9.2 Physical assault with an offensive weapon (reword)

[ErmakDimon]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: change

What law do you wish to change/add:
9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon
Any person who applies or causes reckless injury to another person with any type of offensive weapon as defined in law 7.3, that is likely to cause great bodily injury commits an offence.

to

9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon
Any person who causes reckless endangerment to another person with any type of offensive weapon as defined in law 7.3, that is likely to cause great bodily injury commits an offence.

Why should this change/addition be made: With the way the law is currently worded, a person only commits 9.2 If he assaults and actually hits someone. This makes a loophole in the way that, for instance, if you shoot at someone but miss them, it's not 9.2. Same is with if you shoot at their car, since technically you're not causing them injury.

With my version of the wording, if you shoot someone and miss them it's 9.2, since it endangers them. This can also be applied to shooting for example their car, since you are endangering them.

What is the aim of this change/addition: Cover up a loophole.

Additional Information:

 

[Smily]

Wouldn't intentionally missing just come down to attempting or planning a crime (9.2) and maybe 9.3?

 

[Crimson Nugget]

The way I see it, it's already there:

6.7 Attempting or planning a crime of 9.2 if the person swings, shoots at you but misses, 4y 3,5k max

9.3 If for example a person approaches you with a baseball bat while saying "You know I can fuck you up in 2 seconds right?"

You can't say it's physical assault if there actually was no assault

 

[Collier]

I have abused this many times and would like to continue to do so

 

[ErmakDimon]

The way I see it, it's already there:

6.7 Attempting or planning a crime of 9.2 if the person swings, shoots at you but misses, 4y 3,5k max

9.3 If for example a person approaches you with a baseball bat while saying "You know I can fuck you up in 2 seconds right?"

You can't say it's physical assault if there actually was no assault

the assault itself is the fact of the shooting.

 

[ErmakDimon]

I disagree with this since if someone is attempting to assault someone with an offensive weapon but fails, it isn’t directly 9.2, instead it should be treated as attempting or planning 9.2

there's no such thing as "attempting to assault" as soon as you fire your weapon it is considered by definition assault. But the law differs from the definition of assault that's why i want to change it

 

[Moon The Goon]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: change

What law do you wish to change/add:
9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon
Any person who applies or causes reckless injury to another person with any type of offensive weapon as defined in law 7.3, that is likely to cause great bodily injury commits an offence.

to

9.2 Physical Assault with an Offensive Weapon
Any person who causes reckless endangerment to another person with any type of offensive weapon as defined in law 7.3, that is likely to cause great bodily injury commits an offence.

Why should this change/addition be made: With the way the law is currently worded, a person only commits 9.2 If he assaults and actually hits someone. This makes a loophole in the way that, for instance, if you shoot at someone but miss them, it's not 9.2. Same is with if you shoot at their car, since technically you're not causing them injury.

With my version of the wording, if you shoot someone and miss them it's 9.2, since it endangers them. This can also be applied to shooting for example their car, since you are endangering them.

What is the aim of this change/addition: Cover up a loophole.

Additional Information:

I had a situation like this when jailing @Samuel . I couldn't figure out what I would jail him for as he had shot at us but missed. The wording of it completely confused me and I didn't know what to jail him for.

 

[ErmakDimon]

And why do you think the law currently states physical assault? Please at least use some common sense and minimal brain usage to figure out what I meant.

Because the law has "Assault" in its name yet the definition of the law does not correspond to the definition of "assault"

Using the definition of the law, shooting someone and missing them isn't physical assault, but in fact it is.

 

[Crimson Nugget]

This issue here is why in some jurisdictions Assault and Battery are combined in a single offence while in others it's separated. Battery always implies unwanted physical contact. For example, 9.1 doesn't cover battery (since it doesn't cause injury) but 9.3 does if you are pushed against your will.

Assault's definition also varies, sometimes it implies contact, sometimes it doesn't. You can't go by dictionary definitions.

