Talk:Assault/Archive 1

Archive 1

Intentional Exposure to Contagion?

I believe there are now jurisdictions which charge those who intentionally expose others to communicable diseases (HIV, etc.) as assault. I've seen several such articles, but haven't found the one I'd read using the term assault. Does anyone else know anything about similar cases? samwaltz 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... well, it's not quite the same, but I just found an interesting new application of the term "assault". Websearch "Brian Bruggeman assault". Bruggeman, an inmate in Lincoln County Jail, engaged in an act of flatulance on another inmate, and was subsequently charged with assault. [www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/27/D8M92AJO0.html] [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53521] samwaltz 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't stalking be here as well? stalking link.

Definition of Assault in Australia

I believe the definition of Assault in Australia does not require actual violence (ie battery). Assault in Australia only requires the apprehension of violence/contact. Can someone else confirm this so I can change it.

Chuckye 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this affect sports in Britain, like say boxing? -rmhermen

---

Well, while consent is not a defence, there is a long list of exceptions to the general rule: such as sports, medical procedures, tattooing... sadomasochism however isn't one of them.. --Simon J Kissane

---

there's a lovely term in this jurisdiction (New York State) that I've never heard before in America - "menacing". You can do it to someone by shouting at them, I deduce from reading the Police Blotter in my local paper. I suppose (and I know little about the law) it's a descendant of the assault/battery separation in common law.

---

---

An explanation of the military meaning of assault is missing. Simon A. 17:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• The solution may be to move this article to Assault (crime), and make a disambiguation page of "Assault" with a link to a comparable military article. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding the physical assault by Ms. Baucus, it was sudden, unexpected, sustained and her punches were quite vigorous. However, she did not use any sort of weapon other than her own hands and fists. Does this help? --Limestone2 07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain if this is simple assault:

My neighbor put up a temporary netting-type fence along our property line to prevent leaves from my yard from entering his yard. The fence fell into my yard so I took it down. He and I got into a verbal disagreement over it and his wife, who was obvioulsy enraged about the discussion, walked into my yard, placed her hands on me and pushed be back, telling me to quit doing what I was doing.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Leacorp"

---

This article does not contradict itself. It is simply a difference in the American "common law" and "modern law".

---

  I agree; unless I see an objection or someone else does it first I'll add a traditional/contemporary distinction and remove the flag.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youngjim (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Scottish Law

There is a sentence that says "However in Scottish Law, consent is not a defense for assault." However, this is either in the wrong section (it is not under the "consent" section, but rather the next one) or is an incorrect statement. Does anyone know what the deal here is? dantonel 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION:

Are there exceptions or partial defenses if the assault was aggrivated? For example, if the victim continuously called the perpetrator a cunt, dared him to stab, etc? If so what is the law in the United States (And other countries if anybody knows) federal code?

MunkyJuce69 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong about US law:

The article generalizes the entire US by saying the whole country goes by common law when this is not true. It depends on the state. New York for example has the definition of assault as, with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person;" This is clearly modern penal code, not common law.

alec81484Alec81484 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, the U.S. section needs to be rewritten to make a clear distinction between criminal assault and the tort of assault. This is the apparent source of the common law / penal code confusion. As far as I know, no U.S. state relies on common law in criminal cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.69 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article clearly distinguished US definition to be the "show of force," instead of actual unwanted physical contact, which in US is called "battery." Aggravated assault should be something like, "the show of force with a deadly weapon." If that is the case, I don't get how aggravated assault would result in life sentence. Clearly it was talking about a different country? If the defendent, in US jurisdiction, really cause serious harm to his or her victim, the harsh sentencing does not originate from the aggravate assault count, but probably battery or attempted murder.

Please answer my confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.186.27 (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

English Criminal Law

Please note that, despite the best efforts of some to amend this article to the contrary, there is no such thing as "assault occasioning grievous bodily harm." Wounds and GBH, under ss. 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, are inflicted or caused. Assault is not an ingredient of the offences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.226.123 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Assault distinguished from battery

An assault is an attempted battery or the placing of a person in "fear" of an immediate harmful or offensive touching of his person. A battery is the actual harmful or offensive touching. Unfortunately assault is often used to refer to both torts(crimes) even though they are clearly separate offenses. Thus spitting on someone would be a battery and not an assault. Spitting at somebody would be an assault (civil) if the intended victim was aware of the act. --Jgard5000 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)jgard5000

Section 20 penalties.

These sentences can't both be right, and they're right beside each other:

"An offence under section 20 carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. An offence under section 20 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment."

Both were introduced in the same edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault&diff=prev&oldid=369770213

From Grievous bodily harm it appears that the second sentence should be deleted or amended? It's the right sentence for Section 18. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.168.2 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rethink?

