highorder
Member
I think you're attributing too much ability to form intention to the besotted.
Not to mention dragging the thread off course.
I think you're attributing too much ability to form intention to the besotted.
If the assualt was intentional ... citizens arrest.
... Assault requires specific intent, meaning the intent to commit the action and the desired outcome. ...
/Because knowing is half the battle.
Before you consider doing that, make sure you understand the following:If they try to leave perform a citizens arrest until the cops show up.
Thank you for that considered advice. If someone assaults my wife or child I'll most likely forget it.Before you consider doing that, make sure you understand the following:
- The offenses for which a citizen may lawfully make such an arrest in your jursidiction;
- the circumstances in which a citizen may make such an arrest in your jurisdiction;
- the exposure to civil liability inherent in making a citizen's arrest; and
- the limitations on the use of force that can be employed in making such an arrest in your juridiction.
Not for me, thanks. Not lawful in my state for the offense described.
Not worth the hassle anyway...
And you might end up OK--if you are in a jurisdiction in which a citizen may arrest another for simple assault and if you can produce evidence showing that the arrest was lawful and if you do not end up on the short end of the stick in civil court and if you do not get seriously injured in the process.If someone assaults my wife or child I'll most likely forget [that considered advice].
do you guys really worry about this kind of thing? If some one hits my wife its game on. Time to dance.
Someone accidentally bumping into you? More than remote. Someone striking you on purpose? Less than remote, depending upon where you are. Someone striking you once on purpose and then disengaging as if nothing had happened? Much less than remote.What are the chances of this happening?
Someone accidentally bumping into you? More than remote. Someone striking you on purpose? Less than remote, depending upon where you are. Someone striking you once on purpose and then disengaging as if nothing had happened? Much less than remote.
My assessment, anyway,
Am I the only person that saw the hit as intentional?
Watch it again, and watch both thugs. They appear aware of the couples presence.
- the assault is not continuing; Thug#1 has already turned away and is clearly willing to let me and my freshly bruised wife walk away.
How would one ever KNOW that the assault won't continue (unless the perpetrator of the assault was dead, of course)?
He or she had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
He or she actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger. Establishing this subjective belief often requires the client to testify.
The danger was such that the he or she could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force. Some states do not require the defendant to retreat, even if he or she can do so safely.
He or she used no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.
True.Posted by Mudinyeri: I am not, nor have I in the course of this thread, advocated deadly force in response to a simple assault like the one in the referenced video.
The problem as I see it is half of the people do not see the event as an attack.In all likelihood and attack on my wife would generate a response similar to the one seen in the video.
True, but if there is sufficient question as to whether there was an attack in the first place, what you have is a fight, which is unlawful as well as dangerous.There would be little, if any, time for witnesses to determine that it was a "non-continuing" assault.