Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 12551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redamare

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4044
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10704
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #136 on: July 07, 2018, 11:10:56 AM »
This week I go with "D", she committed assault by the mere fact she waved a revolver.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

Here comes the future and you can't run from it
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it
If no one seems to understand
Start your own revolution and cut out the middleman

Online xenu

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3450
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #137 on: July 07, 2018, 11:36:15 AM »
It all comes down to like they said what the legal definition of assault is. I'm going with D too
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #138 on: July 07, 2018, 09:10:48 PM »
Yeah, assault is the act of threatening physical harm; I don’t think the victim’s state of kind is at all relevant.  This is one of those where the simple answer is right.  D
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Redamare

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4044
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #139 on: July 07, 2018, 10:58:31 PM »
We'll see, but I don't think the law treats objects that way. We have to treat the facts as described in the question as if they were found to be true at trial. Imagine the inverse situation, in which someone argues they should not be convicted of assault because they threatened someone with something that's not traditionally considered a weapon.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #140 on: July 09, 2018, 11:59:30 AM »
I think it's probably D.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #141 on: July 09, 2018, 05:07:56 PM »
Thinking some more, I would guess it depends on whether an assault must actually create fear of physical harm, or whether the intent to create that fear is adequate.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Online Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4134
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #142 on: July 09, 2018, 05:22:11 PM »
Thinking some more, I would guess it depends on whether an assault must actually create fear of physical harm, or whether the intent to create that fear is adequate.

I think I remember reading that the assaulted person must have a legitimate fear.  That's why the bit about knowing the gun was unloaded kind of buggers up the reasoning. 
Amend and resubmit.

Offline Redamare

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4044
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #143 on: July 09, 2018, 09:15:19 PM »
The scenario as described could be someone joking around. Someone who's at least somewhat of an asshole, but if we took those facts in evidence as assault, we'd have to take a lot of jokers, too.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7178
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #144 on: July 09, 2018, 11:41:55 PM »
The scenario as described could be someone joking around. Someone who's at least somewhat of an asshole, but if we took those facts in evidence as assault, we'd have to take a lot of jokers, too.
"I was just joking" is not a defense against the crime of assault.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Redamare

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4044
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #145 on: July 10, 2018, 04:48:06 AM »
That's not quite what I'm saying.

The facts as presented fit a scenario in which it is clear to everyone that it was a joke from the outset, and the guest decides to press charges for some unrelated malicious reason. The law just isn't meant to be used that way, and it looks like the correct answer bears that out.

If the guest doesn't know the information that's stipulated in this bar question, then it's true that "I was joking" is no defense.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #146 on: July 10, 2018, 12:37:09 PM »
I guess the trick to these questions is that you don't assume anything that is not mentioned in the question itself.  I think it's reasonable and prudent to assume that if someone points a gun at you, it's loaded.  I mean you can buy a box of bullets at any freakin' Wal Mart - you don't have to use the bullets that have been put away.  How many people are killed by "empty" guns?
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw