It's not assault

I woulkd have asked them in return; "If I shoot at a cop and miss, would
that also not be considered assault?"

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

Leo Lichtman said:

"Matt O'Toole" wrote: (clip) it's an assault. But unless there's evidence,
witnesses, etc., no police dept. can do anything for you. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why wouldn't RWD be a witness? Suppose RWD had been shot at from a car, and
came in to the police withthe same info--description, license number, etc.
Would the response have been, "We can't do anything for you because they
missed?"

If they missed aren't you the witness for them littering? At least they
can be fined.

Collin O'Neill said:

The Wogster said:

Quoted message said:

For my part, I once had a beer can thrown at me by a passenger in a car
which was stopped for a red light at a busy intersection. It was easy
for me to note the make, model, and license plate number. I even
happened to have an empty plastic bag with me, and collected the
fingerprint-laden projectile. The police gave me the impression that no
civil crime had been committed (and, while I don't condone littering, I
was not concerned with getting this person cited for that). Ultimately,
I ended up not pursuing any legal action. It wasn't worth what it would
cost me in time or the protraction of the disturbance of my peace. Ride
on!

Don't forget they got Al Capone on tax evasion, so maybe getting the
passenger cited for littering, will simply mean that next time he has
a beer can to get rid of, he will dispose of it properly. Saving you
the problem of getting in the way of the projectile.

W

Uh ... open container laws?

Which is another way of getting them, if they have an empty beer can,
they tossed out of their window, then they had an open container in
their car, so the driver could be charged as well. Problem is that
police have let such yahoos get away with it, for far too long.

W

"gds" wrote: If they missed aren't you the witness for them littering?
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me see whether I get this. Shooting at someone from a car could be
prosecuted as "littering," because a bullet falls by the road somewhere?

willarch said:

I am puzzled.
I would like to know how the San Diego Police Force work out which
officer's turn it is to use the force's one shared brain cell today?

This is something of a non sequitor since the OP said it was a
dispatcher, not a police officer, that gave him the obviously bad
information and most US police/fire dispatchers are civilians.

Quoted message said:

Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an actual
physical assault.

The *threat* is equal to the *act*? That seems a little hard to believe
since it would undoubtedly result in "in for a penny, in for a pound"
thinking by the assailant. Then again, maybe that's where that phrase
originated. It is English, after all. <g>

Quoted message said:

The assailant obviously intended to cause harm, and
even though he/she missed this was an attack with intent to cause
injury. It should have been prosecuted.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

As for claiming that he didn't
see a clearly visible cyclist, this would be seen as an admission of
driving without due care and attention.

Or just as likely, as proof that the cyclist *wasn't* "clearly visible.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article <[email hidden]>, willarch

() said:

Rich said:

RWD wrote:

According to the San Diego Police Department, it's not a crime to
throw
a full quart-sized soda bottle from a moving vehicle at a cyclist as
long as you miss.

I'm really not surprised, as the motorist could simply argue "Cyclist?
What cyclist? I didn't see any cyclist".

I've had a can thrown at me twice in the last two years. Both times
from what appeared to be the same car. It sucks that there's not
much
that can be done about it.

Rich

I am puzzled.
I would like to know how the San Diego Police Force work out which
officer's turn it is to use the force's one shared brain cell today?

Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an actual
physical assault. The assailant obviously intended to cause harm, and
even though he/she missed this was an attack with intent to cause
injury.

(scratches head)

How many times there been threads over on urc of the form "run-in with
occupants of tine box, report made to Plod, Plod sucks teeth and says
'sorry, Sir, nothing we can do'"?

(Answer: a lot)

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
And then there was light and He thought it was good, so He threw the
receipt away.

Here in PA, and I'm speaking as a criminal defense lawyer, this could
be a simple assault (and possibly an aggravated assault, depending on
the circumstances), a crime called "recklessly endangering another
person" and possibly several other charges as well.

The claim that the thrower did not see the cyclist could be a defense
to the charges, but it does not mean that the alleged act does not fit
the definitions of those crimes. That likelihood could, however, be a
factor in the official decision to bring charges or not, although at
that early stage the authorities wouldn't know that.

