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.