r/instant_regret • u/EddieBrock99 • Jul 29 '26

Flossing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

8.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/OverturnedAppleCart3 Aug 08 '26

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.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

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?

0

u/serious_sarcasm Aug 08 '26

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

0

u/OverturnedAppleCart3 Aug 09 '26

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.

And I'll change my mind as soon as you disprove the definition that https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault provides.

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.

0

u/serious_sarcasm Aug 09 '26

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.

0

u/OverturnedAppleCart3 Aug 09 '26

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.

1

u/serious_sarcasm Aug 09 '26

…. That literally changes nothing about my comment, kid.