your under arrest for calling down the minions of Hell!!!

[Halo299]

help me out with a legal question here.

first off, this is how i remember it working from the only criminal law class i have ever taken, but this was a few years ago so things might have changed or i could be wrong.

I walk up to a girl pull a gun and tell the bitch i'm about to blow her fucking cunt brains out the back of her head.

well, after the cops have thrown me on the ground and tazed me a few times for good measure. I am in a lot of trouble. I have just threatened to kill a person with a weapon that i proved i was in the possession of. That is assault because i put the fear of god into this poor girl that her life was about to come to a bloody end.

next example.

I walk up to a girl and i tell her that i have a knife in my coat pocket and she is about 2 heart beats away from choking to death on her own blood.

Once the EMPs are able to get (most) of the pepper spay out of my eyes, i am in a lot of trouble. Turns out i didn't really have a knife but the fact remains that i lead that poor girl to think that i had one and i was about to use it on her. In the eyes of the law, that was the same as actually having the knife. Still assault

here's the kicker.

say i emerge from the all concealing shadows and inform some unfortunate passer by that her that she is about to suffer the torments of the Dread Curse of Azathoth. and i go about the motions to cast my most horrid of spells.

what now...i just told this girl that i am going to hurl the anger of the Old Ones at her, and i made a motion to actually do it?

after the clever investigators that have been following me wrestle me to the ground, what would the law do to me? Can i assualt someone with a spell any less than i can assualt them with an imaginary knife?

hope you guys can make sense out of this one, because it has me beat.

-halo

[Aeridus]

You'd get locked up for insanity I think.

Either way, it's still assault, as it is unwanted attention that makes someone uncomfortable.

[Swordsman3003]

Aeridus, that is not the fucking definition of assault. It is not "attention that makes somebody uncomfortable" (wtf).

Here's a good general legal definition:

A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.

So, maybe Halo. I'm sure it would depend on the court....and whether or not the girl believes in magic (I suspect).

[Xero]

that should be assult with a deadly religion

[Aeridus]

Harassment, then. I was confusing it with sexual assault.

And stop being so fucking abrasive, Swordsman. >.<

[Error of Logic]

If the girl believes in the validity of curses at some level and the one leveling it also believes in the validity of curses, then I think it would definitely be assault. Disregarding for a moment whether they work, you could cause a psychosomatic response in the victim or send her into hysterics she'd never be able to break out of. So yes, I think there's a decent case for assault here.

[Lulujayne]

You could be arrested for manslaughter if she had a heart-attack from laughing too hard.

[Error of Logic]

You could be arrested for manslaughter if she had a heart-attack from laughing too hard.

If you laugh too hard in front of someone who believes in their evil curses, they might just decide to batter you to death there and then ... Still manslaughter.

[Bustertheclown]

Well, there are certainly droves of people who do believe in the power of the arcane, one sort or another, so I could definitely see wild gesticulations and threats of curses being taken seriously (behind smirking lips) by the law. I've heard of, read of, and seen weirder things happen. I know that if I were to jump out of the bushes and threaten someone with imminent danger, I'd sure as hell would make it worth both of our while, as well as that of the police, and have something imminently dangerous to wave in their face.

Maybe you could put glowy stuff on your hands, for theatrical effect? That way, the cop beat-down and assault charges will have some veracity, albeit in a strange way. You'd certainly make the papers.

[ManaUser]

The important difference is that while the imaginary knife could cause imaginary death, the imaginary Dread Curse of Azathoth only causes the imaginary loss of 1d3 imaginary POW points.

But seriously, I noticed some interesting details in the definition Swordsie posted.

A crime that occurs when one person tries to physically harm another in a way that makes the person under attack feel immediately threatened[/b]. Actual physical contact is not necessary; threatening gestures that would alarm any reasonable person can constitute an assault.

So according to this definition, it must be an actual attempt to cause physical harm (i.e. the "caster" must believe it). It also qualifies that it would have to alarm a reasonable person, which a magic spell, typically would not.

But moving away from the specific definition of assault, I think it's safe to say they could find something to charge you with if the victim was genuinely afraid for their life, and you intended to have that effect.

Likewise, if you really thought you were casting a powerful curse on the other person, I see no reason you couldn't be charged with a crime, probably of the attempted variety.

[Honor]

Simply put, assault is the threat of physical attack or harm.