Straight from Wikipedia, first part says you have to inflict the harm, second part says you have to attempt it or threaten to do it,

long story short: I don't think we need it because 9.3 and 6.7 can cover attempts to physically harm.

 

[ErmakDimon]

I knew you were gonna start with your dictionary definitions, it literally says physical assault, not to mention every single synonym refers to physically hitting someone. As I said before the law is “Physical assault”, not just plain assault, and make your mind up, is it physical assault or isn’t it?

It's called physical assault because insults can be called assault too. physical doesn't imply that you need to hit someone, it implies that you assault someone physically i.e. shoot at them or swing at them

 

[ErmakDimon]

This issue here is why in some jurisdictions Assault and Battery are combined in a single offence while in others it's separated. Battery always implies unwanted physical contact. For example, 9.1 doesn't cover battery (since it doesn't cause injury) but 9.3 does if you are pushed against your will.

Assault's definition also varies, sometimes it implies contact, sometimes it doesn't. You can't go by dictionary definitions.

Straight from Wikipedia, first part says you have to inflict the harm, second part says you have to attempt it or threaten to do it,

long story short: I don't think we need it because 9.3 and 6.7 can cover attempts to physically harm.

yeah but i'm talking about shooting and if you use 9.3 and/or 6.7 it means that if someone shoots your car and/or shoot you and doesn't hit you, max he can get is 4 years. That's why i want to change it

 

[Puma]

ok, this is epic

 

[Crimson Nugget]

yeah but i'm talking about shooting and if you use 9.3 and/or 6.7 it means that if someone shoots your car and/or shoot you and doesn't hit you, max he can get is 4 years. That's why i want to change it

And that's how I think it should be, I don't think people need to have a higher sentence when they didn't injure anyone.

If you think attempting injury and actually causing injury should have the same potential punishments, then attempted murder and actual murder should too, which is not the case.

 

[ErmakDimon]

And that's how I think it should be, I don't think people need to have a higher sentence when they didn't injure anyone.

If you think attempting injury and actually causing injury should have the same potential punishments, then attempted murder and actual murder should too, which is not the case.

I just don't think that someone's sentence for shooting at the mayor should be cut in half just because he has bad aim

 

[Alabin]

Just google "assault with a deadly weapon" and read up on how the americans define it, there you will be charged with it even if your bullet misses the intended target. As a matter of fact you don't even need to fire a weapon, pointing it at someone could be deemed assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Crimson Nugget]

Actually, I retract my comments and I'm in support of amending the law. One simple reason for it:

If we don't change it, imagine this:

- Shootout in bazaar, 5 criminals vs 8 cops, all criminals are shot down and one is revived

- Revived Criminal who likes to find loopholes in the law: "Do you have proof I actually hit anyone? I tried shooting at you but I missed every shot".

- Dilemma: 9.2 or attempt to 9.2?

No way to enforce/determine if his bullets actually hit or miss. I doubt officers have the attention span, perception and memory to remember if someone actually shot someone in the middle of a big shootout.

I'm actually surprised I've never seen someone exploit this loophole before.

 

[John Daymon]

I knew you were gonna start with your dictionary definitions, it literally says physical assault, not to mention every single synonym refers to physically hitting someone. As I said before the law is “Physical assault”, not just plain assault, and make your mind up, is it physical assault or isn’t it?

This is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read, of course you're going to bring up definitions when it comes to laws, that's how it works??

 

[Alabin]

Change the definition from "Physical assault..." to "Assault...". Problem solved.

 

[Topher]

I knew you were gonna start with your dictionary definitions, it literally says physical assault, not to mention every single synonym refers to physically hitting someone. As I said before the law is “Physical assault”, not just plain assault, and make your mind up, is it physical assault or isn’t it?

physical in the context of physical assault applies to physical injury and bodily consequence, not direct physical contact. you dumb.

 

[Fielding]

I have abused this many times and would like to continue to do so

I just smash a attempted murder charge in ur face and call it extreme so i can stack ln u lol ez pz lemon sqzy