Hot answers tagged

49

Criminal charges are filed and prosecuted by the government, on behalf of the public, and there is no requirement for approval or cooperation by the victim. As a policy matter, a DA may decide to not charge a person in case the victim is unwilling (though less so in cases of domestic violence), perhaps because of the widespread impression that the victim has ...


45

You may legally ask someone to shoot you, or do all sorts of other things to you. There are no laws against asking or various kinds of speech: laws restrict the doing. If you ask a person to shoot you and they do it, that person will probably be arrested for assault (or murder, depending on how it works out) – shooting a person is assault. A possible defense ...


45

If the act itself is illegal, I think request itself could be illegal under incitement laws. For example in Montana: 45-8-105. Criminal incitement. (1) "Criminal incitement" means the advocacy of crime, malicious damage or injury to property, or violence. (2) A person commits the offense of criminal incitement if the person purposely or ...


31

The victim of domestic violence is referred to as the complaining witness. Domestic violence arrests will result in a criminal investigation. It is not up to the complaining witness to determine if charges are brought against the one who was arrested - this is up to the prosecutor. Here is a good article at Findlaw that discusses the process. If the ...


22

In England and Wales, deliberately spitting on someone is classed as battery under the common assault category of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Corresponding legislation has been enacted covering Scotland and Northern Ireland. Battery is the application of unlawful force, and as well as spitting, covers incidents of pushing and slapping. Spitting, if done ...


20

Yes he can still have a record if he is convicted and yes, they can still go forward if the victim asks to withdraw the complaint. The victim to a crime (any crime, DV especially) can be subpoenaed to testify even if they don't want to. And you're under oath in the event of a trial, subject to the penalties of perjury. You also cannot mislead the police or ...


16

There is a good amount of case law addressing this question going back two centuries. Legally, as soon as you are subject to "excessive force," you are allowed to defend yourself as you would against any assault, even if that force is being used in the course of an otherwise lawful arrest. Furthermore, in some states you are still allowed to resist ...


15

No, it's not legal. This is the tort of assault, not to be confused with criminal assault. A tort of assault does not require actual contact, whereas some jurisdictions define criminal assault elements as those of battery; in others, it is an intended battery without the contact. The elements of common law assault are: A positive, voluntary act You can't ...


12

You acted illegally in assaulting your fellow student. When you are in public, a person can legally take your picture, and you are not allowed to assault a person because you do not like their legal actions. Any degree of force is excessive except in certain responses to illegal fource, and even the threat of force is excessive. You also have no right to ...


11

The General Rule In practice, the only time when self-defense against a police officer is legal is when you do not know and have no reasonable way that you could have known that the person attacking you is a police officer. (And arguably, a police officer acting in an official capacity in furtherance of his or her duties, rather than in a personal capacity ...


10

Examples Detention: A person suspected of a felony can be detained at gunpoint (and, in many jurisdictions, subject to "citizen's arrest"). A more clear example is when you encounter someone committing a felonious assault. You can brandish your gun and order them to stop. If they do stop, then you cannot shoot them unless there is no alternative to ...


10

Just to add a different legal perspective: In Germany, it can indeed be necessary to "press charges" for a prosecution to happen. This is because German law distinguishes between Offizialdelikt (literally, "official crime", a crime which must always be prosecuted) and Antragsdelikt (literally "crime by request", a crime which is only prosecuted if the ...


9

So, what I think is happening is that the victim is necessary to the case in order to prosecute the accused individual. I haven't looked at the video, but it seems from the description that the man does not do anything considered legal assault beyond offensive language and intimidating language. The former is morally repugnant but not a criminal offense ...


9

Most states have two parallel sets of sexual assault statutes. One set punishes sexual assaults involving sexual penetration that has greater penalties. The other set punishes sexual assaults involving sexual contact without sexual penetration that has smaller penalties but otherwise the same elements of the offense. Usually, almost every offense which is a ...


