad conduct' charges stick. Ok, rather than sum it up with the word "intent", I'll specify a little more by saying the offense has to occur "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly". I've never heard of a specific charge called "bad conduct" though. Could you be a little more specific? This case may fall under a different law, but definitely not Assault. > > Second, the apprehension of fear is sometimes defined by the > *recipient* of the threat (as in defining some kinds of sexual > harassment), not the 'reasonable person' standard. That *may* depend > on the state's statute. IOW, if the person being yelled at is > *actually* in fear as a result, it may not matter what else happens nor > whether you or anyone else *might* be placed in fear. It matters > *whether* actual fear was induced. You would have to specifically apply the situation to the state law of jurisdiction. While not enough for Assault here, it could possibly be something more along the lines of Disorderly Conduct or similar. > > Now, I know a short, overweight, balding 50-ish lawyer isn't going to > frighten *you* much, but I daresay that there *are* some physical types > that have raised your hackles in the past, even through a closed car > window. It sounds like that happened here. There was a frightening > character standing there yelling and the driver got away as quickly as > possible as a result of his *fear*. Under those circumstances, a > citation should be issued regardless of your subjective judgment of > whether a conviction can be obtained. That's not *your job*; it's the > prosecutor's. Just out of curiosity, do you practice criminal law, or civil? That's not exactly how *my job* would be done. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Got a ticket Friday... | Cory Dunkle | Driving | 55 | January 21st 05 10:04 PM |
help with first traffic ticket please........ | [email protected] | VW water cooled | 4 | December 9th 04 02:21 AM |
Beating a Traffic Ticket | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 3 | December 7th 04 02:32 AM |