A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault. Or maybe it was a lawyer. It may be the latter.

And, even if that is still true in Ohio, that doesn't mean that it is the law in California where this incident occurred. In addition, the campus itself will have their own policies and may be unaccountable in any court due to the ridiculous deference that courts and legislatures give them to make up their own rules and run their own kangaroo courts.

But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.

But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.

Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?

A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault.

Assault occurs with a threat, and does not require touching. Classicly, assault occurs when I draw my fisted hand back, and battery occurs when I make contact.

Battery is offensive touching.

Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?

Hard to say in a hypothetical. Generically, I would say I would try to yell something or to distract a man hitting a woman or try to get between them or something.

But then, I don't see myself as some roving white knight.

I'd likely be more aggressive if a helpless elderly person or child was violently assaulted in front of me.

Instead of chickenshit haranguing me on a hypothetical, why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.

Assault occurs with a threat, and does not require touching. Classicly, assault occurs when I draw my fisted hand back, and battery occurs when I make contact.

And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes?

I certainly wouldn't take it as legal advice.

state laws can entirely alter criminal law as applied in that state.

So quoting this Hornbook is not the final word on anything, especially state criminal law on assaults.

Can you cite a single state where the law does not recognize the right to defend property?

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476.html

3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property

The owner [or possessor] of (real/ [or] personal) property may use reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. [A person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a (family member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.] Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm.

When deciding whether the defendant used reasonable force, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed. The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used more force than was reasonable to protect property from imminent harm. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of .

New January 2006; Revised April 2008

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-50.html

California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 50

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a spouse, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html

Defense Of Property: Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest. [Civ. Code §50] The property one is entitled to protect includes property that is in one's rightful possession.

... why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property

Meh.

In this case, the property had already been taken from its owner. The statute does not address a citizen attempting to recover stolen property from a perp, even an obviously guilty perp.

Why don't you find some CA statute that tells us that a victim of theft has a right to physically assault the thief to recover his property? I don't think you'll find one. That veers into vigilante law. I don't think you can find such a statute. Not that I am trying to beggar you into spending your day searching for such statutes.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

Well, good for you, Dudley DoRight. You should qualify for the Belize Medal of Honor.

And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes?

I certainly wouldn't take it as legal advice.

Do you know of any exception in the United States?

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html

CALIFORNIA

Elements Of Assault

An assault is a demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury on the person of another then present. [Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. (1944) 63 Cal App 2d 1, 146 P2d 57] A civil action for assault is based on an invasion of the right of a person to live without being put in fear of personal harm. [Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal 3d 644, 257 Cal Rptr 865, 771 P2d 814]

However, the Restatement Second, torts provides that a defendant is liable for assault if: (1) he or she acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and (2) the plaintiff is put in such imminent apprehension as a result. [Restatement 2d, Torts §21]

The apprehension necessary for an actionable assault requires that the plaintiff believe that the defendant's act may result in imminent contact unless it is prevented by the plaintiff's self-defensive action or by his or her flight or by the intervention of some outside force. The plaintiff must actually be aware of the imminent contact, but the plaintiff need not experience fright at the prospect of the threatened contact.

To make a defendant liable for an assault, the defendant must have intended to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on the plaintiff or to have put him or her in apprehension of such contact. Once that intent is formed and the defendant puts the plaintiff in apprehension of the threatened contact, the defendant is liable, even if he or she subsequently terminates the attempt to inflict harm or that attempt is frustrated for some other reason.

The Penal Code definition of assault requires that the defendant have a present ability to commit a violent injury on the person of another. [Pen. Code §240] However, one civil case has held that the present ability to injure is not necessary for an actionable assault. [Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. (1944) 63 Cal App 2d 1, 146 P2d 57(pointing of unloaded gun at another in threatening manner constitutes assault unless it is known by plaintiff that gun is in fact unloaded)]

Elements Of Battery

A battery is a violation of an individual's interest in freedom from intentional unlawful, harmful, or offensive unconsented contacts with his or her person. To establish a claim for battery a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally subjected him or her to a harmful or offensive touching which actually and proximately caused plaintiff to suffer injury.

The defendant must intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact. However, intent is the gist of an action for battery only where the battery was committed in the performance of an act not otherwise unlawful. If the cause of action is an alleged battery committed in the performance of an unlawful or wrongful act, the intent of the defendant to injure is immaterial. Moreover, where the defendant is guilty of gross or culpable negligence, this may supply the element of intent, so as to create a liability for an unintentional injury which is the natural proximate consequence of the defendant's conduct.

If the defendant forms the intent to cause the apprehension of the threatened contact, as in an assault, and actual contact results, he or she still is liable for battery, even though the resulting contact was unintended.

The doctrine of transferred intent applies to causes of action for battery. Thus, where a defendant intends to cause a harmful or offensive contact with a third party, but instead causes that contact with the plaintiff, he or she is liable to the plaintiff for battery just as though he or she intended to cause the contact with the plaintiff.

- - - - - - - - - -

OHIO

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/ohio-law/ohio-assault-and-battery-laws.html

Definition of Assault

Ohio assault laws include the offenses of both “assault” and “battery.” Causing or attempting to cause harm to another person or to an unborn child is an assault in Ohio. To commit "battery" is to intentionally or negligently cause offensive physical contact or bodily harm. The crime of assault is broken down into two separate degrees: "simple" and "aggravated." Simple and neglient assault are misdemeanor crimes. Aggravated assault is a felony depending upon who is the victim.

[snip]

In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey, basically the hubby allegedly kicked the dog and wifey punched him in the nether regions. Cops came and arrested wifey. Her claimed defense of defense of property was disallowed at the trial court. The appeals court reversed. The dog was property. She had the available defense of defense of property.

Where he kicks the dog (property), defense of property must be considered when she punches him in the balls.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2010/2010-ohio-617.pdf

State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App. 3d 548, 2010-Ohio-617

At pp. 9-10:

{¶ 43} We must also point out that the trial court misconstrued the recording as a bar to her defense. Besides the fact that the lack of a defense should not be prematurely judged, the court’s reliance on the recording as some piece of ultimate evidence that would bar the presentation of a defense is misplaced. Notably, after listening to the tape, McCaffrey testified that he said, “I didn’t kick the dog,” then he got punched in the groin, and then he said, “That’s enough of that.” However, one could more easily construe McCaffrey’s statement as “I didn’t kick the dog. This is kicking the dog.” (Emphasis added.) It is at this point that one can hear a noise sounding like some kind of strike.

{¶ 44} This construction of the evidence further supports appellant’s defense-of- property claim, which the court seemed to have preemptively dismissed outright based upon its construction of the recording before even giving appellant a chance to present her case. Although this discussion seems more pertinent to a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis, it is also relevant to ascertaining the entire effect of the trial court’s contested statements.

{¶ 45} Considering the court’s misconstruction of the recording, the court’s premature adjudication of her defense as incredible and even unpresentable, and the court’s sustaining of an objection made on a wholly erroneous ground, we are compelled to sustain this assignment of error. Based upon the totality of the aforementioned circumstances, we hereby reverse and remand for a new trial.

In this case, the property had already been taken from its owner. The statute does not address a citizen attempting to recover stolen property from a perp, even an obviously guilty perp.

Why don't you find some CA statute that tells us that a victim of theft has a right to physically assault the thief to recover his property? I don't think you'll find one. That veers into vigilante law. I don't think you can find such a statute. Not that I am trying to beggar you into spending your day searching for such statutes.

Nice try to change the topic of the discussion. Fail.

[A K A Stone #9] Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that. That is assault

This discussion is about someone taking a hat off Stone's head.

And your responses at #11 and #12:

[#11] Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.

[#12] Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap.

If someone takes the MAGA cap off Stone's head, what this discussion is about, Stone does not go to jail for defending his property. Not in Ohio. Not in California.

Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie" ignoring a situation that is occurring right in front of you.

There may be a moral duty to intervene, but there is no legal duty.

CALIFORNIA Elements Of Assault

Hey, nolu, I already know assault and battery are illegal in Cali. What I don't know is if it is legal to use violence for a property owner to recover his property. I don't think so. And probably not in any other state either.

In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey...

And some marital ball-punching of a dogkicker spouse is a very tenuous precedent to cite in a case of recovering a $5 cap from someone who grabbed it and wouldn't give it back.

I think you're giving some very lousy advice but IANAL.

There may be a moral duty to intervene, but there is no legal duty.

Some jurisdictions do have the so-called Good Samaritan laws. Generally I understand them to require passersby to report violent crimes or a person in danger to the police. I don't know of any that require passersby to intervene physically and risk their own safety.

I think you entirely miss the point. Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie"...

Sure I could. Well, if I could whistle. And if I didn't hate "Dixie" as a really crappy 19th century ditty.

Lack of personal intervention is a chronic problem in America. Obviously you side with the couch potatoes.

Do you have a spare leotard and cape to loan me? I promise to try harder. I'm sure you can UPS or FedEx them to me internationally.