In proper legal definition, trying is only a factor because an attempted attack is essentially akin to the threat of an attack... When the actual attack takes place successfully, a different crime has been committed.

• If I say I'm going to kick your ass, that's assault.
• If I kick your ass, it's battery.
• If I say I'm going to kick your ass, then do so, it's assault and battery.
• If I point a gun at you and say "Bitch, I will pop a cap in your ass!" it's "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon", depending on jurisdiction.
• If I actually do pop a cap in your ass, it's Murder, manslaughter, mayhem, etc.

Note that "aggravated" just means "with mitigating conditions"... In the case of assault, it means "with a weapon" or "with the intent to commit or in the process of committing another crime" but in the case of battery, it may mean the victim lost an arm or leg or eye or was permanently maimed or disfigured. In the case of fraud, it might mean that the perpetrator has been convicted of other fraudulent crimes recently.

It should also be noted that the language of police work and law is tending toward sloppiness just like "normal" language, and there are jurisdictions where the local penal code now inaccurately defines a successful physical attack as "assault"... Which, in a sense, in and of itself makes the inaccurate definition accurate.

So... In all three situations in the original post, the crime is "assault".

The first example is aggravated assault... It was performed with the aid of a weapon.

The second example is also assault, but might or might not be classed as aggravated assault, depending on the jurisdiction, the prosecutor, and the judge and/or jury.

The third example is also assault... Whether or not the method specified is realistic, harm was clearly threatened. A decent defense attorney is going to argue that the attack method named was imaginary, thus a reasonable person would not feel threatened. A decent prosecutor would counter that the threat was offered, regardless of it's substance.

If a person points a gun at you that they incorrectly think is loaded, the criminality is not diminished. If they know the gun is not loaded, but you don't... Same thing. Likewise, if you threaten someone with a realistic toy gun, and they can reasonably mistake it for a real on, the criminality remains.

And what if the attacker makes the threat, then discovers that the gun isn't loaded? The intended victim has still been threatened, and might well expect the attacker to simply find another way to affect the attack... The same could be said of the Curse. Even if the intended victim doesn't believe in the curse, she may well believe that the crazy person wants to hurt her, and thus the requirement for assault has been met.

The case is going to come down to a need to prove an intent to threaten harm, and a reasonable cause for concern on the part of the "victim".

[Churba]

aggravated assault

Now there's a charge that never made sense to me - If you're assaulting someone in any fashion, but for extenuating circumstances, wouldn't you be pretty aggravated anyway?

[Error of Logic]

aggravated assault

Now there's a charge that never made sense to me - If you're assaulting someone in any fashion, but for extenuating circumstances, wouldn't you be pretty aggravated anyway?

For pity's sake, tell me you're joking here. -_-

[Unholy]

For a start you'd be calling *up* the minions of hell, and secondly, as long as she is distressed, its assault.

[Awkwardschoolgirl]

Posts like the one Honor just made make me happy in some places. Like my brain...

[Honor]

Posts like the one Honor just made make me happy in some places. Like my brain...

Just thinking about you makes me happy in some places. Including my brain.

[Honor]

For a start you'd be calling *up* the minions of hell, and secondly, as long as she is distressed, its assault. (emphasis added)

Hmm... You know... This gets me thinking.

There are obvious cases where this is not the case. That makes me start enumerating them in my head... When the police officer say "Stop or I'll shoot!" it's a legally justified version of assault. It's a warning of a legally justified event...

When a doctor says "You're going to die of cancer" he's simply telling you what will happen. When she points a needle at you and says "This is going to hurt." (I guess she's the only honest doctor. For some reason she chose not to say "There will be a little pressure.") she's warning you of something that will come to pass... Even though she's doing it, you're paying her to do it, or asking her to at least...

What about when a preacher says "You are going to raost in the fires of hell, suffering the eternal pain of endless torment at the hands of Satan!"...?

Is that a warning of a coming event? Is it guidance? Is it a service provided by a professional? Or is it the threat of harm? What if someone filed civil suit, charging a fire-and-brimstone preacher with assault because he said she was going to suffer an eternity of torment at the hands of righteous demons? (How can they be anything but righteous? If god allows them to exist, and to punish the 'bad', then they must be an extension of god... Employees. Just the portion of his staff responsible for disciplinary actions.)

