9.2 Physical assault with an offensive weapon (reword)

no. my description was focused on the nature of the assault. an assault shouldn't need to be successful in order to qualify as physical assault because your actions caused reckless physical endangerment with malicious intent. if tyrone tries to shoot you and fails because he's limp wristed and holding his gun sideways, it still makes sense to charge him with an assault. an easier to understand definition of 'physical assault' could be, for example: 'attack on someone's body'.
 
Last edited:
nutrient10 said:
That’s exactly what I’m saying, it’s physical, not just someone shooting next to you
Click to expand...

Assault. At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm

legal definition @Garret_Pp would be the one to go into detail lol
 
nutrient10 said:
Completely understand what you’re saying but then that would fall under 9.3 wouldn’t it? Or just attempting 9.2?
Click to expand...
9.3 is threat of physical harm, why do you think assault doesnt fall under the law that literally has the name "assault" in it?
 
nutrient10 said:
Completely understand what you’re saying but then that would fall under 9.3 wouldn’t it? Or just attempting 9.2?
Click to expand...

Its just perp laws making no sense. In reality perps assault would be battery and aggrevated battery if i recall properly.

Assault.

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. --- Basically 9.3

Battery

At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others. --- 9.1 but this can have a much better definition if i find the full law.


Aggravated Battery

When a battery is committed with intent to do serious harm or murder, or when it is done with a dangerous weapon, it isdescribed as aggravated. A weapon is considered dangerous whenever the purpose for using it is to cause death or seriousharm. State statutes define aggravated battery in various ways—such as assault with intent to kill. Under such statutes,assault means both battery and assault. It is punishable as a felony in all states. - 9.2

but it really depends from state to state, country to country..

Some states can say assault with a deadly weapon etc.. f.ex california Penal Code section 245(a)(1) - Assault with a Deadly Weapon

all battery definitions gotten from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery
 
Last edited:
If you use common sense this shouldn't need a change.
 
ErmakDimon said:
the way this law is worded if i charge someone with 9.2 if he didnt actually cause injury to anyone it would be an ezpz ia
Click to expand...

IA isn't retarded, they use their common sense too.
What are they gonna say in the IA? He gave me 8 years when i tried to kill someone but my aim is bad and i missed so it doesn't count!
 
Dom_ said:
IA isn't retarded, they use their common sense too.
What are they gonna say in the IA? He gave me 8 years when i tried to kill someone but my aim is bad and i missed so it doesn't count!
Click to expand...
You say that, yet I once got a reprimand for "not dealing" with a fight, I just bandaged up the guy that got hurt. These days you get ias for just about anything, and from a penal code point of view, it would be valid
 
But that's interpreting the law how you want to.

Common sense doesn't override the law, if it says "Cause injury" then you shouldn't charge someone for it if they didn't cause any injuries.
 
Crimson Nugget said:
But that's interpreting the law how you want to.

Common sense doesn't override the law, if it says "Cause injury" then you shouldn't charge someone for it if they didn't cause any injuries.
Click to expand...
just lie and say that a shot hit and that the medics had to patch him up. you don't have to provide your demo, only a statement, use it.
 
nutrient10 said:
I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore, I was simply correcting him, how does that have anything todo with this discussion?
Click to expand...
Because I got a reprimand for something unrelated to this, and crimson was referring to dom's reply
 
nutrient10 said:
I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore, I was simply correcting him, how does that have anything todo with this discussion?
Click to expand...

What did you correct? I was responding to this:

IA isn't retarded, they use their common sense too.
What are they gonna say in the IA? He gave me 8 years when i tried to kill someone but my aim is bad and i missed so it doesn't count!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tyla Jai
Reword/Improve 9.1 Physical Assault - removing a loophole
Replies
15
Views
2K
Tyla Jai
John Chapman
Brandishing
Replies
0
Views
312
John Chapman
John Chapman
Bnjemann
7.3 Change to specifically allow business premises workers to concealed carry.
Replies
0
Views
553
Bnjemann
Bnjemann
Auston
  • Suggestion Suggestion
Server Suggestion Change Law 9.2 and 9,8
Replies
2
Views
122
Tilin
Tilin
northnortheast
Overhaul to Physical Assault
Replies
4
Views
1K
BA98
Back
Top