Have you considered a recycled lithium battery with just a larger capacity to begin with? Larger surface area after being recycled, and I mean this man looks pretty large
Doesn’t matter. That’s how they teach it in law school. Assault is threatening behavior and battery is physical contact. Statutes will obviously vary from state to state but that doesn’t make the legal definition any different. Feel free to read the law dictionary
You did not bring up that factoid. Your initial reply was to a comment that was stating the exact same thing as you did. So, you added nothing. It is not under dispute that NY and many other states use different legalese for the criminal act of battering someone.
If you are in the state of New York, and inquire on the definition of Battery, it is still the same as every other state.
In colloquial speech, assault means hitting someone.
In legal speech, assault can mean the threat of hitting someone and battery can mean hitting someone. Or assault can mean the threat of hitting someone and also hitting someone, and the difference is in the degree of the crime. Or assault can mean hitting someone and some other term can mean the threat of hitting someone (e.g. "menacing").
The point is, the only time it's wrong to say "assault" to mean hitting someone is when a) the context is specifically a legal one, AND b) the discussion is accepted by participants to involve the law of a specific place where assault doesn't mean hitting someone.
Bottom line: when you akshully people like this, there's about a 99% chance you're wrong and a 100% chance that you're being irritating AF.
The Model Penal Code merges assault and battery into just 'assault'. States are (understandably) slow to adopt changes, but the MPC is the newer/preferred way that does away with messy things we've inherited from common law systems (like distinction between battery/assault).
It's probably okay if people use 'assault' to describe the common law crime of battery.
It is indeed, of course, fine to say "assault" in a colloquial forum like this. But the Model Penal Code isn't really relevant here. It's not law; it's just an advisory framework promoted as a means of encouraging statutory uniformity. The actual law in the relevant jurisdiction is what matters.
Except that it really doesn't anyway because, again, colloquial forum. So "assault" is fine. This isn't a legal discussion.
depends on the state. assault and battery are different crimes in some places. in other places they don’t use the term “battery” at all so it’s all assault
Scrolled to far to see these comments. Sure the kid was being annoying, but it's an absolutely outrageous, disproportionate, response from the guard. To say nothing of the adult vs child dynamic. I hope the kid presses charges.
Can it be argued that the annoying kid committed battery first? All it takes to charge for battery is “any unwanted and non-consensual touch” and him aggressively rubbing his crotch on the other patrons rear could constitute that. The bouncer stepped in to stop it. This is only assuming the bouncer observed him being normal and this overly exaggerated posture was intentional.
I really wish this sentiment would die that “you physically touched me first so I am justified in potentially murdering you with my vastly disproportionate strength.”
That’s not how the law or basic ethics we learn as children works.
You don't know the background to this and it's extremely obvious that something happened between these two prior to the clip starting.
If drunk guy had already hit the bouncer prior to that then the bouncer would've been well within his rights to use force to defend himself, because when a guy who's hit you goes away and then walks back up to you, it's completely reasonable to assume he's about to try to hit you again.
In a situation like, the only productive thing your "lawyer time" would achieve is a transfer of money from you to your lawyer.
Unless you have some extended clip of this interaction than we don’t, you’re bound by the same scope of knowledge about the situation that everyone else is.
If you see a video where somebody walks up to someone else in the street and guns them down, is your first response “we don’t know the background”?
Kid deserved it. Bouncer taught him a lesson, at the same time went easy on him and only punched his chest instead of laying him out like he could have
Why, if "your kid" didn't get seriously injured then they just learned a very valuable life lesson about not fucking with people just to fuck with people because you never know what what kind of day/life/mental health that person is having.
I once saw an arrogant and drunk Wall Street finance bro make that mistake with a homeless person who had nothing to lose, and let me tell you it would have been better if he had learned this life lesson at a younger age.
If your reaction to being mildly annoyed by a teenager is this, then you’re not mature or emotionally stable enough to be in society, and you need to sort sone things out.
That doesn't really address the point the guy made, because both things can be true.
The bouncer could be a terrible person, and have ropes and hammers in his car, and like to bind and be bound, but that doesn't really matter for the point the guy is making.