Do you have a spare leotard and cape to loan me? I promise to try harder. I'm sure you can UPS or FedEx them to me internationally.

Why do you need to mask yourself as a super-hero?

Irrespective of what you "understand" you would allow a man to beat a woman in publick. Don't you find yourself as a immoral hypocrite?

I do, yes. LOL

Why do you need to mask yourself as a super-hero?

They're a bunch of vigilante types not authorized to enforce the law. Some, like Batman, are outlaw vigilantes wanted by the poice themselves for their vigilante actions.

Hence, I need a leotard and cape. If you have a spare.

I do, yes. LOL

I find it strange that you laff at your own retort. You are not quite right on this discussion. Have you ever sought professional psychiatric consulting as boris pursues?

... not authorized to enforce the law

Are you out of your phucking mind?

Even the police or military may not enforce law. It takes the citizenry to perform that feat. That takes courage and capability to work through common sense not some official mumbo-jumbo.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

How would you intervene? The assailant would have been hit in a second or less. I'd pick up my hat in about 2 seconds. Then I'd be on my way. Would you try to take my hat or beat me up or what?

Oh my I just typed f a g I f o r n I a without the spaces and it android auto corrected to California.

Would you try to take my hat or beat me up or what?

Nobody wants your Gary Johnson hat!

Id just pop the person as a reflex to being attacked in a split second. It would be so quick that I may not know the assailants sex until they hit the ground. Besides how am I supposed to know what gender the bull dyke identifies as.

You are a reactive son-of-a bitch unwilling to survey the situation and negotiate an outcome.

Oh my I just typed f a g I f o r n I a without the spaces and it android auto corrected to California.

On my computer, the autocorrect in Firefox offers 'California', the same exact thing!

These are spellcheck hate crimes! Let's sue. nolu can represent us in court.

You have a serious problem.

You can walk past a murder in progress and there is no legal duty to intervene.

That is a fact.

Some jurisdictions do have the so-called Good Samaritan laws. Generally I understand them to require passersby to report violent crimes or a person in danger to the police. I don't know of any that require passersby to intervene physically and risk their own safety.

There are Good Samaritan laws. You misunderstand what they do. They protect the Good Samaritan if he tries to give aid to someone. It protects him from liability for damages where his good faith effort to do help results in harm. There is no requirement to be a Good Samaritan, or report anything.

There is no law in the United States that requires one to report a crime.

Hey, nolu, I already know assault and battery are illegal in Cali. What I don't know is if it is legal to use violence for a property owner to recover his property. I don't think so. And probably not in any other state either.

And some marital ball-punching of a dogkicker spouse is a very tenuous precedent to cite in a case of recovering a $5 cap from someone who grabbed it and wouldn't give it back.

I think you're giving some very lousy advice but IANAL.

The subject is using reasonable force after someone removes a hat from someone's head while they are wearing it. It was in this context that you noted at #11 that they would not have to touch the wearer "if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap." In this same context, you added at your #12, "Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap."

If you grab my hat by the bill and do not touch me, I can still use whatever force is reasonable to take it from you. If you resist, I can use force to overcome your resistance.

The law in California and Ohio provide that I may commit what would otherwise be assault and battery upon the the transgressor, and as long as I use reasonable force, it is protected by the right to defend property. I do not have to just watch someone walk away with my property. Any property, whether it is my hat or anything else.

I cited the law and provided a case. The right to defend property is the law in California and Ohio. I challenged you to identify any state that is an exception. *** C R I C K E T S ***.

As long as you cannot cite a single jurisdiction in the United States where the right to defense of property does not apply and protect the use of reasonable force to stop your property from being absconded with, I will conclude that you are giving a very lousy legal opinion. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

As for citing some marital ball punching of a dog kicker being a tenous precedent to cite, it seems that an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense chose it for the Continuing Legal Education seminar he taught in May 2017 in Ohio. Lawyers have to keep up with their CLE.

Law of Self Defense LEVEL 2B Class Delaware OH CLE Syllabus 17105 v.170524

Uploaded by Law of Self Defense on May 24, 2017

Seminar Leader

Andrew F. Branca is in his 3rd decade of practicing law (MA BBO#: 557995). He has written several published books on the law of self-defense, including the currently available “The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition,” (ISBN: 978-1-943809-14-1). He is an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense, and has been quoted in this context by the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, and many other mainstream media, including nationally syndicated broadcast media and foreign press.

Page 2,

Block 2: Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification (12:05PM to 1:05PM)

[...]

