<<I think the key word is assault here. In legalese, assault is verbal abuse only.>>
Is that really true? According to Black's Law Dictionary, assault is technically defined as follows:
<<Any willful attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm, constitutes an assult. An assault may be committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the person of another...
Frequently used to describe illegal force which is technically a battery. For crime of assault, victim need not be apprehensive of fear if the outward gesture is menacing and defendant intends to harm, though for tort of assault, element of victim's apprehension is required... It is unlawful attempt to commit a battery...>>
Whereas assault and battery are defined as follows:
<<Any unlawful touching of another which is without justification or excuse... The two crimes differ from each other in that battery requires physical contact of some sort (bodily injury or offensive touching), whereas assault is committed without physical contact.>>
Seems to me that the lady's description of events, if true, clearly describe an assault according to the first definition above, in addition to battery and rape, which are compounding crimes. Am I missing something here?
While assault doesn't necessarily require physical contact, it doesn't necessarily exclude it either, right? When battery occurs, isn't it most (or all) of the time accompanied by assault?
Just curious. (I'm not a lawyer; just a layman.)
Razor |
