Tom Cruise gets it in the face!

thaiboxerken said:
Assault (n) Law.

1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.




I just don't see the word "assault" being applicable to this event.
Click to expand...

see part (a) (f.y.i.This is New Hampshire law)

631:2-a Simple Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of simple assault if he:
(a) Purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact to another; or
(b) Recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(c) Negligently causes bodily injury to another by means of a deadly weapon.
II. Simple assault is a misdemeanor unless committed in a fight entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a violation.
 
That's laughable, Harry. I'll concede defeat on the issue of assault if the crew is convicted of it.
 
In most states the guy would be charged with battery at the very least.

A general definition:

battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm. Battery is a crime and also the basis for a lawsuit as a civil wrong if there is damage. It is often coupled with "assault" (which does not require actual touching) in "assault and battery."
Click to expand...

But it varies somewhat state-to-state. I have no idea how it reads in the UK.

The guy should be both charged, prosecuted and sued by Cruise. He'll likely get off because Cruise won't want to waste his time with the case. Cruise should have decked the guy.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's laughable, Harry. I'll concede defeat on the issue of assault if the crew is convicted of it.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't concede defeat if the crew is convicted. You should simply concede defeat because you're wrong.
 
Cruise can't fight, it would've been stupid for him to have tried to "deck the guy". He should've used his "Clear" powers to erase the guys mind.
 
HarryKeogh said:
You shouldn't concede defeat if the crew is convicted. You should simply concede defeat because you're wrong.
Click to expand...

You have yet so show that I'm wrong. No harm was intended or done.
 
Rob Lister said:
In most states the guy would be charged with battery at the very least.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Similar acts happen every day, and no one ever gets charged. See my example above of a drink being thrown in a face of a guy at a bar. Oooh, assault. Charge the bastard!

Doesn't happen.
 
Under English law (don't kow about Scotland) the men who squirted Cruise have, on the face of it, committed a common assault or battery.

Assault and battery (the two are often conflated just in "assault" but they're actually seperate offences) are covered by the common law (i.e there is no statute covering this, it's based entirely on judicial decisions).

Assault is defined in common law as “any act which puts a person in fear of immediate and unlawful violence”. Raising your hand aggresively is enough to trigger the offense. Your target does not have to be actually wet himself to be thought afraid; they're deemed to be in “fear” of violence if they anticipate that your raised hand will turn into a punch.

A wily barrister (such as could be afforded by a multimillionaire loon) could probably argue that being squirted with water was enough to constitute fear since Cruise might have thought it was to be followed by an actual physical assault.

On the other hand, since the squirter actually made physical contact with Cruise they are more likely to be guilty of battery, which in common law is "the application of unlawful violence" by the accused on the victim. Note that any unwanted physical contact, even the slightest touch, is enough to constitute a battery.

However the courts understand that day-to-day life is full of necessary physical contacts for which express permission hasn't been given. Actual prosecutions based on tapping people on the shoulder to get their attention don't happen.

What punishment could our intrepid jokesters expect if found guilty? Up to six months in jail or a fine of up to £5000.

Here's what Lord Justice Goff (in Collins v Wilcock (1984)) has to say on the matter:

“… the fundamental principle, plain and incontestable is that every person’s body is inviolate. It has long been established that any touching of another person, however slight may amount to a battery… the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it, every man’s person being sacred and no other having the right to meddle with it in the slightest maner…but so widely drawn a principle must inevitably be subject to exceptions… Generally speaking consent is a defence to battery and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact. So nobody can complain of the jostling which is inevitable from his presence in... a supermarket, an underground station or a busy street.”

Hope that's clearer than mud.
 
HarryKeogh said:
see part (a) (f.y.i.This is New Hampshire law)

631:2-a Simple Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of simple assault if he:
(a) Purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact to another; or
(b) Recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(c) Negligently causes bodily injury to another by means of a deadly weapon.
II. Simple assault is a misdemeanor unless committed in a fight entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a violation.
Click to expand...

Let's see:
a) Purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact to another; or
- Hmmmm no bodily injury, no unprivileged physical contact

(b) Recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
- Hmmm, again, no bodily injured so reckless is moot

(c) Negligently causes bodily injury to another by means of a deadly weapon.
- Again no bodily injury of any kind.

Fails on all three counts. Not simple assault then. Boy, that was easy.
 
thaiboxerken said:
You have yet so show that I'm wrong. No harm was intended or done.
Click to expand...

631:2-a Simple Assault. –
I. A person is guilty of simple assault if he:
(a) Purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact to another

repeat:
or unprivileged physical contact to another

where does it say anything about harm being intended or being done?
 
So, basically, these guys could be convicted of assault and/or battery not-so-much because of the law, but because Tom Cruise has enough moolah to hire lawyers to make such charges stick. The law in this event isn't cut and dry. If this squirt happened to a non-celebrity, no charges would be filed, no person's would've been arrested.
 
rdtjr said:
Let's see:
a) Purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury or unprivileged physical contact to another; or
- Hmmmm no bodily injury, no unprivileged physical contact
Click to expand...

you're kidding right? water hitting you isn't physical contact? what if I threw a rock at his head?
 
HarryKeogh said:
you're kidding right? water hitting you isn't physical contact? what if I threw a rock at his head?
Click to expand...

Throwing a rock doesn't fall under the "unpriviledged physical contact" part of assault, it does fall under the intent to cause harm part though.

So, when a coach gets the gatorade splash at the end of a superbowl, is he being assaulted?
 
I can't believe some people are defending this. Physcially humiliating someone in public is a no-no, whether it be the people that go around throwing cream pies in peoples' faces or spraying water at celebrities.

Now if they asked him some tough questions then that's fine. He pushes Scientology so highlighting the siller aspects of that in questions to him is fair IMO. But physically doing something to him, even if it seems harmsless to the doer, is crossing a line.
 
Number Six said:
I can't believe some people are defending this. Physcially humiliating someone in public is a no-no, whether it be the people that go around throwing cream pies in peoples' faces or spraying water at celebrities.
Click to expand...

I guess you never liked the Three Stooges shows either.

Now if they asked him some tough questions then that's fine. He pushes Scientology so highlighting the siller aspects of that in questions to him is fair IMO. But physically doing something to him, even if it seems harmsless to the doer, is crossing a line.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Throwing a rock doesn't fall under the "unpriviledged physical contact" part of assault, it does fall under the intent to cause harm part though.

So, when a coach gets the gatorade splash at the end of a superbowl, is he being assaulted?
Click to expand...
Compare a coach getting the gatorade splash at the end of a football game with someone randomly getting the gatorade splash as they walk down the street. Is there a difference? I think so.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Since when is a squit of water "physical contact"?
Click to expand...
Since common law. The guy who threw beer on Ron Artest? He faces an assault charge for that (and a separate one for punching the guy later).
 
thaiboxerken said:
Since when is a squit of water "physical contact"?
Click to expand...

In law, it clearly is an assult -- even here in the US. It might not be an "assult" that the police would deem in their professional judgement to persue, or that the victem would take on and press charges, but it is an assult...indeed, if the water hit him it could also be a simple battery.

This is no different than a throwing a pie at a politician whose views you don't like, IMO. The pie-throwers are often prosecuted for assault and/or battery.

But, more importantly, this is an embarassment for vaunted British Humor. This is something they would do here in the US juvinile and rude, not terribly funny save for those who find the 3 Stoogies the hight of humor and sophistication.

Don't like TC, his movies or his religion. But it seems to me that pranks (like Candid Camera, etc) are only funny IF the victem sees the humor in it and is able to laugh at themselves or the situation. If he didn't find it funny, or was in fear of any kind, etc. he should prosecute (he also has a case for civil assault, is my recolection from the common-law). He likely wouldn't do it because of the bad publicity...but the question is really why should celebrities be any different than common folk? I would be mad if someone sprayed me with water when I wasn't anticipating it, I understand where Cruise is coming from.

What if he had hurt himself ducking an unknown liquid flying toward him? Given the problem of stalkers, etc. he could reasonably have believed that someone was throwing acid at him, or otherwise trying to do him irrational bodilly harm. If he'd hurt himself avoiding the water, would you still think it funny? Would you still think it isn't an assault?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom