Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="lynx000, post: 3214650, member: 2065"] What McHunt is not mentioning is the other part of the definition regarding a threat, that is: or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person’s consent, under such circumstances t[B]hat the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person’s purpose,[/B] is said to [URL='http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s245.html#assault']assault[/URL] that other person, and the act is called an [B]"assault" [/B]. In your scenario, you are locked in the back of a paddy wagon in custody, you do not have an actual or a present ability to effect your purpose, so no, you have not committed an assault. If you are sitting down, and 10 feet away from a person and mouthing threats of violence at them, in my view you do not have a present ability to effect your purpose. If you are up on your feet, in their face being verbally agressive, perhaps with a fist clenched - you have a present ability to effect your purpose. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 137 (members: 0, guests: 137)