1
   

Evolutionists are insecure

 
 
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 08:23 am
@jespah,
Quote:
Make contact and it's battery. Battery is a kiss. Battery is a pat on the back, too. It's just contact, and the degrees define how harsh it is.


This is off topic, but it is also clearly incorrect. The idea that a pat on the back is "battery" is an extreme interpretation of the law for a political end.

When my boss taps me on the shoulder to get my attention, that isn't battery. It isn't even inappropriate in the workplace.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 08:31 am
A theory in science is not a guess. A theory is a principle that has been tested. It is not a scientific theory until it has made a prediction that has been confirmed by observation or experiment.

Science is based on experiment, measurement observation. Of course, when a theory fails to make a correct prediction then it needs to be replaced.

Since the original theory made correct prediction in many cases, you need to figure out that specific circumstances where it ceases to be correct. For example, Newton's laws work fantastically well in most normal circumstances. We used them to get to the moon and most space travel (and air travel and car travel) can be understood perfectly well using Newton's laws.

Newton stopped making the correct predictions when we started making certain more accurate measurements. When Einstein came around, it was noted that in most cases, Einstein's laws made the same predictions as Newtons in cases where there isn't velocities near the speed of light or non-inertial reference frames.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:00 am
@maxdancona,
Nope, it's not. This is what I learned in law school. It doesn't mean anyone gets arrested for it. It's just the definition. Hasn't got anything to do with politics. It's in my old Torts textbook.
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:11 am
@maxdancona,
Jespah has a background in law, you have a background in talking out of your arse.

Stick to Physics.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:28 am
@jespah,
Jespah, this definition (from the legal dictionary) seems reasonable to me. It implies that the contact needs to be intended to cause harm and pass a level of offensivness. Is this website incorrect?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

Quote:
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act sets in motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, was found guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. A defendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an open window, causing him to fall and injure himself.


maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:32 am
@izzythepush,
Hi Izzy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:34 am
All of you do know, don't you, that Max becomes expert simply by choosing to comment on a subject?
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:39 am
@maxdancona,
Assault and battery are both intentional torts and terms used in criminal law. See, in the law, we conflate terms, too, and they create a ton of confusion as well. The definition you're citing is criminal assault and battery.

Here's a definition of civil battery: https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/battery-basics.html

And my apologies - I had forgotten an element of harm is in the civil definition. Note: it's not necessarily physical harm.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:41 am
Izzy, and Setanta. For God's sake.

1) Jespah does not need you guys to rush to her aid. It is annoying when you rush in to rescue people who don't need to be rescued just because they are women. I am not even attacking Jespah.

2) I want to hear what Jespah has to say from ther experience. That is why I posted the definition and asked her response. I don't think Jespah is a lawyer (I am pretty sure she has said this clearly in the past). I still respect her opinion.





maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:47 am
@jespah,
Sure Jespah, but this definition reads as following..

Quote:
An individual commits a battery if he acts intentionally either to cause a harmful or offensive contact or to cause imminent apprehension of such a contact and a harmful or offensive contact actually occurs. Offenders may face both civil liability and criminal charges for a single act.


Quote:
The elements of civil battery are:

- Intent (not criminal intent to cause injury, necessarily, but intent to commit the act)
- Contact (non-consensual contact with the individual or his/her effects, such as clothing)
- Harm (the battery caused actual harm meaning physical, mental, or emotional, not limited to just physical harm)


According to the definition, there must be an intent to cause harm in order for it to be battery.

A "pat on the back" doesn't meet that definition. Am I missing something?

0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  4  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:48 am
@maxdancona,
I am a retired lawyer. I'm admitted to practice in New York (second district) and my field was torts, more specifically product liability. I handled a lot of construction cases.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:54 am
@jespah,
Cool. I did not know that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 09:59 am
@jespah,
howbout "Toxic torts" are they really all about poisonous baked goods??
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 10:03 am
Ok, So I am at a social gathering. Someone comes up behind me and touches my upper back to get my attention.

- Does this meet the legal definition of "battery"?

- Do the genders of the people involved matter? Is a woman touching another woman or a man the shoulder more acceptable than a man touching a woman?

- If I took a woman who touched my back to get my attention to court for a civil settlement, would I have a chance of winning?

The issue for me is the political extremism coming from the left. They want to drastically widen the definition of assault for ideological reasons.
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 10:15 am
@maxdancona,
Gender never enters into it.

Did the touch harm you? Not necessarily physically - can be psychologically, etc. Then it meets the definition. If not, then it doesn't.

Fun fact: it's an intentional tort. Not an intent to harm; an intent to make the motion to touch. So if someone falls on you, it's not battery. It may be negligence (which is not an intentional tort). But it's not battery.

Hell if I know if you have a chance of winning - not enough facts. Oh, and that's the kind of legal advice folks like me charge for. This is one of the reasons we don't allow it on the site. Offering off the cuff legal advice is a lovely way for malpractice to attach to the lawyer's actions (potentially) and without seeing a dime for it. If you have a serious question and really want it answered, then I suggest you contact a lawyer admitted in Mass. (I'm not) and pony up for the answer.
jespah
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 10:18 am
@farmerman,
Ha! Those were super complex. I practiced back when there weren't a lot of electronic records. Toxic torts cases could (no lie) be big enough to have their own room. One case. That. Many. Pages. The guy who headed the Product Liability group handled those.

I was very happy to not handle stuff like Love Canal. Mainly handled guys falling off ladders. Did my share of car accidents, slips and falls, dog bites, etc. Lots of permanent wave cases (just what they sound like - someone had temporary or permanent baldness due to the use of perm solution on their noggin).
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 10:30 am
@jespah,
My daughter goes to school in Cambridge MA... one of the most liberal cities in the country (maybe the world). As part of the school community I am invited to social parties with the women that my daughter and I refer to as "the Cambridge moms".

These are some of the most liberal, entitled, outraged and politically correct people you will ever meet. You may be happy to know that I keep my mouth shut; after all this is my daughter's school and I behave myself.

These women are awfully touchy feely, they will put their hands on your shoulder in an almost cliched accepting way. In this group of people who take offense at a lot of things... no one takes offense at this.

I don't know how touch deprived anyone else on this thread is. But it many communities, even liberal communities, social human touch is a normal part of the culture.

Maybe touching someone on shoulder or upper back to show care or acceptance is a crime. It shouldn't be. It is sad if we get to the point where we are afraid of human touch.



0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 May, 2020 11:11 am
@jespah,
If he’s going to start asking for legal advice you should charge him.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2020 05:04 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Izzy, and Setanta. For God's sake.

1) Jespah does not need you guys to rush to her aid.



Of course not, but you seem to be of the opinion that you're not a complete idiot. Those of us who've read your posts know the truth, but what about someone new to A2K? They might think you actually know what you're talking about. You don't, you never have. Physics is the only thing you have any knowledge of and you should stick to that. Your comments on other subjects are often downright misleading and just plain wrong.

If you'd bothered talking to the women on A2K instead of calling them Femi Nazis and making their flesh creep, you might have known that Jespah was a qualified lawyer, not that it would have stopped you spouting your self centred narcissistic nonsense.

Let's face it, if you'd not studied Physics you'd be calling people Evolosers and claiming there was no way of knowing how old the universe was because none of us were around at the time. That would also fit in with your dislike of women and minorities.

The tagline on A2K is ask an expert, not ask a clueless dolt.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 May, 2020 05:06 am
@izzythepush,
nd Shes a WIDENER GRAD. Home of the fightin, uhhh BLUE HENS?
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:38:03