BF2S Forums How come so many people don't know their own laws?

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

What about when online harassment is done by people who know you, where you live, etc... in real life and not just is some sort of online fantasy?

That doesn't seem wrong to you?

I can think of ways NOT to be harrassed on line. and I am willing to bet you can as well. Being harrassed online is akin to being raped over the phone.......gimme a break

yeah, there is a way not to be harassed online. Lock yourself in a dark room, cut all communication lines, and hope you're not attacked by W-Lan.

Seriously, lowing, how can you not see that online communication has become so much a part of the daily life of americans ( inlcuding yourself, probably ) that not going online to avoid harassment is no longer an option ?
I mean, that's like saying "don't answer the phone, or open the door, you could be harassed".

Social networks, MSN, ICQ, Forums, newsgroups, e-mail. Those have become regular means of communication for a new generation. Is it really too much to ask that those people get to have the same protection from harassment than the rest ?
Why should we go out of our way and change our habits ? Shouldn't it rather be the criminals that should be chased down, and prosecuted ?

My online activities are just as much a part of my social life as the phone calls, or dates, or going to the movies, etc..

on topic:

laws are complex. a lot of people will simply have a wrong impression about the specifics of applicable laws, especially if they have never been confronted with law enforcement, or the legal system. As you guys just demonstrated with the Assault and Battery issue, there is a lot to consider.

A lot of people will also enter any given situation, thinking they know the law, only to find out later that they really don't, and suffer unfortunate consequences. In germany, we call this "gefährliches Halbwissen". ( "dangerous half-truths" / "dangerous half-knowledge" )

Furthermore, who has the time to read all of that text ? It's complicated, time-consuming, often impossible to understand without a degree in law.
Hell, a lot of lawyers, judges, and police officers don't know all laws. There is simply too much of it these days. Some of it makes sense, some doesn't.

Vilham wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Actually its assault AND battery.

It's only assault and battery if you threaten and then hit them. The threat is assault, the hit is battery.

Again wrong.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent.

Battery is that physical contact, you can't commit battery without assaulting someone.

source wrote:

Assault
An assault involves:

1. An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
2. Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
3. 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.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-07-03 08:12:53)

Vilham wrote:

Battery is a type of assault.

You can't commit battery without assaulting someone.

From your own link:

In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-07-03 09:07:24)

Vilham wrote:

"physical contact with another person without their consent" is the key factor, if you touch someone without their consent its assault.

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-03 09:38:35)

Braddock wrote:

I believe spitting on someone counts as assault in Irish law...is that the same anywhere else?

Braddock wrote:

I believe spitting on someone counts as assault in Irish law...is that the same anywhere else?

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I believe spitting on someone counts as assault in Irish law...is that the same anywhere else?

It's considered battery under US law.

I've always wondered that then it allows you to kick the fuck out of the person who spat on you, as self defence of course (the spit being the opening attack of the altercation)?