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 ...


44

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 ...


30

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 ...


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 ...


10

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

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

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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 "...


5

This will vary by state. In Wisconsin, according to state statute 943.50(3) the security guard could be immune from both criminal charges and civil liability for detaining you if they have "reasonable cause for believing" that you stole something, even if they later turn out to be wrong. A... merchant's... security agent who has reasonable cause for ...


4

"If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you." (said while grabbing the handle of sword) This is a famous conditional threat where the speaker/actor was not found to express intent to do harm; perhaps better called a negative condition. This probably confuses matters but if you are to search for more answers this could be a good ...


4

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 ...


4

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. There is no need for physical contact in an assault, all that is needed is the threat and the apparent, present ability. The drill sergeant was behaving in a threatening manner and had an apparent, present ability to cause harm; he was guilty of ...


4

The problem with these situations is that you don't get to choose how it goes once it's in the hands of law enforcement. Possible scenarios on bringing a complaint to police or prosecutors: "So you guys had a dispute, but everyone's OK now. We're not pursuing this; we have more important things to do." "Hmm ... that could have gotten ugly. We'll do an ...


4

You have accurately summed up the conundrum. There is little else to say. You need to accept that there is confusion, even within the law itself, and rely on context to establish in any given instance which meaning is meant. You will come to find that there are many instances of such confusion in the law. The historic technical distinction in the law (...


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