Does anybody else think that we should have a sit down and think about what we are trying to do with this article? Obviously there are a lot of great edits and theres a lot of good information within but it seems as though the lack of any real focus kind of compromises the article.

Clearly the problem is that 'assault' means something very different in virtually every legal system, this is exacerbated by the fact that assault has a very broad colloquial meaning that is used in the legal profession, in statute books etc which includes virtually any non-fatal, non-sexual crime against the person.

It seems (to me at least) that the 'perfect' version of this article would basically be an opening paragraph which manged to elegantly and accurately sum up the essence of the term and then a list of major jurisdictions with links to detailed articles on their specific assault laws and crimes that fit other countries definitions of assault (e.g. battery). To me that sounds like the textbook function of a disambig page.

Thoughts? Bob House 884 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have cut some material from the article

I have removed a number of references with this edit. These sources appear to have been copied from the article Common assault. I added them to that article to support a different point, and I do not believe that they can support the point made here because (1) they relate to England and Wales, not the US (see this edit) and (2) as regards England and Wales, I do not think they say that (the gist of them was that common assault was formerly considered to include battery in addition to what is sometimes called psychic assault, not that it now consists exclusively of battery). I am not convinced that they support the definition of battery offered for England and Wales either, so I have not retained them. James500 (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether fear or foresight required

Regarding this edit, and this one to the article on battery, if memory serves me correctly, some of the older authorities may refer to fear, rather than foresight, of violence. James500 (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Assault laws in the US

The lede states that most US states consider assault only as the apprehension/threat/attempt with the actual contact being battery. This is not true, most states consider intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury as assault, and some states consider even unwanted offensive/provocative physical contact as assault, even if there is no bodily injury. Somebody else has complained about this above.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA87 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the lede because it was unsourced and untrue.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA87 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Added a file from Commons

Felony Sentences in State Courts, study by the United States Department of Justice.

I've added this file from Commons to this article.

Feel free to use it how you like.

I hope it's a helpful source of information.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The first two sentences contradict each other

1. "In common law, assault is harmful or offensive contact with a person."

2. "An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm."

So, does an assault involve and require contact, or does a credible threat suffice? In fact, if you can believe it, it may be that both statements are wrong. At common law, statement 1 would refer to battery. Under today's statutes (which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), the crime of assault is often defined as including contact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7745:1320:C86F:7164:43F:F52C (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430001252/http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413025838/http://www.paclii.org/mh/legis/consol_act/cc94/ to http://www3.paclii.org/mh/legis/consol_act/cc94/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201151414/http://criminallawonline.com/artassaults.php to http://www.criminallawonline.com/artassaults.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition of Assault - Canada

Assault 265 (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;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Raymm (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault

This article says that in the US and England, assault just refers to the threat, not a physical act. However, the article on sexual assault states that it is physical a physical act. This seems like a contradiction to me. Can anyone clarify this? --W00tfest99 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In England and Wales it used to be the case that the offence of indecent assault was modelled on the offence of assault, but on 1 May 2004, the old offence was abolished and replaced by a new offence of sexual assault which can only be committed by touching. I don't know why the law was narrowed in this way, but I can confirm that both articles are correct on this point. Redjon1 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear contradiction. The problem is that in the source for the Sexual assault article, it was pointed out that the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines sexual assault as what is truly sexual battery. Because this one organization has that definition (regardless of how legal dictionaries, dictionaries, medical dictionaries, and the vast majority of statutes define it) they deemed that to be the definition.Arbitrationer (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction - not all jurisdictions have the assault/battery distinction

The article claims assault is only the "threat of imminent harmful or offensive contact". But later it seems to cite jurisdictions including at least some parts of Canada, and South Africa where this distinction does not exist. Not cited there but as far as I know e.g. NZ is the same [1] [2]. The Australian example is an interesting one since it sounds like things there are still the same except there is at least one court of appeal case, interesting citing a Canadian (and UK) case where they still made the distinction even if current legislation does not. However this is only a NSW case, so I wonder if all Australian courts make this distinction. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Civil law jurisdictions may have never followed the common law distinction between assault and battery, and it may be appropriate to clarify that some common law jurisdictions have modified or eliminated the distinction. The introductory paragraphs could be revised to be much more clear on those issues. Arllaw (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the CPS, I've noticed that battery is not listed as a separate offence. All the possible assault charges contain either "assault" or "grievous bodily harm". Neither is "battery" used by the police. It seems to have been relegated to an informal term. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, when I look at the CPS, assault and battery are both still distinct. What They have done is eliminate the charge of battery altogether because when you batter someone, you also assault them. So when you have a charge called "Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm", the word Occasioning means to cause something. Therefore, that charge can be rewritten as Assault Which Causes Actual Bodily Harm. In this instance, the CPS is still making the distinction that assault is the threat of harm.