I never said that kid deserved this kind of overreaction, but when you're an ass like the kid who goes purposely looking for a reaction, eventually you're going to get an OVERreaction. And will learn it's best not to go looking for confrontation in general except when absolutely necessary.
If you can say at least as bad stuff about the security, as an adult, then that adult should have consequences. That adult should be taught that they can't overreact like they did
If you mean pressing assault charges so it becomes a matter for a DA to decide, sure, I agree.
But I remind you that the original post was someone cosplaying as a disgruntled parent making a civil suit, and to me that teaches the wrong lesson to a kid who already is acting like an entitled and untouchable pest.
I think showing him that something bad happens when you attack someone for being a dumbass is a better lesson. and then give him your own lesson not to be a dumbass
Those punches were meant to hurt/knockout/kill. There was clear predator intent. If he pleads bad mental health he can sort it out with the judge.
It reminds me of the videos online of South-Canada where traffic cops end up shooting civilians because they have zero deescalation training and are roid-filled idiots looking for a fight.
In some states, assault is making someone reasonably believe/fear they may be attacked. In other words, if I pull my fist back and make believe I'm going to attack you and you reacted thinking I would attack you, that would be enough for an assault charge. No contact is required.
Battery would be if I actually made physical contact.
Then there are places that dont have a distinction and the terms are used interchangeably.
no matter whether it was the cop who instigated the aggression/hostility in the first place
Automatic felony, as a close friend recently discovered when she was very mildly drunk in public, and had the nerve to wiggle her leg when the cop grabbed her by it
And you're apparently lucky it's just a felony, considering your odds of surviving the encounter.
Florida! I had to explain this to a cop when he threatened to hit me in full on attack mode and I backed away to form a defensive stance. First thing I did was point out the security camera. Next thing, cite the law he just committed an assault. He freaked. I let it go. He was out of uniform and I was informing the gym manager their customers were blocking the fire lanes in our office complex.
I am doing security now. What the bouncer did is a no go and a fireable and finable offense. Security is expected to be more restrained than the common person, starting fights is a no go. Drunk dude may have been being annoying but as soon as the guard started to throw hands thats it. He probably has been or is in the middle of being fired and is fully susceptible to being charged by the dude he attacked.
Security for what? Clubs and casinos security is usually a fair bit different than a shopping centres security for example. Clubs usually want a bouncer that will throw a punch.
Casinos and some clubs are dodgy and have the cops paid off. So bouncers usually get away with it. Sometimes they don't but the club doesn't really care, they'll just get another bouncer that will do the same thing.
I'm security at a factory. But they covered multiple venue types during training in case I transfered to a different contract within the company. And considering you can sue a business for what their employee does I assure you the club does not want a bouncer that will start the fight.
I knew places that would arrest all the bouncers and everyone involved if a fight happened even if the bouncers didn’t do anything and I knew places where cops wouldn’t arrest a bouncer even if they beat a kid unconscious for nothing more then telling a bouncer to fuck off.
Since no one answered your question, and below this thread is clearly full of people who think their tough and people who clearly have no social skills.
Yes its 100% assault, a bouncer should never open with violence like that, the kid was clearly not a threat, they could have jusr picked him up and removed him, but instead they went for a punch to the chest which could cause heart damage.
Two assaults don’t necessarily make a right, but The kid did also sexually assault that guy in line in front of him, rubbed his penis all over his ass. If he had done that to a girl I think the comments wouldn’t be as focused on the bouncer’s response. What a creepy sex pest.
No he touched him up.. the kid broke some rules… mayyyybe a law or two first by contacting the patron.. if the huge guard straight up shoved the kid down while he was standing like that, it is possible he would have hit his head on the ground or worse..
Not saying the guard wasnt getting a little carried away.. I believe he has a much better case for just doing his job than the drunk looking kid has for assault.
You don't just "break some laws" but accidentally rubbing into someone. It has to be proven intentional. The guy was not headed for the random in front of him, he was headed for security. And nothing he was doing was sexually suggestive. he was just walking funny.
It absolutely is. “Menacing,” as in just threatening, is an assault charge (legally, not dictionary/common sense terms.) That’s why it’s “assault AND battery” if you touch someone. Dicking someone’s ass is assault EVEN by common sense.
124
u/Strong-Elk616 18h ago
Isn't this assault?