🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.112570fdc...@news.demon.co.uk>, in which a
one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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)"

And the people didn't threaten physical harm so no law was broken.

> 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)

Telling a person you think they deserve to die doesn't fall into the
category however.

> 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. 

But, posting a person's name and adress (as long as it's public
information, as is the case with doctors' names and adresses) and
saying you think these people desere to die doesn't meet the
criteria.

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

If you state the facts, you have not violated any law.

> > 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.

That's not the way it works.  The "victim" could act threatened by
anything that comes his way, which is why the U.S. Constitution would
not allow the anti-abortion site to have to pay a fine.

If I were the doctor here and I felt threatened, the *last* thing
I would do would be to piss these people off by making them pay
shitloads of money that they don't have.

> > 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
 
Wrong.  The threat is in the "I am going to kill you".  The latter part
of the sentence has little to do with the actual threat.  Now just once
I'd like to see you admit when you're wrong.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|