"State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 929 N.E.2d 476 (OH Ct. App. 2010)"

Wiki: Duty to rescue

The law in California and Ohio provide that I may commit what would otherwise be assault and battery upon the the transgressor, and as long as I use reasonable force, it is protected by the right to defend property. I do not have to just watch someone walk away with my property. Any property, whether it is my hat or anything else.

I cited the law and provided a case. The right to defend property is the law in California and Ohio. I challenged you to identify any state that is an exception. *** C R I C K E T S ***.

I don't believe you proved any such thing. Nor have you cited any clear cases where prosecutors brought a case against someone committing violence to recover stolen property and the courts struck down such convictions or summarily dismissed any charges against the person committing violence to recover property.

I maintain my position and will not be distracted by your attempts to pretend that property recovery is some variety of legalized assault. Cite these cases where you are entitled to vigilante action including violence to recover your stolen property. Cite the statutes that declare this. Cite the court cases where the vigilante property owner prevailed.

Property recovery is not self-defense.

I don't believe you proved any such thing. Nor have you cited any clear cases where prosecutors brought a case against someone committing violence to recover stolen property and the courts struck down such convictions or summarily dismissed any charges against the person committing violence to recover property.

My statements and your comments were made in the context of a hat taken directly from someone's head.

[A K A Stone #9] Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that. That is assault

This discussion is about someone taking a hat a head. You said it could be taken without touching the other person if grabbed by the bill.

And your responses at #11 and #12:

[#11] Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.

[#12] Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap.

The law is crystal clear that you cannot take my personal property off my head and leave without my having the right to use any reasonable force to stop you and take back my property.

The discussion was about a hat taken right off the head. It was not about a case of recovery at a later date.

You can cite neither a case nor a law that approaches what you claim, that I must let the culprit walk away with my hat. I may use whatever force is reasonable to regain possession of my hat.

The case citation you criticized is being taught in CLE, 2017, on the topic of, "Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification."

Saying you don't believe your lying eyes is not a persuasive argument. Use of force justification, you mess with my property, I mess with you, it's justified. It does not matter whether you kick my dog or steal my hat.

The only problem area you will find is if the owner uses unreasonable force.

The only problem area you will find is if the owner uses unreasonable force.

Ah. Well, having mistaken me for someone who actually cares about this issue deeply, I'll continue.

• Is it reasonable for a man to punch a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to stab a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to shoot a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?

Or we could agree to disagree since I could care less to begin with and probably won't believe anything you say if you can't find specific cases where someone was charged for retrieving stolen property and acquitted after using violent force by 1) punching, 2) stabbing, 3) shooting.

But you can't find such a case. Because there aren't any, I think. But I can't prove that either, any more than you can prove exoneration of a defendant in such a case.

Of course, I could always point to one rather well-known case of recovering stolen property.

Wiki: O. J. Simpson, Las Vegas robbery

I don't think it helps your argument. It also doesn't clinch my argument in this case of a $5 MAGA cap.

Getting caught up in the causes of others can be deadly.

Life is filled with risks. That is where you are wrong, in this case with the below remark:

Id just pop the person as a reflex to being attacked in a split second. It would be so quick that I may not know the assailants sex until they hit the ground. Besides how am I supposed to know what gender the bull dyke identifies as.

What makes you think that the person receiving the punch doesn't pull out a gun on you?

Punching women, pulling guns, all for some crappy cap.

You really do want to Make America Great Again, one cap at a time.

I thought you were the white knights, vowing to defend any woman being assaulted. Well, unless she takes your cap and then you intend to punch her yourself. Over a cap.

Chivalry may not be dead but it's gotten kinda weird.

There are Good Samaritan laws. You misunderstand what they do.

They protect the Good Samaritan if he tries to give aid to someone. It protects him from liability for damages where his good faith effort to do help results in harm. There is no requirement to be a Good Samaritan, or report anything.

There MAY be requirements in SOME towns in New England:

When a bull dyke assaults you you fight back.

Is it just me, but are bull dykes THE most unhappy, vile, violent pseudo-human beings on earth? And yes -- they are only too happy to challenge men physical controntations, knowing full well that they are shielded by the time-honored "no-hitting-girls" rule. If they attack, they deserve to have their teef knocked out like any other aggressor.

Life is filled with risks...

What makes you think that the person receiving the punch doesn't pull out a gun on you?

So you want it BOTH ways, eh Buck?

You have THREE choices in life:

Preemptively or actively avoid the confrontation.

Run away.

Defend yourself.

When a bull dyke assaults you you fight back.

So now you've turned your cap-grabber into a vicious bull dyke so you can justify assaulting a woman?

You're that hard-up for MAGA caps?