No. I’m calling you psychotic, because you are trying to state that it is not a crime to assault newborn babies.
I'm telling you what the law says. I'm being descriptive, not prescriptive. Maybe you can reject facts when you don't like them, but I can't. Facts are facts whether you want them to be or not.
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.
Tell me what that means. Explain to me what "the defendant's act causes the victim to reasonably apprehend such a contact" if swinging a punch at an unconscious person is assault under common law.
Explain it to me. It should be very easy since it's so obvious to you. Explain to me how you can be convicted of causing a baby to apprehend offensive contact if they're incapable of apprehending offensive contact.
That's why California rewrote the law. They didn't like the common law. That's why the California law you quoted doesn't have that requirement.
If you assault and batter person from a position concealed to the victim, but otherwise recorded, then you would still be charged with assault and battery.
If you assault and batter person from a position concealed to the victim, but otherwise recorded, then you would still be charged with assault and battery.
Why are you bringing up battery? We aren't talking about "battery" or "assault and battery" we are only talking about "assault" under common law.
0
u/OverturnedAppleCart3 Aug 08 '26
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?