Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carpenter who wrote (11861)	2/24/1999 9:53:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

From a legal perspective, assault is verbal abuse only. Are you a lawyer? Because I don't believe that statement is true. And even if true, then we again have the President, through his personal press secretary, willfully misleading the American people. And Clinton said he was sorry for doing that in re Lewdinsky. Which we see was another lie, if he's out doing it again in re Broaddrick. Etc. Or maybe Clinton's press secretary meant that Clinton didn't assault Broadrick 20 years ago (but he might have assaulted her 19 years, 11 months, 3 days, and 11 hrs ago--come to think of it, was the WH press secretary checking his wristwatch when he made his statement?) John, the bottom line is this current WH is infested with vermin. Who you gonna call.

To: John Carpenter who wrote (11861)	2/24/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<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