Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intentif the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victimor general intentif he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4409432
so no apology is necessary from me, how about from you?
"In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant."
I am waiting for your admission of being wrong.
At common law? Most of the laws are statutory now. based on the common law, but not common law.
Not to mention the statutes very state by state and depending on whether we are talking criminal charges or tort law.
From the linked article above:
"Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition."
Keep on diggin there bub. Upi really should not be coming to Houses aid on this matter.
Not good for your image on here.
I done whooped two asses on this thread and I kinda like you. Lets keep it that way?
You claimed "assault", not all the various other definitions you're trying to throw around (that aren't "assault")...
You were wrong and won't admit it... I understand - it's how you roll....
I expect nothing less from you...