Author |
Message |
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 9:42 am
simply put... how would you feel if it was you? i'd be dang mad and want justice. in absence of justice then revenge.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:17 am
As it is to spit on someone...same thing. I do not agree with this statement. Saliva can carry germs, and as a body fluid, possibly aids. It was TEA...cold tea at that...it wasn't anything that would harm her... if Dick threw a bucket of feathers on her...would that be assault as well? goodness!!
|
Nutsy
Member
08-14-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:19 am
I don't think Dick randomly did it, he was listening in on the Jen/Dani argument and got frustrated. Again, my take, my opinion, my assessment.
|
Sincebb1
Member
08-22-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:20 am
Kep there is no agreeing or not..it is the same offense under the law.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:24 am
If that is true...then please show me where ANYONE was convicted of this offence. I cannot believe Dick has been the only person to pour tea over another person.... ETA....what law? where can I read it? this I've GOT to see...
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:30 am
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878594/posts
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:31 am
Case Law <fixed link ~77>
|
Sincebb1
Member
08-22-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:33 am
Gidg LOL!!!
|
Zachsmom
Member
07-13-2000
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:33 am
i was held in the security office for four hours at disneyland when i was 11 for spitting off the people mover. me and my friend were in there with people who were shop lifting, drugs, drinking etc. they asked us why we were there. we said spitting. everyone laughed.
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:33 am
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/572687MAJ&invol=4
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:46 am
all those are case law.... interpretation of the assault statute, and the interpretation INCLUDED acts which were harmful. ...burning in the eyes...urination...etc. I would like to see the exact statute that says throwing a harmless liquid over someone constitutes assault.
|
Kreno
Member
08-21-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:51 am
None of those cases apply here.
|
Milosmom
Member
06-10-2006
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:54 am
What does the case law Gidget posted have to do with this thread? Jen is a lot calmer about all this, Dick disgusts her, if you watched Housecalls that is about as mean as she got about him.
|
Backslider
Member
08-09-2007
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:55 am
Technically, it was battery, not assault. The tort of battery is: "In the United States, the common law defines the contact for battery as "harmful or offensive". The offensive prong is determined by the reasonable person standard. Looking at a contact objectively, as a reasonable person would see it, would this contact be offensive?" I think a reasonable person would be offended by someone deliberately pouring tea over their head. It was a clear case of battery (in the civil/tort world).
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:57 am
well....Jen fans apparently view Jen as a reasonable person...and apparently she wasn't harmed or offended... So...where is the battery?
|
Sincebb1
Member
08-22-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:59 am
I am sincebb1's hubby and a police officer over 29 years. Nowhere under 242 of the California Penal Code does it specify that the substance has to be "harmful" or that a battery of any kind has to inflict pain or injury. Usually these types of crimes are not committed in a police officer's presence. Police officers cannot usually arrest for misdemeanor crimes not committed in their presence, necessitating a private person's aka citizen's arrest. Then the police officer would accept the person into custody from the citizen. In Jen's case, if Jen had wanted to press charges, the videotape could be used as evidence, which you usually don't have.
|
Ivory_mist
Member
08-31-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:00 am
I think Jen has never ever been treated that way in her whole life....and knew Dick had anger issues.....so she just said..okay. I am glad she mentioned on House Calls that she was angry that BB replaced Ed's cigarettes.
|
Backslider
Member
08-09-2007
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:00 am
It doesn't matter if Jen was offended. The test is a "reasonable person". It is not any specific person, but a test done by the courts. I think if you're being honest, you would agree that a reasonable person would be offended if another person poured a drink on them on purpose. Almost everything Dick did to Jen was meant to offend her.
|
Messalina
Member
06-19-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:04 am
Sincebb1's hubby -- Thank you for posting this. You are my new hero!
|
Kreno
Member
08-21-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:05 am
I'm sitting in my law office shaking my head. I would love to take this case for Dick. There isn't a case here. And not to offend anyone but, just because a police officer could arrest someone does not make the offense criminal. No prosecutor would take this case ever.
|
Sincebb1
Member
08-22-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:05 am
Mess I literally got pushed off my chair LOL!
|
Sincebb1
Member
08-22-2005
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:08 am
Who saying criminal offence etc. geeez people. Go back to the original question please! There is always a case history somewhere..... Seems like everytime I answer the question it mutates...
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:09 am
Thank you Kreno...the voice of reason!!!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:11 am
Well if I ever decide to wander the streets doing this, I'll know where to look if I need a lawyer. Anyway, I don't think any of this applies to the BB show so ....
|
Gidget
Member
07-28-2002
| Friday, August 24, 2007 - 11:11 am
and i repeat ... how would you feel if it was you ... outraged!
|