you should learn how to make an argument on the internet, you are failing very very badly. even ld222 is making a better hash of it than you.You should probably stop digging before you embarrass yourself further
One of us obviously doesn't know what it means. I'll give you two guesses as to which one of us it is... (but you'll still probably get it wrong
)
in law there is no such thing as 'hit.' The relevant section is, as the beherbed one posted, "causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force." The laying of a hand upon another person is not, necessarily assault (or you could be done for simply touching another person). It is to do with the apprehension of the other person, it is a 'psychic' matter (I shit you not!). i would dispute that Mr Z had any apprehensions, given the presence of his swift acting bodyguard, although were he (the bodyguard) not there, then an assault may very well have occurred - as I said earlier.
I'm guessing it's the person who keeps making vague statements backed up solely by wiki articles, not the one who has bothered to spell out their opinion.One of us obviously doesn't know what it means. I'll give you two guesses as to which one of us it is... (but you'll still probably get it wrong
i have answered your questions, why are you refusing to answer mine?
the serious issue is the one about how female acts of 'violence' are given more media coverage than similar male acts. That is clear from the article.
see previous reply re 'hit.'
OK, I'll rephrase it, for the hard of thinking...
there have been lots of articles defending violence before. Thousands.
I admire your psychic ability, but beg to differ.
she says it was something to be ashamed of (yes, she does) and a silly thing to do. She says that it does not technically count as assault (and I think she's probably right). But just because something isn't assault, it doesn't mean its okay. The article is about the discrepancy between media coverage of men's and women's actions, and the disparity between the two.
depends. Upon the level of force used, and whether it led me to be in fear of injury (however minor). It could be assault, it could be something more, it could be something less. It depends.
i don't know. The courts would be more important, seeing as they decide on guilt or innocence. I suspect it would be threatening behaviour.
btw, you know that your avatar - Subcomandante Marcos has just announced his own death.
third degree assault is an american thing, and I've been talking about UK law (as was, Dr H, and as was Barbara E, as far as I can tell).
that's pretty much what the judge did say when the police murdered Blair Peach!
Sorry, but no. The law is explicitly - and in the opinion of many judges deliberately - vague. Umpteen factors do come into it, including the size of the people involved. What if, for example, I said hello to a big beefy mate with a hearty slap on the back. That wouldn't count as assault. But if I used the same degree of force upon a 3 year old child, then I might very well be. It isn't the gender of the people involved that matters, its the relative force, and fear thereof.
I went to bed
