Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Hawking on a sandwich


godtomsatan
 Share

Recommended Posts

When the customer opened his food container, he says there was spittle on the burger. He demanded a refund and called the fast-foot outlet's district manager

 

How fast was he running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The man was released after being booked for investigation of fourth-degree assault and possession of Josh Gordon."

 

Shouldn't it be attempted fourth degree assault?? Since the man found the loogie before being "assaulted"...

Edited by sundaynfl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The man was released after being booked for investigation of fourth-degree assault and possession of Josh Gordon."

 

Shouldn't it be attempted fourth degree assault?? Since the man found the loogie before being "assaulted"...

 

 

Good point.

 

:wacko: It's still under investigation. Maybe they are checking DNA to see if the guy was mad for buying the pot from the same Steelers fan.

 

Or maybe viewing the spit ball was enough of an assault in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The man was released after being booked for investigation of fourth-degree assault and possession of Josh Gordon."

 

Shouldn't it be attempted fourth degree assault?? Since the man found the loogie before being "assaulted"...

 

 

I believe assault is the intent and battery is the act..Or something like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The man was released after being booked for investigation of fourth-degree assault and possession of Josh Gordon."

 

Shouldn't it be attempted fourth degree assault?? Since the man found the loogie before being "assaulted"...

 

Those damn NFL refs probably work for the cops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe assault is the intent and battery is the act..Or something like that

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_...lt_battery.html

 

Introduction

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.

 

Assault

An assault invoves:

 

An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;

Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;

Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.

Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.

 

Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.

 

Looks to be more of the threat. Not into legalese to see if intent is also meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information