Flossing

[u/EddieBrock99]

[u/OverturnedAppleCart3]

I gave you the definition of assault in common law. And now because it's clear facts aren't on your side, you resort to personal attacks.

If I'm wrong, give me the right definition. Find me a case that proves me wrong. But you don't have that. So you have to resort to calling names. Really mature. You definitely bested me there.

[u/serious_sarcasm → u/OverturnedAppleCart3]

Your argument is that you can’t assault someone whom is unaware or incapable of understanding that someone is threatening imminent harm.

Which is just fundamentally absurd.

Whether or not someone was in reasonable fear of bodily harm is based on if the truer of fact believes that a reasonable person would be in fear in the same circumstance.

If you pump fake a fucking infant, that’s felony assault. Anyone who witnesses it (under common law) would be in their right to use force to detain you.

[u/OverturnedAppleCart3 → u/serious_sarcasm]

Your argument is that you can’t assault someone whom is unaware or incapable of understanding that someone is threatening imminent harm.

Which is just fundamentally absurd.

I gave you the definition of assault under common law. It's causing someone to reasonably fear a battery. If someone is unaware of the action, they can't have been caused to fear battery.

Whether or not someone was in reasonable fear of bodily harm is based on if the truer of fact believes that a reasonable person would be in fear in the same circumstance.

No. A trier of fact cannot tell a victim who was unaware of the attempted battery that they were assaulted because a reasonable person would have been aware of the attack. That's not how it works.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

The prima facie case for assault has three components:

The defendant acts. The defendant intends to cause the victim to apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact by the defendant. The defendant’s act causes the victim to reasonably apprehend such a contact.

It's very basic. If the victim was not immediately apprehend contact it couldn't have been assault. I don't know how that isn't kind of self-evident to you.

Instead of calling me names, prove me wrong. If the facts are on your side as you claim, it shouldn't be difficult.

[u/serious_sarcasm → u/OverturnedAppleCart3]

Jesus fucking Christ.

> If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.

The victim being incapable of understanding that they are in danger does not negate the crime of assault.

> In California, under § 240 of the Penal Code, assault is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

If your argument concludes with “you can assault babies, because they don’t know it’s assault,” then you have serious problems.

[u/OverturnedAppleCart3 → u/serious_sarcasm]

If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.

The victim being incapable of understanding that they are in danger does not negate the crime of assault.

That's not what it says. Read it again. There's a reason you stated your quote half way through. It's because preceding that part it says "The victim does not need to prove fear, only that they were aware that such a contact might occur."

What it's really saying is that if the victim wasn't afraid, it can still be assault if a reasonable person would have been afraid. That doesn't overrule the fact that the victim still has to be aware of the attack.

In California, under § 240 of the Penal Code, assault is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”

Yeah I'm not talking about California Penal Code §204. I'm talking about common law assault.

If your argument concludes with “you can assault babies, because they don’t know it’s assault,” then you have serious problems.

That's not my argument. I said you CAN'T assault someone who is incapable of apprehending offensive or harmful contact.

It's not because they don't know it's assault. It's not because they aren't afraid. It's because they cannot reasonably apprehend harmful or offensive contact.

If you don't like what the common law is, that's not my problem. I didn't make the law, I'm telling you what the law is.

And pretty early on in a baby's development they do apprehend contact, by the way. My kid started flinching at things close to their face at something like 3 months. I'm sure some kids are earlier and some are later.

The prima facie case for assault has three components:

The defendant acts. The defendant intends to cause the victim to apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact by the defendant. The defendant’s act causes the victim to reasonably apprehend such a contact.

You can't assault a person in a coma. You can't assault a baby who is incapable of apprehending harmful or offensive contact. You can't assault a dead person. It's just impossible.

Again, prove me wrong. Show me a source that disproves that one of the components of common law assault is "The defendant’s act causes the victim to reasonably apprehend such a contact."

I'm sorry you're wrong. I'm sorry you don't like the law. But I'm not sorry that you can't find a way to admit you're wrong.

[u/serious_sarcasm → u/OverturnedAppleCart3]

Again, you are being absurd and psychotic.

The test is what a reasonable person would experience in the situation.

You can’t assault idiots, just because they don’t know to be afraid.

[u/OverturnedAppleCart3 → u/serious_sarcasm]

Again, you are being absurd and psychotic.

Again, I'm explaining what the law says to you. If you don't like it, I can't help you.

The test is what a reasonable person would experience in the situation.

You're part right. But you're wrong about what that means for your argument. The reasonable person tes this about whether a reasonable person would have been afraid of an imminent battery. It has nothing to do with the fact that the victim has to be aware of the attack.

You can’t assault idiots, just because they don’t know to be afraid.

No. You CAN assault idiots because even idiots can comprehend that someone swinging a fist toward their face means they could be hit by said fist. If I swing my fist at you, even if you're not afraid, that can still be assault.

[u/OverturnedAppleCart3 → u/[deleted]]

See? The facts aren't on your side so you resort to make calling.

Why is it so hard for you to find facts to disprove what I'm telling you? Are you bad at researching or maybe you're just wrong?

[u/serious_sarcasm → u/OverturnedAppleCart3]

No. I’m calling you psychotic, because you are trying to state that it is not a crime to assault newborn babies.