We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


7

Yes. It is a crime almost everywhere to throw something at someone, even if it causes little or no injury. Usually it would be classified as "assault and battery" although if it damages clothing or other property, it could also be called, for example, "criminal mischief" which is intentional damage to property. It would also be a tort that could be ...


7

As I understand it: Battery is the act of intentionally touching or applying force to another person such that the person suffers harm or offense. More or less. Q1: What is the correct verbiage to communicate to an enforcement office that you want to press assault charges against a suspect that has physically struck a victim? Assume you witnessed the ...


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

If I did punch him , would that be okay? No, that would be Assault and Battery. If you did him serious injury you could face a charge of Grievous Bodily Harm. If you killed him, that would be murder. If you are in the UK, Canada or Australia and you were charged with murder you could claim provocation in an attempt to have the charge reduced to Voluntary ...


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 ...


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 (...


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 ...


3

The difference is one of intent and consent. In the linked question, the act was presented with no suggestion of benevolent intent on the part of the actor (and no hint that you were in fact talking about circumcision). Male infant circumcision is normally done with the consent of the parent or guardian on behalf of the infant, and is generally intended for ...


3

An example of where this is not allowed is Seattle, WA. Municipal code SMC 12A.06.025 states It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of: Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; or Damage to the property of a person who is not ...


3

The elements of a criminal action in assault are1: The defendant did something that was likely to result in the use of force against someone else; The defendant did so willfully; The defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this act would directly and probably result in force being applied to the other person;...


3

The Criminal Code says: (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly Touching is applying force, even if it is slight. The law also says (same section) that apparent consent evidenced by submission isn't actually consent: (3) For the ...


3

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 ...


2

Battery – offensive, nonconsensual contact with another person – is a crime unless it is justifiable. There are numerous justifications, and the standards for them can vary. For example, self-defense is a justification for battery, and the standard is usually the "reasonable person." I.e., would a reasonable person in the position feel that ...


2

You have a conflict of rights - freedom of expression vs freedom from harm. Freedom from harm wins - this is a crime and arguing a first amendment right to punch someone in the face is not going to work. Nor would it work if you expressed yourself by shooting them in the head. More broadly, you can only exercise your rights so long as you don't infringe ...


2

It isn't up to you to press charges. Watch any TV show involving criminal courts. The case is always read as The People vs. Joe Badguy Because a criminal charge isn't you vs. them, it's the entire society (Government acting for the people) vs. them. That decision gets made by a District Attorney based on a bunch of things, largely whether this person ...


1

In the UK, this would probably be Grievous Bodily Harm, which carries a possible life sentence. It might be treated (either as a lesser charge with a greater chance of conviction or as a lesser included offence) as actual bodily harm, which may lead to a term of imprisonment (unspecified, but in practice short) or something less.


1

In the US, that kind of criminal law is a matter of state law, and the exact terms may vary from one state to another. Probably doing such a thing would involve multiple offenses. Cutting off any body part would surely be Aggravated Assault. It would probably also be some degree of Sexual Assault (the numbers very by state). Restraining the victim might be ...


1

For the US, there are 50 technically distinct answers since ordinary crimes are defined at the state level. However, on this point states will be broadly quite similar. The "strap down" part is the Class C felony false imprisonment (knowingly restraining another person). Nakedness does not add anything. Cutting anything off is the Class A felony first ...


1

It depends on the jurisdiction, but according to Wisconsin law 939.48: A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or ...


1

12A.06.025 - Fighting. A. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally fight with another person in a public place and thereby create a substantial risk of: Injury to a person who is not actively participating in the fight; DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer. I don't have a law degree. I don't live in any of the above mentioned places. With ...


1

A battery (such as hitting) has no relation to First Amendment protection. First Amendment protects speech not conduct which injures another person. Burning a flag may invoke strong feelings from viewers, but those feelings must give way to protected speech. For government to regulate speech, it must be “integral to criminal conduct.” United States v. ...


1

Note: Similar Q&A here. The only legal justifications for battery that I am aware of are: Defense (especially self-defense) To prevent a more serious felony To effect a lawful arrest Although "fighting words" are not protected speech, AFAIK they do not justify a violent act (even though they are defined as words likely to provoke one). But words ...


1

The answer to your question depends: upon your jurisdiction; and when the punching took place. In most jurisdictions you could use force to prevent a battery upon your wife (i.e., kissing). No jurisdiction I aware of allows you put take retribution by punching afterwards.


1

tl;dr The nanny is in a difficult situation. Penal charges are probably a long shot, and further difficulty arises if the nanny is acting in loco parentis (and therefore has assumed certain responsibilities). A more suitable option might be an employment contract action based on unsuitable work conditions. You'd need to consult a labor attorney for more ...


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