snipped-for-privacy@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote
What's with all this Professor Kingsfield crap in this thread? I hope none of you guys is actually studying for the bar. Sitting in one, maybe. Anyhoo, as I recall from my first year torts class (Fall
1977), an assault is an attempted battery. A battery is a harmful touching, and need not include violence. An assault can also include a threat of a battery,combined with the present ability to commit the battery. A battery can also include a device for turning chemical energy into electrical energy, which is the closest thing to an on-topic comment as has turned up in this thread in the past four days.
180 Out TS 28
You might want to explain that to the USAF then, since they were the organization which taught me what I know about medical law. I'm pretty sure they did their research. Even if "torte" isn't the exact spelling for the term, it IS however in common usage. Just google torte law and you get over
9000 hits. And for you C.H., that "re:" isn't in response to a different thread called "medical law". The latin for Torte is Tortus, which means twisted, and that is exactly what is happening to this thread. I do however like Cherry Torte's, Mmmmm.
You are wrong. The legal definition of assault, according to Webster, is- an unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another, or the act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another. Law.com shows nearly the same. "The threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger". Fear has nothing to do with it. It is the intent of the assaulter, not the perception of the reciever. You are correct on this next point. There must also be a "reasonable" ability to carry out the threat. From my research, whether the ability is present or future has nothing to do with it.
Assault and Battery are two seperate charges. First is the threat, the second is the carrying out of the threat. Many think that they are one and the same, since they are usually filed simultaneously. They are not. Whether I have any fear of a person who threatens me has no bearing on the fact that the person committed assault or not. Perception has nothing to do with it, intent does.
Actually, I was able to prove my point with references, yet I haven't seen your evidence to prove me wrong. Just like C.H. Secondly, why would I want or need your respect. All I ever wanted to engage in was a discussion of the facts, which C.H. is not willing to face. He chooses, instead, to attack the person making the statement, not the statement itself, because he is unable to disprove said statement.
... and 1.1 million hits for tort law. Do you really think think that if less than 0.1 percent of the websites spell it your way it is 'common usage'?
Which 're:'? There was no other 're:' in your post than the one you used
No, twisted is merely your perception of this thread.
You mean Cherry Tortes. "Cherry Torte's" means "belonging to a Cherry Torte".
Weird. I said nothing whatsoever about assault. I said you were threatening violence and that is the truth.
You are correct here. I don't fear you, but you could still assault me, even though I advise against it as you have a pretty good chance to get your ass kicked in self defense - and yes, that's despite you being such a big hulk.
The evidence is there. That you don't see it merely shows that you lack cognitive capabilities.
A question is terminated with a question mark. And if you didn't crave respect you wouldn't brag like a schoolyard bully.
On the contrary, you wanted a fight and you are pissed because you didn't get it. And you are not willing to face the facts, otherwise you wouldn't have 'plonked' me.
And that from someone who resorted to kidlike namecalling the second he ran out of arguments. Pityful.
... and 1.1 million hits for tort law. Do you really think think that if less than 0.1 percent of the websites spell it your way it is 'common usage'?
Which 're:'? There was no other 're:' in your post than the one you used
No, twisted is merely your perception of this thread.
You mean Cherry Tortes. "Cherry Torte's" means "belonging to a Cherry Torte".
Weird. I said nothing whatsoever about assault. I said you were threatening violence and that is the truth.
You are correct here. I don't fear you, but you could still assault me, even though I advise against it.
The evidence is there. That you don't see it merely shows that you lack cognitive capabilities.
A question is terminated with a question mark. And if you didn't crave respect you wouldn't brag like a schoolyard bully.
On the contrary, you wanted a fight and you are pissed because you didn't get it. And you are not willing to face the facts, otherwise you wouldn't have 'plonked' me.
And that from someone who resorted to kidlike namecalling the second he ran out of arguments. Pityful.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.