Nope it does not and again you’re not a fucking law expert stop talking like you are. You’re so wrong all over this page you fucking dork.
The entire situation decides intent. Her intent all over is general, touches the bottle with no intent to do harm or anything not illegal, not offensive. Grabs the bottle with general intent, is not swinging it or brandishing it or showing intent to use it as a weapon, no crime.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent. Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
You’re fucking dumb literally shut up dude holy fuck
While I don’t subscribe to this “general/specific intent” model, your own arguments demonstrate otherwise. Your arguments below rest on the premise that one of the parties started with general intent, and then switched to specific intent. Two parties are interacting. Their intentions change in response to eachother’s actions. The entire situation doesn’t describe intent; there are intentions behind each and every individual action.
Because neither we nor any party involved can know the contents of any mind but their own, none can actually know intent. I reject the “intent” model specifically because the minds are unknowable to anyone. The “justification” model resolves this problem: None of the parties needs to know why the other party is doing what they are doing; their actions provide sufficient context to speak for themselves. Still, for convenience, I will try to frame my position in your terms.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent.
Good. You concede that the throwing of the drink in the face was what you call general intent. I’ve readily conceded that this act was provoked, but unjustified. We now appear to be in agreement that the throwing of the drink was not particularly important to the events at hand. You deem it a misdemeanor. I’ve said that it could qualify as disturbing the peace. We’re basically on the same page with regard to the throwing of the drink.
Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
His first physical interaction with her (after all the “general intent” actions involving the drink) was being struck in the face by her.
We can safely presume that Her specific intent was to cause him harm. We can safely presume that his specific intent was to stop her from harming him. The “intent” model shows the same thing that the “justification” model shows.
If you’re this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to go to jail.
Hey thanks for confirming I don’t have to take any of your comments seriously ever again.
I love you fuckin idiots that think you know the law.
Google specific and general intent. Learn something.
Specific intent to cause harm is a massive fucking problem
Battery with general intent is a misdemeanor.
That describes both her grabbing of the glass, and his splashing her with the contents. General intent, not specific intent.
That describes her lunging across the table and hitting him. A specific intent to cause harm.
I agree with the parent comment: if you raise this “general intent vs specific intent” argument as this woman’s lawyer, she’s going to jail.
Nope it does not and again you’re not a fucking law expert stop talking like you are. You’re so wrong all over this page you fucking dork.
The entire situation decides intent. Her intent all over is general, touches the bottle with no intent to do harm or anything not illegal, not offensive. Grabs the bottle with general intent, is not swinging it or brandishing it or showing intent to use it as a weapon, no crime.
He throws the drink in her face, general intent. Once he physically interacted with her that is no longer general and it switches all his actions to specific intent.
You’re fucking dumb literally shut up dude holy fuck
While I don’t subscribe to this “general/specific intent” model, your own arguments demonstrate otherwise. Your arguments below rest on the premise that one of the parties started with general intent, and then switched to specific intent. Two parties are interacting. Their intentions change in response to eachother’s actions. The entire situation doesn’t describe intent; there are intentions behind each and every individual action.
Because neither we nor any party involved can know the contents of any mind but their own, none can actually know intent. I reject the “intent” model specifically because the minds are unknowable to anyone. The “justification” model resolves this problem: None of the parties needs to know why the other party is doing what they are doing; their actions provide sufficient context to speak for themselves. Still, for convenience, I will try to frame my position in your terms.
Good. You concede that the throwing of the drink in the face was what you call general intent. I’ve readily conceded that this act was provoked, but unjustified. We now appear to be in agreement that the throwing of the drink was not particularly important to the events at hand. You deem it a misdemeanor. I’ve said that it could qualify as disturbing the peace. We’re basically on the same page with regard to the throwing of the drink.
His first physical interaction with her (after all the “general intent” actions involving the drink) was being struck in the face by her.
We can safely presume that Her specific intent was to cause him harm. We can safely presume that his specific intent was to stop her from harming him. The “intent” model shows the same thing that the “justification” model shows.
Your education was a waste of taxpayer money