DrWakko wrote:
In Washington, a person commits the crime of simple assault (also called assault in the fourth degree), a misdemeanor, by hitting, touching, or attempting to injure another; or intentionally placing another in fear of injury by some physical act.
CriminalDefenseLawyer.com › wash...
Washington Assault & Battery Laws | CriminalDefenseLawyer.com
You see but you do not observe.
If the world worked the way you think it does, here are some of the things we should see:
Parents arrested for holding their infants (touching). For that matter, every doctor that's ever delivered a baby. Along with all the nurses and whoever else attends to them.
The Seahawks shouldn't exist, as they should all be in jail. After all, there's live broadcast video evidence of them touching the other team.
Two people high-fiveing each other get arrested and go to jail.
Couples holding hands, hugging, or kissing in the park? Jail!
Airsoft game? Ho-lee-shit, that's a jailin'!
Since we don't see these things, the reasonable, rational thing to do is question if the world actually works the way that you think it does. Hint: it doesn't. When our observations don't match our understanding, that's an opportunity for learning and even novel discovery to occur. Questioning is skepticism, noticing is critical thinking, figuring out the actual rule is science, and accepting the new, better answer is rationality. Since you read this and it didn't occur to you that your understanding made absolutely no sense in the context of... well... any human being with a television in their home that's seen a Seahawks game, you were obviously oblivious to this opportunity... as so many sadly are. Either that or you're using the classic internet trick of posting the wrong answer in order to get someone to angrily give you the right one, in which case, bravo! (Well, half bravo, I'm not angry after all, but it would be easier if you'd just ask your question instead of making us all guess.)
To save everyone else the homework:
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1412357/state-v-garcia/
Quote: Defendant's argument mistakenly assumes that an assault must be an attempt to injure. An assault is an attempt to commit a battery, which is an unlawful touching; a touching may be unlawful because it was neither legally consented to nor otherwise privileged, and was either harmful or offensive. See R. Perkins, Criminal Law *404 ch. 2, § 2.A.1, at 107-08 (2d ed. 1969); 6 Am.Jur.2d Assault and Battery § 5, 10 (1963).
https://govt.westlaw.com/wcrji/Document/Iefa7d8b5e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default
Quote: The term “assault” is not defined in the criminal code. Courts use common law to define the term. State v. Krup, 36 Wn.App. 454, 457, 676 P.2d 507 (1984); Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wn.2d 485, 504, 125 P.2d 681 (1942). Three definitions of assault have been recognized by Washington courts: (1) an attempt, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury upon another; (2) an unlawful touching with criminal intent; and (3) putting another in apprehension of harm whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict or is incapable of inflicting that harm. State v. Hupe, 50 Wn.App. 277, 282, 748 P.2d 263 (1988), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. Smith, 159 Wn.2d 778, 154 P.3d 873 (2007). Accord, State v. Madarash, 116 Wn.App. 500, 513, 66 P.3d 682 (2003). State v. Hupe, 50 Wn.App. 277, contains an extended review of cases defining the term “assault.”
[...]
Consent. In State v. Garcia, 20 Wn.App. 401, 579 P.2d 1034 (1978), the court defined an assault as “an attempt to commit a battery, which is an unlawful touching; a touching may be unlawful because it was neither legally consented to nor otherwise privileged, and was either harmful or offensive.” State v. Garcia, 20 Wn.App. at 403; also see State v. Humphries, 21 Wn.App. 405, 408, 586 P.2d 130 (1978). However, an individual cannot consent to an assault if the activity consented to is against public policy or is a breach of the peace. State v. Hiott, 97 Wn.App. 825, 828, 987 P.2d 135 (1999) (a juvenile could not consent to a game in which the victim and defendant were shooting each other with BB guns). Thus, the circumstances in which the jury is properly instructed regarding the defense of consent are rather limited, outside the context of a sexual assault.
So Wakko:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc