Punched in the face, but fat chance charges will be laid

[G-Suede]

Originally posted by JustGo
For assault, you have to prove the offenders intent. So if no intent to hurt him, the assault charge is gone.

So, by that logic, an individual could spit in another's face, but since there was no intent to harm, no charges would follow. Good to know.

[Gabe182]

Originally posted by TeamBestBud
I think he got off easy. You never know, she could've really blown up.

[Destinova403]

Originally posted by JustGo
Sucks to be that guy.

For assault, you have to prove the offenders intent. So if no intent to hurt him, the assault charge is gone.

And unfortunately, 'attempted property damage' is not a crime. It should be, but it's not. In order for a property damage charge, there must be.... well, damage to the property.

So technically, there are no charges that would be sustained in court.

Not saying it's right, just saying how it is.

The guy really has no legal leg to stand on, and the officers hands were tied. This isn't a case of them 'deciding not to charge', it's a case of our crappy legal system hog tying common sense.

It wouldnt be Assault... it would be battery. Assault is technically the threat of violence, and battery is the actual physical contact. If you tap someone on the shoulder TECHNICALLY you are committing battery from a legal standpoint.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by Destinova403


It wouldnt be Assault... it would be battery. Assault is technically the threat of violence, and battery is the actual physical contact. If you tap someone on the shoulder TECHNICALLY you are committing battery from a legal standpoint.

If you live in the USA. There is no such charge as Battery in Canada.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by G-Suede


So, by that logic, an individual could spit in another's face, but since there was no intent to harm, no charges would follow. Good to know.

That's not 'logic', that's the definition of the charge.

And you'd still be incorrect, when I say she had 'no intent to hurt him', that was a situational based statement. I never said 'no intent to harm'. Spitting in someone's face intentionally could very well be proven there was intent to harm... via bacteria or disease. You don't think spit is harmless, do you?

[yipb]

Originally posted by JustGo

That's not 'logic', that's the definition of the charge.

And you'd still be incorrect, when I say she had 'no intent to hurt him', that was a situational based statement. I never said 'no intent to harm'. Spitting in someone's face intentionally could very well be proven there was intent to harm... via bacteria or disease. You don't think spit is harmless, do you?

so i have a question,

theres this "car" i dont like and im about to go mess it up. silly owner decides to stand in front of the car as i start beating it with a baseball bat. but i never land a hit on the car, but now the owner is bruised up.

am i a free man?

[JustGo]

Originally posted by yipb


so i have a question,

theres this "car" i dont like and im about to go mess it up. silly owner decides to stand in front of the car as i start beating it with a baseball bat. but i never land a hit on the car, but now the owner is bruised up.

am i a free man?

Depends on if the judge believes you.

[CUG]

Originally posted by LollerBrader
The tone of the article suggests a pre-existing anti-muslim bias.

I can't help but wonder if there's more to this story.

Or if it even happened. That guy is a notorious shit disturber.

[Destinova403]

Originally posted by JustGo

If you live in the USA. There is no such charge as Battery in Canada.

My bad, you're right. It would be Assault under section 265 which says "(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" and if intent could not be proven, it could be argued that the journalist had reasonable grounds to feel threatened. It would only be a summary charge though and wouldn't really result in much.