posted
The "victim" sounds like the type of person who would be happiest living alone in the desert somewhere so that she doesn't have to deal with all those pesky people in the world.
If this is a crime, they should make it a crime to talk on a cell phone during a movie.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Amazing how some people's minds function: "I have a right to be as rude as I want to, and if anyone calls me on it they are (fill in blank: assaulting, harrassing, committing a crime against) me."
I remember a lady in a condo complex where I once lived who would walk her 3 dogs and let them off the leash; they would poop wherever they wanted to and she never cleaned up after them.
Well, onetime after a snowstorm when there are several piles of poop in the middle of the snow right on the sidewalk where everyone had to walk, I finally had had it and said something to her very politely. "Excuse me, ma'am, do you think you could keep your dogs on the leash--one of them just 'went' right on the sidewalk." She went apoplectic on me. Red in the face, eyeballs popping out crazy. Screamed and cursed at me about people who hate animals and I don't know what all else. She was really scary! I have to admit I didn't pursue it because she saw where I lived--I figured if I reported her to the association or whatever that she'd soon be bringing her doggies over to poop on my lawn when no one was home. Or sidewalk. And I was moving soon, anyway. But it's that same mentality--I didn't do anything wrong, and you are evil for implying so.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well heck, if you're going to be charged with assault for tapping someone's shoulder, the next time somebody's talking on a cellphone in the movie you may as well just punch them in the face.
posted
I thought assault was the threat of harm, and battery was the physical act? If that's true, I'm doubly confused as to how tapping constitutes assault.
And yes, people who talk on cell phones in a theater should be made to swallow said cell phone whole. Then again, if I had said that to the whacko (I mean, victim), that woulve been assault... Man, this makes me wonder how much the fine for bumping into someone in lines would be.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The woman talking on the cell phone is a moron.
That said, the woman who did the tapping deserved to be sued, and for much, much more, for being a MUCH bigger moron.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought assault was the threat of harm, and battery was the physical act?
That distinction exists in tort. An assault occurs when the tortfeasor causes the victim to apprehend an imminent battery. A battery is simply an offensive, unconsented to touching.
The distinction is not generally made in criminal law nowadays.
quote:That said, the woman who did the tapping deserved to be sued, and for much, much more, for being a MUCH bigger moron.
Why was she a moron? Tapping someone on the shoulder is a generally accepted practice, isn't it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: The "victim" was American. It happened in Texas. The shoulder-tapper was Australian.
Maybe it it's a bad idea to shush people in movie theaters in Texas. I hear a lot of Texans are armed.
It's now legal, I think in Florida to actually shoot someone if you "feel threatened." Not if the person actually threatens you, or attacks, only if you -get that killin feelin- Yehaw.
This all just what America needs to make us look like we're sane and should be telling others their business.... Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was working in the computer labs in college, I had several people threaten to sue me when I tapped them on the shoulder. I'm disgusted, but not surprised.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS SUCH!
The tap on the shoulder is the standard example of an unoffensive touching that would not constitute a battery in 1L torts. Have we fallen so far in two years? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's now legal, I think in Florida to actually shoot someone if you "feel threatened." Not if the person actually threatens you, or attacks, only if you -get that killin feelin- Yehaw.
That's not quite right. Floridians always had the right to defend themselves with force, but they had to show that they had first tried to flee. As I understand it, this law says that you can "stand your ground" and don't have to try and flee first. I don't think there's anything in there that says you get to shoot if you "get that killin feelin".
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought assault was the threat of harm, and battery was the physical act?
That distinction exists in tort. An assault occurs when the tortfeasor causes the victim to apprehend an imminent battery. A battery is simply an offensive, unconsented to touching.
The distinction is not generally made in criminal law nowadays.
Ach so. The law classes I had inflicted on my focused primarily on Business Law, so tort was most definately the realm of choice. Makes sense... I suppose.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The primary reason the distinction is no longer very relevant in criminal law is that criminal law has diverged more from its common law roots than tort law has.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How so?
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