Furthermore, directly from the CPS: "Where battery results in injury, a choice of charge is available." You can infer by this that they have changed the name of the old charge of battery into "Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm".

Furthermore, in the Canadian Criminal Code as cited above, it specifically calls Assault a threat of harm and the closest the definition comes to battery is when it reads: "...applies force intentionally to that other person". It seems to me that the application of force itself is the crime, not the actual battery. It is a bit of an ambiguous criminal code, though. Arbitrationer (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I recently rewrote the lede to explain that the difference between the two gets ignored in informal usage (and even in some formal contexts) and this varies across multiple countries. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of assault and battery (crime)

As is explained in the articles, depending on the jurisdiction:

• "Assault" is actual unwanted physical contact or violence
• "Assault" is threatened unwanted physical contact or violence
• "Assault" can be either the threat or the actual contact (as in Scots law)

"Battery" is always unwanted physical contact or violence (never the threat), but this is exactly the same as the definition of "assault" used in certain jurisdictions. To reduce redundant content and make it easier for readers to understand, Wikipedia generally aims to have a single article for things that are known by more than one name, and to simply explain the terminology at the beginning of that article. For this reason, and because I don't think it helps readers to maintain two separate articles, I'm proposing that battery (crime) be merged into assault.

Ancillary reasons for merging:

• Both terms and the distinction or non-distinction between them is already explained in both articles, which is redundant.
• "Assault and battery" is a combination of the two, which can be the equivalent to what is called "assault" or "battery" in other jurisdictions. If there are two articles, it's weird to link to only one of them for disambiguation purposes.
• Both "assault" and "battery" are used as general terms which encompass many specific offenses, some of which use the other word (e.g. "simple assault" is a type of "battery"). In addition to explaining the general terminology, the merged overview article needs to list all the specific offenses in each jurisdiction being illustrated. Currently we have two lists, with some countries appearing on both lists, and this is a bit maddening for readers.
• It will take some careful research to pin down the legal terminology in all the jurisdictions being illustrated. If there is one article rather than two, that will avoid having two explanations, one correct and well-researched, and the other potentially unreferenced or contradictory or vague and confusing.

-- Beland (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am not presently convinced that the fact that some jurisdictions use the term "assault" to describe both assault and battery justifies the merging of the two concepts, which were separate at common law and are not universally treated as synonymous. I am also not convinced that people on the whole interpret the term "assault" as inclusive of "battery", even if we can find examples such as North Dakota where "simple assault" is defined by statute to encompass common law battery.

If such a merger were to occur, this article should be renamed to reflect that it includes content for both criminal assault and criminal battery. In the short-term, I think that this article should be retitled to "Assault (crime)", to properly distinguish it from Assault (tort), consistent with Battery (crime) and Battery (tort). Arllaw (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of merging the two. Wikipedia prefers to use common usage to determine article titles over official usage. If I heard that "A man was assaulted in the supermarket car park," I would assume that the man had been injured, even though the legal definition means that the assault may only have been an attempt to injure him. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"Common usage" cannot be assumed based upon the use of the term in specific U.S. state statutes. Wikipedia is international in scope, and "assault" and "battery" are not even used as synonyms across the United States. Arllaw (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, consulting a few dictionaries I see that the most common definition is in fact the sense of "a violent attack" and the legal sense (where different) is the 2nd or 3rd most common definition. -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't personally find "consulting a few dictionaries" to be compelling as sourcing or as a basis for merger. Arllaw (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would oppose such a merger. In terms of encyclopedic usage, these are historically distinct concepts, and legally can occur separately. I would also oppose renaming Assault, since the criminal act is very likely the primary topic of the term. Battery (crime) is at a disambiguated title because Battery (electricity) exists. bd2412 T 13:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

As previously noted, we already have Assault (tort) and Battery (tort). The disambiguation is not only about storage of electricity. Arllaw (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have concluded without action, I have removed the merger proposal tags from the articles. Arllaw (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous and NRLC?

In the section regarding the US, someone has linked a pdf from the National Right to Life Committee regarding felony abortions as assaults. This section needs clarification because obviously most people who get an abortion are not charged with a felony. I also think the link to the NRLC should be removed. Yes, it is just a pdf from congress, but these documents can be found elsewhere from a .gov website and not one that has a clear bias on this topic. Furthermore, just linking the congressional doc doesn't say anything about the legislation, it leaves people to fill in the blanks because they definitely won't read it. The legislation should be clarified.FlyingKitten2024 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)