I always thought that when one gets right up into someone's face

[busterbrown]

and stares them down, is not battery but is certainly considered Assault!

[Raven]

1. I think you're correct:

Assault. At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

[Sugar Smack]

2. Every animal in the animal kingdom is already supposed to know this.

It's considered threatening, invasive & confrontational.

The MSM would have us all think differently.

[unblock]

3. my understanding is that there also needs to be a credible threat of violence

in order for it to be assault.

so merely being "too close" and "staring" likely isn't enough.

however, if it's done to the accompaniment of hate-filled, racist chants, that might well be enough to make the threat of violence credible.


generally, though, yes, battery usually involves actual contact, actual injury.

laws vary from state to state so things may be different in different jurisdictions.

ianal....

[rsdsharp]

5. From the dim recesses of Torts I (assault isn't really a part of my practice, and I'm not where I ):

(assault isn't really a part of my practice, and I'm not where I can get at a Restatement or Prosser on Torts right now):

Assault is an offer to touch, made in a rude or offensive manner, creating fear in the mind of the offeree.

The "offer" needn't be verbal.

[unblock]

7. certainly, yes, the "offer" needn't be verbal.

on the other hand, certain things that might be very intimidating, are not, in and of themselves, enough to constitute assault.

i do remember a case from my mother's torts book (high school nerd that i was, i helped her study for law school) where someone got up close to someone and said something in a firm voice. the words themselves weren't threatening, but the prosecution argued that it constituted assault because the defendant was a very large man and the situation was very intimidating.

the decision rested on the notion that the mere size of the defendant wasn't enough for it to constitute a threat of violence.

in your phrasing, there was no "offer to touch".


in a covington-type situation, i think it might well be different depending on what the crowd was chanting.

[Mosby]

4. it's called assault - apprehension

And most of the time it's a bullshit charge.

[world wide wally]

6. So, let's extrapolate this to the ultimate degree.

If Phillip's had pulled out a gun and shot the dweeb, could he have said he was standing his ground and felt threatened?
And vice versa?

[unblock]

8. don't be silly! the stand your ground defense can't be used to defend killing a white person!

gotta remember the thingie.

or maybe not really...