True. But it could be construed as a simple assault if no invitation, or benign or justifiable reason can be offered for doing it. The reason being we all have a protected right to move about without being touched or offensively accosted.
Pepper-spraying someone who suffers from a serious respiratory affliction can (and has) caused severe incapacitation and death. Taser-shocking someone who has a serious cardiac condition (or pacemaker, etc.) can have a lethal effect.
Touching someone's arm is not equivalent to pepper spraying them or even tasering them. The question was is it or is it not ASSAULT when a cop gives your arm a little tug. It's nonsense.
BS. You saw the definition of assault. At this point you are just being stubborn. If you were someone else I would call you a ******* idiot and be done with you. Show your intelligence. I know you can do it.
Incorrect. I looked it up. What the cop did to the first boy... by tugging on his arm, at best could be called battery, unwanted touching. That's not the same as Assault. I have a lawyer friend that gave me the heads up. I looked it up and ... well that's the way it is. Now what he did to the two girls.. punching one and throwing the other to the ground... that's assault.
What he did to the girl was battery.
At common
law,
battery is the tort of intentionally (or, in Australia, negligently) and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them (e.g. a hat, a purse). Unlike assault,
battery involves an actual contact.
An
assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common
law definition is the same in criminal and tort
law.
If that were true. you might have a point, but it isn't. Where did you hear those lies, fox?
You can hear the cop telling her to leave, she gets out of frame and stops and runs her mouth, I guess you lack the ability to recognize disorderly conduct when you see it. Had she kept her mouth shut and kept walking nothing would have happened to her. That's not lies, it's documented on the video.
Talking isnt disorderly conduct moron. Thats why he is unemployed.
For over eighteen hundred posts now we've been patiently waiting for somebody to post the "run your mouth" law. And/or the "flap your lips" law or the "uppity statute". We have yet to see it.
What we do have is what Dajeeria Becton was actually charged with, i.e. ........... nothing.
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
So where did she do any of this and why wasnt she ever charged?
Many people do stupid shit and are detained and not charged. If the little ***** wasn't trying to impress her friends and complied, she would have had a much better day. Why are you ignorant leftist ignoring the group dynamic involved here?
Why are you ignoring the so called "cop warrior" dynamic that has been videoed so often lately?