So it's assault if the batter uses the bat...
 

but it's not "assault" if the pitcher beans the batter with a ball. How's that work?

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...ORTS/708160316

Balls are bouncy bouncy bouncy bouncy fun fun fun fun fun?

because it's battery

The pitcher is in the minor leagues because he can't find the plate. The batter finding his way to the mound with a weapon isn't defensible.

That makes sense, Griff. Thanks for clearing it up.

the trick is to accidentally wing the bat at the pitcher on the next pitch.

also if it's done with a weapon it's aggravated assault as opposed to just regular "with your hands" assault.

assault means the threat of imminent harm, no touching involved.

battery is when there's touching.

that's when the kid is sitting beside their brother/sister holding their finger out - "i'm not touching you":rolleyes:

:) yep!

That is generally true, but not always.

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Care to give an example? I'm not saying I don't trust your word, it's just that... Cloud's a lawyer, and you're not--so I don't trust your word on this one.

wait! no, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a paralegal. I've studied some criminal law, but don't construe it as legal advice.

However, the statement, "that is generally true, but not always" is essentially meaningless. It's true of itself--that's a tautology, isn't it?

I'm sure there are exceptions. You can have assault and battery, which is what happens if someone comes up to you, threatens you, and actually causes you injury. I have no idea what the legal consequence of the whole baseball paradigm would be though. And even if I did, I wouldn't say. Cause I'm not a lawyer, yay!

I know a great fish and chip shop called "Assault and Battery"

well, actually, it says only what is stated

The law school at the University of Texas has a small theatre troupe which calls itself "Assault and Flattery."

Let me say that there is a distinction between whether battery occurred vs charged....

A 15 yr old boy, while trying to move his computer into his room, was grabbed from behind by a 50 yr old man (not a relative), thrown across a room, jumped upon & forcibly restrained. After the police and the paramedics arrived, statements were taken. The boy was transported to the hospital and charges filed - AGAINST BOTH PARTIES. The man was not charged with assault nor battery. He was charged with harrassment. The boy was also charged with harrassment! Due to the attack, the boy suffered a seperated shoulder, the man suffered no injuries.

In my opinion "Assault and Battery" occurred, however that is not what the end result was. Therefore, I unfortunately have to stand by my statement.

*side note* In court all charges were dropped against the boy, as neither the officer nor the man appeared to testify. The man paid his fine and was released - free as a bird to attack other children.
*side note 2* The term "man" and "boy" were used to define parties only; as any adult male who initiates an attack on a boy is NOT A MAN.


As you were....

yesman, I think you are confusing what the law is and interpretation of the law. Common-law definitions of assault and battery are what they are. Interpretation of the law is applying the law to the facts of specific cases. It's part of our legal process, but it does lead to some incongruities and misleading outcomes, at least from the layman's viewpoint.

I agree - I was asked to supply an example and I did. Thats all. I am aware now that there are several definitions of Assault and also of Battery - When an issue arises all that is really important is the interpretation - no? Oce you are charged with a crime - thats what must be dealt with. That which you are charged with. Not what a book says.

In other words do a Dave Winfield and actually hit the ball while throwing the bat.

I'm glad this was bumped....'cause....Cloud's a lawyer? I didn't know that. And anyway, where have you been, Cloud? :)

Cloud's a legal assistant, if I recall correctly. She had a whole thread about when one of her cases went to the Supreme Court and she went to Washington.

Ahhh, that's what I was thinking, but wondered if I had misinterpreted.

Thanks.