| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 01:59:25 PM |
|
|
In article <41FA9989.739EAF91@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <da2lv0hsid5q35d2dcftoi7q1l6b390djj@4ax.com>, You Know Who
<vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:49:18 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should
be locked up and evaluated, no where in the story
presented does it say that she admitted firing _at_
those city workers.
Just going outside and showing them the gun, under
these circumstances, is a felony.
Cite the statute.
Look it up, *****.
It's not up to others to prove a negative, Davy.
Says who?
After all, I go outside all the time and show people my guns...IN NJ!
Not the same.
Does Davey W.Barnes know the meaning of "brandishing?
You bet. Doesn't calling me "Davey" seem kind of childish to you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
28 Jan 2005 04:04:46 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <41FA9989.739EAF91@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <da2lv0hsid5q35d2dcftoi7q1l6b390djj@4ax.com>, You Know Who
<vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:49:18 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
While I agree that the ***** is crazy and she should
be locked up and evaluated, no where in the story
presented does it say that she admitted firing _at_
those city workers.
Just going outside and showing them the gun, under
these circumstances, is a felony.
Cite the statute.
Look it up, *****.
It's not up to others to prove a negative, Davy.
Says who?
Those with an active brain?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
29 Jan 2005 07:47:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:59:25 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
Cite the statute.
Look it up, *****.
It's not up to others to prove a negative, Davy.
Says who?
After all, I go outside all the time and show people my guns...IN NJ!
Not the same.
Does Davey W.Barnes know the meaning of "brandishing?
You bet. Doesn't calling me "Davey" seem kind of childish to you?
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Did you find it yet, Davey?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
29 Jan 2005 10:57:32 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
29 Jan 2005 11:17:14 PM |
|
|
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 08:25:21 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 12:36:01 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack
itself...
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 10:13:33 AM |
|
|
In article <cdidnQ7-i54ZvGLcRVn-hg@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack
itself...
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
They are morons. They believe nothing should be a crime that they want
to do. Here is a really good one for you. Osprey says that if you see
a crime take place and don't report it, you are guilty of the crime, as
an "accessory." (And he says he is a law enforcement officer - but he
is really a guard.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 11:21:49 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote
They are morons. They believe nothing should be a crime
that they want to do. Here is a really good one for you.
Osprey says that if you see a crime take place and don't
report it, you are guilty of the crime, as an "accessory."
(And he says he is a law enforcement officer - but he
is really a guard.)
Really? Which mall does he patrol?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 11:31:24 PM |
|
|
In article <XLWdnR0i-IU9_J3fRVn-gg@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote
They are morons. They believe nothing should be a crime
that they want to do. Here is a really good one for you.
Osprey says that if you see a crime take place and don't
report it, you are guilty of the crime, as an "accessory."
(And he says he is a law enforcement officer - but he
is really a guard.)
Really? Which mall does he patrol?
Somewhere in Delaware.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 06:25:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:36:01 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack
itself...
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
I asked you to prove your statement
:Just going outside and showing them the gun, under
:these circumstances, is a felony.
but all you did was run away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
01 Feb 2005 11:20:48 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
I asked you to prove your statement
So you knew your position was baseless, and instead of
pretending that you're an adult ("Man" would be too
much to ask), you hoped to catch us?
But -- and here's the clincher -- you say that you knew I
was right all along.
Gee, why don't you just rub dog ***** on your face and go
chase cars? You couldn't look like any more of an idiot...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cole Firearms Inc." |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
02 Feb 2005 01:19:42 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
I asked you to prove your statement
So you knew your position was baseless, and instead of
pretending that you're an adult ("Man" would be too
much to ask), you hoped to catch us?
But -- and here's the clincher -- you say that you knew I
was right all along.
Gee, why don't you just rub dog ***** on your face and go
chase cars? You couldn't look like any more of an idiot...
Sure he could, and has, many times.
--
""Sic Semper Tyrannis" - Thus Always with Tyrants - John Wilkes Booth"
"Per ardua nec flectitur nec mutat. Confido,
est voluntas dei, invictus maneo. Addere leci justitiam
deo certavi et vici." - Rev. Shawn Cole, Cole Firearms Inc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
02 Feb 2005 08:29:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:20:48 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
It's amazing that you've all *Suddenly* decided that
you know the answer to your own question.
Seeing how you all supposedly knew, why the hell
did anyone ask why pulling a gun on people is a
crime?
I asked you to prove your statement
So you knew your position was baseless,
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless; my only mistake was thinking
you were man enough to admit it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
02 Feb 2005 05:36:10 PM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun. After first
pretending that it wasn't true, you idiots no claim that
you knew all along I was telling the truth.
So, what the hell does that leave you to disagree with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 06:19:22 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:46udnRYV5oiB_5zfRVn-2g@comcast.com:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
02 Feb 2005 07:59:51 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun.
Prove it.
Oh, look, the retards are back to square-one.
It must be fun chasing your tail all day, day in &
day out, pretending that this somehow qualifies
as a point.
You're a little slow, so let me bring you up to
speed:
The other jerking knees already admitted it. At
this point they are pretending that they knew
they were wrong all along. But, the point is that
they did admit it, which sets you 80 or 90
notches below them in the brains department.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
03 Feb 2005 01:24:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:59:51 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun.
Prove it.
