Grabbing a drink isn’t assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.
Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both “assault” and “battery”. I would guess that you’re conflating the “aggravated” variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone’s hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.
Assault: “Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact.”
Battery: “Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent.”
Basically, “assault” is merely making someone think you’re going to touch them without consent, and “battery” is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both. Throwing a drink on someone also meets the definition of both.
“Petty theft” (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not “theft” or “larceny”. It is “robbery”. The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.
Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.
I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.
#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.
#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.
#3 certainly justified #4.
#5 might not have been justified. It’s an open question.
There’s no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or even offensive contact there. If you clipped the rest of the video off, and showed a jury just the video up to the grabbing of the drink, none of them would agree that it creates a reasonable apprehension.
But you’re proving that you’re a misogynistic shitstain, so there’s that.
My arguments are consistent regardless of the genders of the participants. Yours clearly are not. Mine would hold up with two men, two women, two NBs, or any two adults of any sex, gender, race, creed, color, national origin. Switch any gender of any participant here, and you have a big, politically incorrect problem with your current position.
No they’re not. They’re fucking dumb and everyone reading this thread seems to think the same thing.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
From your perspective a partner would have the right to choke slam their partner if they surprised them with a hug because they touched them first.
From your perspective one person is not responsible from removing themselves from danger, they’re responsible for hurting people to make a point and exert control.
You’re stupid go drink whatever liquids are under your sink.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
Oh, wow. You have a real problem there if you think “on a date” constitutes “consent”. This is 2026, not 1952.
Grabbing a drink out of someone’s hands without their consent is a provocative act. Provlcative in the sense that it invites immediate retaliation. Check out the Wikipedia articles on provocation, intigation, “fighting words”… They should give you some indication of how the law sees such actions.
Basically, if you provoke a response, you are not justified in reacting to that provoked action. Grabbing the glass was instigation, and provocation. She invited some kind of response. Because she was the instigator, she was not justified in lunging at him after the drink was thrown.
I stand by both of those. There are three relevant acts between the two.
Again: you are not justified in grabbing a drink out of someone’s hand. The act of doing so is technically considered assault and battery. That act served as provocation for throwing the drink.
Again, if you unjustifiably provoke a response, your reaction to that response is also unjustifiable. If you call me a “fucking moron”, spit in my face, and I immediately slap you, you are not justified in using further force against me. My slap will probably not be considered justified, but it was certainly provoked, and would likely be deemed excusable. I would likely be exonerated for that slap.
Your decision to subsequently punch me is unjustified because of your initial provocation, and I am justified in using force to stop you from continuing to punch me.
Here, he shoved her to the ground while she was unjustifiably striking him. His shove was justified.
She tried to get back up off the ground, and he kicked her back down. That is questionable.
He was justified in initially pushing her to the ground. If he reasonably believed she was going to continue her attack when she got back up, he would, indeed, be justified in pushing her back to the ground. If that belief was unreasonable, the kick would not be justified. The same act possibly being deemed just or unjust, the kick was, indeed, questionable.
You have not offered any sort of explanation or challenge to that analysis. I have no reason to think I erred in that analysis. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until a reasonable alternative is presented.
Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both “assault” and “battery”. I would guess that you’re conflating the “aggravated” variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone’s hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.
Assault: “Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact.”
Battery: “Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent.”
Basically, “assault” is merely making someone think you’re going to touch them without consent, and “battery” is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both. Throwing a drink on someone also meets the definition of both.
“Petty theft” (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not “theft” or “larceny”. It is “robbery”. The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.
Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.
I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.
#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.
#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.
#3 certainly justified #4.
#5 might not have been justified. It’s an open question.
#7 was not justified.
#7 justified #8.
There’s no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or even offensive contact there. If you clipped the rest of the video off, and showed a jury just the video up to the grabbing of the drink, none of them would agree that it creates a reasonable apprehension.
But you’re proving that you’re a misogynistic shitstain, so there’s that.
Don’t bother this guy is a fucking idiot. This is his break down;
Reaching for a drink that’s launched in your face is ASSAULT!!
Kicking someone after shoving them is questionable
What a stupid fuck that guy is.
My arguments are consistent regardless of the genders of the participants. Yours clearly are not. Mine would hold up with two men, two women, two NBs, or any two adults of any sex, gender, race, creed, color, national origin. Switch any gender of any participant here, and you have a big, politically incorrect problem with your current position.
No they’re not. They’re fucking dumb and everyone reading this thread seems to think the same thing.
You’re literally trying to say she touched him first. On a date.
From your perspective a partner would have the right to choke slam their partner if they surprised them with a hug because they touched them first.
From your perspective one person is not responsible from removing themselves from danger, they’re responsible for hurting people to make a point and exert control.
You’re stupid go drink whatever liquids are under your sink.
Oh, wow. You have a real problem there if you think “on a date” constitutes “consent”. This is 2026, not 1952.
Grabbing a drink out of someone’s hands without their consent is a provocative act. Provlcative in the sense that it invites immediate retaliation. Check out the Wikipedia articles on provocation, intigation, “fighting words”… They should give you some indication of how the law sees such actions.
Basically, if you provoke a response, you are not justified in reacting to that provoked action. Grabbing the glass was instigation, and provocation. She invited some kind of response. Because she was the instigator, she was not justified in lunging at him after the drink was thrown.
This is what you said.
You’re a fucking moron.
I stand by both of those. There are three relevant acts between the two.
Again: you are not justified in grabbing a drink out of someone’s hand. The act of doing so is technically considered assault and battery. That act served as provocation for throwing the drink.
Again, if you unjustifiably provoke a response, your reaction to that response is also unjustifiable. If you call me a “fucking moron”, spit in my face, and I immediately slap you, you are not justified in using further force against me. My slap will probably not be considered justified, but it was certainly provoked, and would likely be deemed excusable. I would likely be exonerated for that slap.
Your decision to subsequently punch me is unjustified because of your initial provocation, and I am justified in using force to stop you from continuing to punch me.
Here, he shoved her to the ground while she was unjustifiably striking him. His shove was justified.
She tried to get back up off the ground, and he kicked her back down. That is questionable.
He was justified in initially pushing her to the ground. If he reasonably believed she was going to continue her attack when she got back up, he would, indeed, be justified in pushing her back to the ground. If that belief was unreasonable, the kick would not be justified. The same act possibly being deemed just or unjust, the kick was, indeed, questionable.
You have not offered any sort of explanation or challenge to that analysis. I have no reason to think I erred in that analysis. I stand by it, and will continue to stand by it until a reasonable alternative is presented.
And you’re a fucking idiot for it.