Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

@woodhousecurtis on twitter











Aseros

Banned
Jun 6, 2011
1,382
To be an assault there has to be some physical contact even if it's pouring a pint of beer over his head.

No there doesn't. An assault is putting somebody in fear, battery is physical contact. I could phone you up and say I was going to kill you, if you were genuinely scared I am, that is an assault.
 






Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
No there doesn't. An assault is putting somebody in fear, battery is physical contact. I could phone you up and say I was going to kill you, if you were genuinely scared I am, that is an assault.

That is threatening behaviour. Assault under common law is attacking someone from the front. battery is attacking someone from behind.
 


seagulls4ever

New member
Oct 2, 2003
4,338
Care to elaborate? As far as I understand under common law an assault requires no physical contact yet a battery does? Obviously more serious assaults under the OAPA will require contact.

You are closer. My simple response was because I did not want to be dragged in! The victim must fear immediate unlawful violence. Merely threatening is not enough for assault. For example, that telephone example above by another poster is not necessarily correct, although if 'I am outside' was added, it would be.

Edit: a better example would be throwing a rock at someone but missing.
 


Foolg

.
Apr 23, 2007
5,024
That is threatening behaviour. Assault under common law is attacking someone from the front. battery is attacking someone from behind.

99% sure it isn't the case. Assault is causing a victim to apprehend immediate violence, no actual touching is needed, just the fear of it.

If he laid a hand on him, it would be battery, or a list of other offences.
 




Kazenga <3

Test 805843
Feb 28, 2010
4,870
Team c/r HQ
You are closer. My simple response was because I did not want to be dragged in! The victim must fear immediate unlawful violence. Merely threatening is not enough for assault. For example, that telephone example above by another poster is not necessarily correct, although if 'I am outside' was added, it would be.

Edit: a better example would be throwing a rock at someone but missing.

Oh yeah obviously the fear must be immediate but I didn't want to sound too smarmy by printing the actus reus verbatim :moo:
 
















The Fifth Column

Lazy mug
Nov 30, 2010
4,118
Hangleton
Simply posting a picture of a road name would not amount to an assault. Some of you are correct in that there does not have to be any force used for there to be an assault and you might at a very long stretch prove an intention on the poster of the picture to make the other person think he was going to 'apprehend' unlawful violence but the reason it isnt an assault is that there is no immediate threat.

"In the case of Ireland the House of Lords suggested that a threat to cause violence ‘in a minute or two’ might be enough to qualify as an assault; a threat to provoke some apprehension of violence in the more distant future would not suffice.
 












CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,171
Shoreham Beach
Just thought I would bounce this thread to add in this little beauty.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/2014/deontay-wilder-knocks-out-internet-troll-charlie-zelenoff/

Watch the second video, before the first one, as it then makes more sense.

This troll bit off more than he could chew when he riled Deontay Wilder. Strangely it seems that taking a pasting from one of the hardest hitting heavyweights in the world, was not enough to knock some sense into this fella.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here