12-18-2008, 02:38 AM
DharmaDog wrote: Wrong. Show me a case where merely yelling at someone was assault and where the case had a successful conviction. Even if you can provide one, you can't provide "many." The only time yelling at someone could be assault is if what was yelled was a violent threat. And to get a successful conviction, you'd also likely need to be able to show that the violent threat was able to be immediately followed through with. So my original statement does not fall apart. An example of yelling being assault would need to be something along the lines of a guy yelling that he was going to beat your head with a hammer, and he would need to be actually holding said hammer and be near enough to you that it's a possibility he could actually do it. Whereas, simply yelling "I hate you and wish you were dead" is not assault.
As I indicated above, I don't give a rat's ass about the legal definition. However, from the original source of the legal definition you cited, their primary definition is:
as•sault
noun
1. a violent attack, either physical or verbal
Pretty much all the other dictionary definitions I looked at have the same definition. Therefore, your opinion that physical violence must be threatened doesn't hold water.
DharmaDog wrote: I agree that Bush played it cool and was wise to dismiss it. This was the best course of action for him. It would have looked very bad if he had made a big deal of it.
Bush didn't simply "play it cool" and "dismiss it". He specifically brought it up as an example of dissent in a healthy society, essentially approving such demonstrations. I laugh at your silly "shoe thrown = intent to cause physical harm" BS. Heck, my mother used to throw, nay hurl, her shoe at me (with intent to hit and hurt me with it) when I was a kid and was trying to escape getting whacked for misbehaviour. Should she have been brought up on assault charges?