🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <buru2.2338$Po2....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
[snip]
> > > But because they lost the lawsuit, they were punished for breaking a law
> > > that doesn't exist.
> > 
> > Don't you love the law? ;)
> > 
> > The law considers assault to range from the commonly accepted physical 
> > abuse right down to the threat or belief of threat. 
> > 
> > If you suggest to someone that you will harm them and they believe your 
> > comment and fear it's reality, then you are committing assault. 
> 
> You are being quite vague.  "Suggest" itself is kind of a vague word.

Only the way you read ;)

Taking the word in the context of the sentence it is not "vague". 

> Why don't you elaborate a bit 

Assault is defined in the English language as "a violent physical or 
verbal attack".

As with most things, the law has it's own distinct definition. In Law, 
assault is defined as "an act that ****threatens**** physical harm to a 
person (whether or not actual harm is done)"

There really is nothing to elaborate. This one of the more clear 
definitions in Law. 

Maybe you require examples. 

Shaking your fist at a person is considered assault if they feel 
threatened. 

Telling a person you will harm or kill them is assault. Actually doing it 
is assault with the additional crime of "actual bodily harm". Although if 
you kill them you do get the promotion to murder or a derivative thereof 
depending on intent. ("mens rea" and all that)

Actually posting a person's name and address along with a death threat is 
well within the law of assault along with many other comparatively minor 
offences under different laws. Both the wording of the statements and 
other actions carried out by the group suggest that the threat was real 
and the victim would feel threatened. Hence, a crime has been committed. 

Note, there is no mention of "intent" in the definition of assault. 
"Intent" is not an issue since it is only used when deciding on what 
recourse to take based on a crime of assault. "Intent" could also 
change a crime of assault into a crime of a different nature. Hence a 
fine rather than a prison term for the crime under discussion. 

> and then I'll show you where your
> argument breaks down? ;)

It doesn't since it is *not* an "argument", it is *not* "opinion" but 
*is* "Law" and *is* fact. However feel free to try :P

> > Threats are as punishable as actual deeds albeit with different levels of 
> > consequence. 
> 
> facts != threats

Huh?

> opinions != threats

An expression of the opinion that a given person should die could 
constitute a crime for a number of reasons. In addition to assault there 
is the crime of incitement. An open opinion that a person ought to die, 
may incite another to commit the act. Either way if the victim feels 
threatened by the expression of the opinion, assault has been committed.

> facts + opinions != threats

Depends on the wording of "fact + opinion". Telling an overweight person 
that "I am going to kill you, you fat bastard" is 

	  fact 	- "fat" 
	+ opinion 	- "bastard" 
  	= threat 	- of death
:P

Not the best example in the world but I do not want to use something that 
you could construe as "vague" :P


-- 
Mark