To the OP, you might want to look into whether California has a
"private" charging mechanism, which in PA, is called a "private
criminal complaint." Regards, Roy Zipris

Roy Zipris said:

Here in PA, and I'm speaking as a criminal defense lawyer, this could
be a simple assault (and possibly an aggravated assault, depending on
the circumstances), a crime called "recklessly endangering another
person" and possibly several other charges as well.

The claim that the thrower did not see the cyclist could be a defense
to the charges, but it does not mean that the alleged act does not fit
the definitions of those crimes. That likelihood could, however, be a
factor in the official decision to bring charges or not, although at
that early stage the authorities wouldn't know that.

To the OP, you might want to look into whether California has a
"private" charging mechanism, which in PA, is called a "private
criminal complaint." Regards, Roy Zipris

I think I'll save this after I highlight "... and possibly several
other charges as well" to show to the next defense lawyer who complains
to me that their client has been "overcharged by the State". You darned
PDs are always brutal, man! <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob, I was hit by someone's fist, and the ticket he got was "Assault by
Contact." That makes me think there is another "Assault" possibility. Am I
wrong?

Pat in TX

Pat in TX said:

Bob, I was hit by someone's fist, and the ticket he got was "Assault by
Contact." That makes me think there is another "Assault" possibility. Am I
wrong?

Pat in TX

Of course it's possible and you aren't wrong. Different jurisdictions
define terms differently. Illinois for example defines assault as any
action that would put a reasonable person in fear of receiving a
battery and defines a battery as causing bodily harm to an individual
or making physical contact of an insulting or provoking manner with
another. Other jurisdictions define assault as the physical contact and
call the actions Illinois defines as assault by other names.

I'm guessing your post was prompted by my reply to willarch's post. The
point I was making to him was that I doubt he was correct when he said
that, "Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an
actual physical assault." That would be legal lunacy because that type
of "logic" would lead inescapably to prosecuting a death threat as a
murder. The person that says, "I'm going to blow up Harrod's" would be
prosecuted as if they were the actual Harrod's bombers? No wonder they
abolished capital punishment! <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Bob" (clip) That would be legal lunacy because that type of "logic" would
lead inescapably to prosecuting a death threat as a murder. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since we're already somewhat off-topic, why not wander a little further?
Between a threat and a murder is the crime of attempted murder. I have
never understood why the attempted crime is treated is treated as less
serious than the successful completion of the crime. Bob, care to comment?

Leo Lichtman said:

Between a threat and a murder is the crime of attempted murder. I have
never understood why the attempted crime is treated is treated as less
serious than the successful completion of the crime. Bob, care to comment?

The attempt actually *isn't* treated as less serious except in terms of
the penalties that may be imposed. The punishment for an "unsuccessful"
crime is less severe than a "successful" crime because the punishment
is supposed to match not only the crime but also the harm done by that
crime. Even though they are both robbers, the robber that pushes the
teenaged female clerk away from the open register and snatches the $10
bill from the drawer can expect a less severe punishment than the
robber that punches that same clerk for the same reason. Where homicide
is concerned, we penalize competence by both the victim- survival being
a measure of competence- and the offender. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

Well, this was in San Diego.

Which makes this even more interesting to me since all us East Coast
slimeballs ever hear is how West Coast cities like S.D. are so
pro-cycling. In fact, if you tried to lodge this sort of complaint
anywhere on the eastern seaboard you would probably be laughed at and
told to move to California.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, this was in San Diego.

Which makes this even more interesting to me since all us East Coast
slimeballs ever hear is how West Coast cities like S.D. are so
pro-cycling. In fact, if you tried to lodge this sort of complaint
anywhere on the eastern seaboard you would probably be laughed at and
told to move to California.

Here's a bit of Californicated cyclophilia from Santa Monica.

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.html

Ron

RonSonic said:

Here's a bit of Californicated cyclophilia from Santa Monica.

http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.html

Ron

Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
"urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

Still, I'd take dealing with these death traps over motorists using
cyclists for target practice.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
"urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

*******
I agree with you. I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.

"Violet Tigress" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
"urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

*******
I agree with you. I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.

It is helpful to have a cyclist or two hidden away in your city's
transportation and/or planning department, it is true.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Violet Tigress said:

I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.

They sure as Hell don't know how to "plan" a city.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)