8

(Note that some of the below may be UK specific, but the general principle applies in many other jurisdictions) Well the first thing is to stop working from this from the wrong direction: There is no law that makes it legal to assault someone: the law only makes it illegal to assault someone (eg in the UK, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offences ...


8

This is going to vary by state to some degree. The Wisconsin battery law says in part: (1) Whoever causes bodily harm to another by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to that person or another without the consent of the person so harmed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (2) Whoever causes substantial bodily harm to another by an act done with ...


8

In the US, it is or is not, depending on the jurisdiction. One question is what to call it. In Oregon it is called "harassment" A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally: (a) Harasses or annoys another person by: (A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact... In Washington, there is no statutory ...


8

There's always civil action possible; "assault and battery" has a civil variant as an "intentional tort" Civil assault and battery are torts. A tort is a wrong committed by one person against another, causing damage. Specifically, civil assault and battery are intentional torts. [...] Intentional torts are torts that are committed on ...


7

IMO this is a perfectly reasonable question, amenable to a common law analysis: (1) indicates that A has committed the tort of false imprisonment (Restatement of Torts, 2d, §35). Because of 2-4, we can see that A intends to confine B (though vide infra). The confinement is complete (§36), this being a single aisle plane although the same would be true if ...


6

Assault is defined as "putting someone in fear of imminent harm". Imminent means "about to happen". "fear of imminent harm" means the harm is about to happen (very soon) "fear of harm in the future" means the harm might happen later "imminent fear of harm in the future" is probably a usage mistake, but ...


5

Your question convolutes a number of different circumstances and legal questions. When is a person justified in using deadly force against a driver? When the person can convince a prosecutor, judge, or jury that a reasonable person would consider it necessary to prevent grievous bodily harm (and other situation-dependent defenses – for more nuance ...


5

The specific elements of the crime in question are going to be defined by Maltese law, which appears to be a blend of a European-style civil code with English-style common law. However, under ordinary Anglo-American standards, the alleged acts do seem to meet the legal definitions of these terms. At common law, an "assault" consists of placing someone in ...


5

I'll use California penal code 837 as an example, though most other states have similar statutes: A private person may arrest another: For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence... 839 says: Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein. Generally, someone making an arrest is ...


5

EDIT: From State v. Shelley, 929 P.2d 489, 85 Wn.App. 24 (Wash.App.Div. 1, 1997) (emphasis in mine) consent may be a defense to assault in athletic competitions the consent defense is not limited to conduct within the rules of the games, rather it is to the conduct and harm that are the reasonably foreseeable hazards of joint participation in an ...


5

They didn't "get away with it". According to a July 29, 2006 article in the San Diego Union Tribune: Two producers of the infamous “Bumfights” video were jailed yesterday, more than three years after pleading guilty to staging illegal fights between homeless people. Zachary Bubeck and Ryan McPherson were taken into custody after Superior Court Judge ...


5

I'm based in England, but I'm sure the principle is similar in Canada. The night club or concert venue is private property. When someone owns or rents private property one of the main things they are buying is the right to control who is present on that property, and generally they can use reasonable force to remove people who are not authorised. Security ...


5

Sexual contact that is not consented to is a crime. Physical contact where the receiver is under the apprehension of imminent risk is the crime of battery. However, spanking in the context of a consensual sexual encounter does not have that apprehension and is therefore not battery. It is akin to the consent given by people who take part in a contact sport....


5

In the US, there are no laws against surgical circumcision with informed consent (and I don't know of any such laws in any other country). Parents are generally allowed to grant surrogate informed consent. There is no requirement that circumcision be carried out by a licensed physician or other approved practitioner. A person can be held civilly liable for ...


5

There is pretty much never a right to retaliate against harm to oneself, even blatantly unlawful harm. There is a right to defend oneself and others. One can use force to stop someone from inflicting unlawful or unjustified harm, or to prevent someone from inflicting such harm when the harm is imminent. One is not permitted to use more force than is "...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible