4 ms·
The "assault" in "assault and battery" can be entirely verbal, so this concept has been legally enshrined for quite a while.
by t-3 2y ago
The "assault" in "assault and battery" can be entirely verbal, so this concept has been legally enshrined for quite a while.
- cratermoon 2y agoIt's also in international human rights law. Performative Hate Speech Acts: Perlocutionary and Illocutionary Understandings in International Human Rights Law <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334199177_PERFORMATIVE_HATE_SPEECH_ACTS_PERLOCUTIONARY_AND_ILLOCUTIONARY_UNDERSTANDINGS_IN_INTERNATIONAL_HUMAN_RIGHTS_LAW https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334199177_PERFORMAT...>
- kelavaster 2y agoAssault is nonviolent affront, compared to battery which is violent.
- eesmith 2y agohttps://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-aggravated-assault-33775.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-aggr... > Historically, battery and assault were considered separate crimes, with battery requiring that the aggressor physically strike or offensively touch the victim. In that way, a battery was a "completed" assault. Many modern statutes don't bother to distinguish between the two crimes, as evidenced by the fact that the phrase "assault and battery" has become as common as "salt and pepper." These days, statutes often refer to crimes of actual physical violence as assaults.
- eth0up 2y agoI am not a fan of the esoteric language of legalese and have used this very example to illustrate how flaccid a handle most folks have on language. I'm sure you've also heard, many times, the terms burgle and rob used synonymously. On a silly note, I wonder if the "assault" rifle controversy could be quelled with silencers. Or maybe by arguing that an assault rifle should be far less menacing than a battery musket.