If a gang leader, call him Don Pardo, says, in the most polite and gentle terms, "If you don't pay your protection money, Jimmy the Newt is gonna break your bones." That is both extortion and assault. Even if you've never met Jimmy the Newt. Even if you doubt Jimmy the Newt's existence... Even if Jimmy the Newt doesn't exist at all it's extortion and assault and racketeering, just the same.

So why, when a priest says "If you don't do as I tell you, Satan here is gonna torture you for eternity." is that not assault and extortion?


When the leader of a racist organization says his followers should lynch niggers and curb faggots, that's unprotected speech. It's convictable, particularly if someone gets hurt. It's inciting people to criminal acts.

So why, when the preacher says you're a sinner, and the bible clearly says sinners of your variety should be stoned to death in the town square... Why is that not unprotected speech after the same fashion...?



What would happen if a well organized lawsuit were brought against a high-profile religious leader in an attempt to establish that, in order to maintain protected status, religious folk had to play nice and follow the same rules as everyone else, vis-a-vis making violent threats and hateful pronouncements?

[Xero]

you're all slow on the uptake

someone already sued god
I"ll find the link in a sec


found it

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0709 ... uing_god_1

[Halo299]

For a start you'd be calling *up* the minions of hell, and secondly, as long as she is distressed, its assault. (emphasis added)

Hmm... You know... This gets me thinking.

There are obvious cases where this is not the case. That makes me start enumerating them in my head... When the police officer say "Stop or I'll shoot!" it's a legally justified version of assault. It's a warning of a legally justified event...

When a doctor says "You're going to die of cancer" he's simply telling you what will happen. When she points a needle at you and says "This is going to hurt." (I guess she's the only honest doctor. For some reason she chose not to say "There will be a little pressure.") she's warning you of something that will come to pass... Even though she's doing it, you're paying her to do it, or asking her to at least...

What about when a preacher says "You are going to raost in the fires of hell, suffering the eternal pain of endless torment at the hands of Satan!"...?

Is that a warning of a coming event? Is it guidance? Is it a service provided by a professional? Or is it the threat of harm? What if someone filed civil suit, charging a fire-and-brimstone preacher with assault because he said she was going to suffer an eternity of torment at the hands of righteous demons? (How can they be anything but righteous? If god allows them to exist, and to punish the 'bad', then they must be an extension of god... Employees. Just the portion of his staff responsible for disciplinary actions.)

If a gang leader, call him Don Pardo, says, in the most polite and gentle terms, "If you don't pay your protection money, Jimmy the Newt is gonna break your bones." That is both extortion and assault. Even if you've never met Jimmy the Newt. Even if you doubt Jimmy the Newt's existence... Even if Jimmy the Newt doesn't exist at all it's extortion and assault and racketeering, just the same.

So why, when a priest says "If you don't do as I tell you, Satan here is gonna torture you for eternity." is that not assault and extortion?


When the leader of a racist organization says his followers should lynch niggers and curb faggots, that's unprotected speech. It's convictable, particularly if someone gets hurt. It's inciting people to criminal acts.

So why, when the preacher says you're a sinner, and the bible clearly says sinners of your variety should be stoned to death in the town square... Why is that not unprotected speech after the same fashion...?



What would happen if a well organized lawsuit were brought against a high-profile religious leader in an attempt to establish that, in order to maintain protected status, religious folk had to play nice and follow the same rules as everyone else, vis-a-vis making violent threats and hateful pronouncements?

see, this was the logical end i came to as well, but i knew, i just knew i had to be wrong. But If Honor sees it too...

excuses me, i have work to do.

-halo

[ManaUser]

What about when a preacher says "You are going to raost in the fires of hell, suffering the eternal pain of endless torment at the hands of Satan!"...?

Heeee. I thought this thread was headed in that direction. At least it's on topic this time.

I think the main difference is that God is not generally assumed to act on the preacher's behalf. For instance, if *I* tell someone "Dude, you better pay, Jimmy the Newt'll break your bones." that's not a threat, that's advice.

Or when a doctor says "You're going to die of cancer... unless you buy this medicine", that's still not a threat, because the doctor didn't cause the cancer.

Now if the preacher were to actually say "I'll pray for your everlasting torment!", then he might have a problem.

Of course there's also the little detail that the law is not concerned with protecting to souls, just living people, and occasionally corpses.