Oh, look, the retards are back to square-one.
It must be fun chasing your tail all day, day in &
day out, pretending that this somehow qualifies
as a point.
You're a little slow, so let me bring you up to
speed:
The other jerking knees already admitted it. At
this point they are pretending that they knew
they were wrong all along. But, the point is that
they did admit it, which sets you 80 or 90
notches below them in the brains department.
There are plenty of jerking knees in the anti-gun camp too.
But the woman is a loon. No question about that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
03 Feb 2005 10:14:05 AM |
|
|
In article <46udnRYV5oiB_5zfRVn-2g@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun. After first
pretending that it wasn't true, you idiots no claim that
you knew all along I was telling the truth.
So, what the hell does that leave you to disagree with?
You are arguing with a bunch of half wits in denial, you know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
03 Feb 2005 10:51:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:14:05 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <46udnRYV5oiB_5zfRVn-2g@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun. After first
pretending that it wasn't true, you idiots no claim that
you knew all along I was telling the truth.
So, what the hell does that leave you to disagree with?
You are arguing with a bunch of half wits in denial, you know.
There's no argument. He lied, I pointed it out, everyone knows it.
What's to argue?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
03 Feb 2005 09:46:23 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun. After first
pretending that it wasn't true, you idiots no claim that
you knew all along I was telling the truth.
So, what the hell does that leave you to disagree with?
She was arrested because she FIRED the weapon, and also, allegedly, at
the workers, you dope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
04 Feb 2005 08:55:33 AM |
|
|
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
She was arrested because she FIRED the weapon,
Not exactly telling, considering the fact that she didn't
stop at threatening them.
I mean, they couldn't arrest just half of her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
04 Feb 2005 10:48:43 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote
She was arrested because she FIRED the weapon,
Not exactly telling, considering the fact that she didn't
stop at threatening them.
I mean, they couldn't arrest just half of her.
I see that as your attempt to make sense.
So sad that you failed miserably.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
03 Feb 2005 06:24:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:36:10 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No, I knew YOUR position was baseless;
My point was that the woman had committed a crime
just by threatening these people with a gun.
My point was you made a statement that wasn't true, and you STILL
can't admit it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:22:54 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use
of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
Depends on the local laws. In many jurisdictions, assault does not require
touching at all.
-*MORT*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 12:46:10 PM |
|
|
In article <iZ6Ld.7899$C24.544@attbi_s52>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use
of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
Depends on the local laws. In many jurisdictions, assault does not require
touching at all.
-*MORT*-
You people need to make the distinction of tortuous assault and
battery, and criminal assault and battery. I suspect you are confused
here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:26:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:22:54 GMT, "Morton Davis" <anitkerry@go.com>
wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use
of
a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
Depends on the local laws. In many jurisdictions, assault does not require
touching at all.
But of course we're still waiting for numb nuts to show us how
: Just going outside and showing them the gun, under
: these circumstances, is a felony.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 08:29:15 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:p5SdnYfgSPDvcGHcRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:290120052117141730%spam@aol.com...
In article <8KudnVSO_LTs-mHcRVn-rA@comcast.com>, JTEM
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote
No more than your "look it up, *****" rebuttal.
Oh, come on! Don't hold it against him.
I myself got overly snippy at people for asking.
In hind sight, it is apparent that quite a lot of people
don't understand the difference between "assault"
and "battery," and that "battery" is the one that involves
some sort of physical contact -- including, but not limited
to, actually shooting or stabbing someone.
You may be somewhat confused, too. Assault and Battery are two
distinct terms when used for torts, but for criminal charges, the lines
often become obscured. Assault often includes physical contact.
From my understanding, Batter is the actual attack itself...as in the use
of a fist or an object, Assault is the result of the Battery.
Hmmm...
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to
or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put
another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious
or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause
severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly
weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as
"assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching
as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
I was thinking historically. Seems the boundaries have faded into one term.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey C. Dege" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 08:42:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:29:15 -0500, Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to
or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put
another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious
or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause
severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly
weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as
"assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching
as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
I was thinking historically. Seems the boundaries have faded into one term.
In my state, we have assault in the 1st degree, in the 2nd degree, etc.
Assault in the first degree involves causing serious injury, in the fifth
degree involves causing a person to believe you intend to inflicting
serious injury.
(The other degrees involve specific circumstances - assaulting a police
officer, etc.)
--
"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of that is --
'Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like it put more simply --
'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear
to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Gun Owners: Self Defense |
30 Jan 2005 09:10:40 AM |
|
|
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jdege@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrncvpsjd.pk9.jdege@jdege.visi.com...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:29:15 -0500, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries
to
or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to
put
another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious
or "aggravated" assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause
severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly
weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as
"assault", and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching
as "battery," but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
I was thinking historically. Seems the boundaries have faded into one
term.
In my state, we have assault in the 1st degree, in the 2nd degree, etc.
Assault in the first degree involves causing serious injury, in the fifth
degree involves causing a person to believe you intend to inflicting
serious injury.
(The other degrees involve specific circumstances - assaulting a police
officer, etc.)
Same here in Delaware, and recently they added Correctional Officers because
we had a Correctional Officer assaulted in a mall parking lot by an
ex-inmate
who knew him. I believe he got seven years in prison for that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
