• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
Give us an example of a context in which mere words should lead to a charge of assault & battery.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Upchurch, on the other hand, seems to be sincere in his belief that verbal abuse can be classified as criminal violence in at least one context.

I, too, would like to see an example of the context(s) Upchurch has in mind.
Click to expand...

Incitement is a context where mere words could lead to a charge of assault and battery.

That is merely moving the goal posts.


For people who are so insistent that words can only have one meaning, you should really pay more attention to them.
 
Upchurch said:
Incitement is a context where mere words could lead to a charge of assault and battery.

That is merely moving the goal posts.


For people who are so insistent that words can only have one meaning, you should really pay more attention to them.
Click to expand...

Incitement would lead to a charge of incitement not assault and battery. For the person doing the inciting that is. If the incitement causes someone to commit A&B then yes they'd be charged with that.
 
I think I've argued this before, but I'd actually like to see provocation upped to formal assault. If you use fighting words to pick a fight, you should fully be viewed as the instigator. Right now, most States treat provocation only as a mitigating factor.

Call a black guy the n-word? You were trying to provoke an attack, and should be treated as the initiator of the predictable subsequent violence. A lot of cowards like to hide behind freeze peach to spout vile hate without consequence. We could do without some of those fig leaves.
 
Not necessarily valid for all countries:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-assault.html

"Is It Necessary to Strike Someone In Order to Be Found Guilty of Assault?
A person does not necessarily need to strike someone in order to be found guilty of assault. In fact, the legal definition and elements of proof for assault do not ever mention any kind of physical contact—only the reasonable belief that harmful or offensive contact will be inflicted on the victim.

However, there are some acts that may offer stronger proof that an assault occurred. For example, getting in someone’s fact can be considered assault if the assaulter is being aggressive and doing things like screaming, spitting, or threatening to hit the other person with an object that they are holding (e.g., bat, beer bottle, fist, etc.).

On the other hand, getting in a friend’s face and pretending to slap them while both parties are laughing about it, will not constitute an assault."
 
Hercules56 said:
Assault can be merely verbal. Assault & battery, must include violence being done upon a person.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that you Moved the Goalposts mid-argument. You started with challenging to give an example of words being assault only, then quietly added & battery in there.
 
Upchurch said:
Incitement is a context where mere words could lead to a charge of assault and battery.
Click to expand...
Incitement to violence is not violence. It's a separate crime.

That is merely moving the goal posts.


For people who are so insistent that words can only have one meaning, you should really pay more attention to them.
Click to expand...
That is me trying to promote a more generally-accessible term, "criminal violence", since terms like "assault" and "battery" vary in meaning from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But we all understand that what we're talking about is criminal violence, and whether or not being rude should qualify as criminal violence.

At least, that's what I understood us to be talking about. In that context, it seems to me that you don't think being rude ever qualifies as criminal violence, but you do think it can qualify as incitement to violence.

I'd like to keep that distinction, between violence and incitement, clear if possible.
 
Blank said:
Not necessarily valid for all countries:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-assault.html

"Is It Necessary to Strike Someone In Order to Be Found Guilty of Assault?
A person does not necessarily need to strike someone in order to be found guilty of assault. In fact, the legal definition and elements of proof for assault do not ever mention any kind of physical contact—only the reasonable belief that harmful or offensive contact will be inflicted on the victim.

However, there are some acts that may offer stronger proof that an assault occurred. For example, getting in someone’s fact can be considered assault if the assaulter is being aggressive and doing things like screaming, spitting, or threatening to hit the other person with an object that they are holding (e.g., bat, beer bottle, fist, etc.).

On the other hand, getting in a friend’s face and pretending to slap them while both parties are laughing about it, will not constitute an assault."
Click to expand...

If you are responding to me I said "battery" must be physical, not "assault".
 
lobosrul5 said:
Incitement would lead to a charge of incitement not assault and battery. For the person doing the inciting that is. If the incitement causes someone to commit A&B then yes they'd be charged with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's what I said.

Mere words leading to a charge of assault & battery.
 
Blank said:
Not necessarily valid for all countries:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-assault.html

"Is It Necessary to Strike Someone In Order to Be Found Guilty of Assault?
A person does not necessarily need to strike someone in order to be found guilty of assault. In fact, the legal definition and elements of proof for assault do not ever mention any kind of physical contact—only the reasonable belief that harmful or offensive contact will be inflicted on the victim.

However, there are some acts that may offer stronger proof that an assault occurred. For example, getting in someone’s fact can be considered assault if the assaulter is being aggressive and doing things like screaming, spitting, or threatening to hit the other person with an object that they are holding (e.g., bat, beer bottle, fist, etc.).

On the other hand, getting in a friend’s face and pretending to slap them while both parties are laughing about it, will not constitute an assault."
Click to expand...

I mentioned earlier that I was charged with assault on non-phyaical grounds. The judge went to great lengths to spell out the New Jersey USA concept and definitions of assault, which the charge was consistent with. The charge only failed on proofs.
 
Thermal said:
Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that you Moved the Goalposts mid-argument. You started with challenging to give an example of words being assault only, then quietly added & battery in there.
Click to expand...

When I say "assault", I mean a physical attack upon a person. But the law says that is "assault & battery", so I adjusted my language to fit the law.
 
Hercules56 said:
When I say "assault", I mean a physical attack upon a person. But the law says that is "assault & battery", so I adjusted my language to fit the law.
Click to expand...

Oh, what's this? Are you suggesting that the context of what is said makes a difference in the meaning of the words used, perhaps?
 
Hercules56 said:
Why is calling someone a "he" instead of a "she" an act of violence, but calling someone a "jerk" is not?
Click to expand...

I can't see anywhere in the article you refer to that they express an opinion on the insult "jerk". How do you know they do not also classify that the same way?
 
lobosrul5 said:
If you are responding to me I said "battery" must be physical, not "assault".
Click to expand...

Actually to Thermal.. But yea battery is usually physical.

Legal arguments are really hollow without specifying the country and the laws you go by.

Assault in most laws is not Assault&battery - that is just one subset of assault, might have aggravated assaults and such. For all I know, some country might have Verbal Assault listed as well. But for USA - Assault&battery is definately NOT the only variation of assault there is.
 
Upchurch said:
That doesn't answer my question.

Does the context in which words are used matter or not?
Click to expand...

Do you believe there is any context in which the use of the wrong pronoun should be considered assault & battery?

And if so, please describe said context.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom