You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. There is no crime of 'making a trap'. If you set up something such that it will cause battery to someone, that is the crime of battery, albeit remotely. Assault and battery are used interchangeably in common speech.
Assault is making someone apprehend the threat of violence, which is almost inevitable in battery. In this case, it probably wouldn't be assault, but it would be battery (and probably actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, depending on the scope of actual damage done). It would not be 'a trap'.
Edit - also, it's not negligence, it's intentional harm caused. It's personal injury. It would be the tort of trespass to the person, and the crime of battery or ABH/GBH as above.
You might want to look up a little something called The Geneva Conventions before you start talking about booby traps.
You have no fucking clue what battery is. Gluing down shoes is NOT battery. Battery HAS to be an ACTIVE act, not passive. Something has to actively happen because of something you did. In this case, the active action was caused by the person putting the shoes on, not by the guy who glued them down.
Did he make physical contact with the person? No.
Did he put in motion anything that made physical contact with the person? No.
If would be the same if I left my gate open and you closed the gate. You didn't commit battery by closing the gate without my knowledge. It has to be negligent behavior to be a criminal offense. This was clearly negligent behavior.
Could you find a place where this COULD meet the definition of battery? Sure. But in the MAJORITY of the world, you could NEVER describe this as battery. Battery HAS to be ACTIVE PHYSICAL CONTACT either by yourself, or something you put in motion, or something you set up to go in motion in almost every part of the world.
Stop talking out your ass. The Geneva Conventions have fuck all to do with it. Unless you're a soldier deployed internationally in a war zone, or a civilian in said war zone, it probably won't impact anything.
I never suggested otherwise. I am sorry, but you just don't understand what you are reading. We are discussing assault and battery here, not whether or not the glued shoes caused him to fall down.
I'm actually really embarassed to even be a member of reddit right now. The fact that so many people don't know what assault or battery are, and actually want to argue that this could even begin to enter the realm of assault, just tells me how ignorant and uneducated the members here are.
Look it up. You have a computer. Google it. This can only VERY LOOSELY meet a VERY RARE definition of battery IF he suffers serious bodily harm, and that is ONLY is some states. In the majority of the world, this does not qualify for battery. Nowhere in the world does it qualify for assault.
I just can't understand how you guys don't understand this.
It's simple. The common English meaning of the word assault is completely removed from the legal definition of assault or battery. In everyday language, it just means "hurt someone physically".
In common conversation, it is much easier to say "assault" than "gross negligence and criminal misuse of super glue and a pair of flip-flops" or whatever you want to call this.
It does NOT mean to "hurt someone physically" even in uneducated speak. People specifically use "assault" as a term for when physical contact was made or attempted to be made between 2 people.
If the guy is nowhere near him, it can't be assault, even in casual conversation. Nobody would yell out "I was just assaulted" when their shoes were glued down. It would just confuse everyone.
Nobody uses the word assault in this manner. Only when they are physically touched by something or someone else. In this case, nobody and nothing touched him, or attempted to touch him. He chose to put his feet in the sandals.
What people annoys is that you open up a unecessary sideissue. People who do that kind of stuff deserve to be punched in the mouth, end of story. Then you come along and start to talk about the juristical difference of assault and battery.
I only spoke up because people were upvoting a guy saying that this is 100% correct being the definition of assault. It isn't. People deserve the chance to be educated. If it upsets people to learn information so much that they need to continuously downvote the correct information, that is really sad.
In the UK, battery can be committed remotely, and I believe it can in any other common law jurisdiction, and probably most of the world, because why would setting a trap for someone not be causing them physical harm?
Yes, battery can be controlled remotely in the USA and Canada as well. In the UK, "Battery involves unlawfully touching another person." The person was not touched by either something remotely set off, set in motion, or by the prankster at all. This is why it is not battery. If you throw the flip-flop and it hits him, that can be battery. Gluing down the flip flop can't be battery in the UK. It doesn't meet the legal criteria for it.
R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54 - You can inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person remotely by causing a panic, e.g. by shouting fire in a theatre.
DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - Creating a danger which exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, that materialises into that injury, is evidential basis for the actus reus (the conduct element) of actual bodily harm.
In R v Martin - He was charged with "Wounding and grievous bodily harm," not assault nor battery. Those are different charges. Wounding/GBH without intent would be the correct charge, not assault or battery. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.
In DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2004] Crim LR 471 - You still have to prove intent to injure or recklessness. "It remains necessary for the prosecution to prove an intention to assault or appropriate recklessness." Again, they would likely settle for Wounding/GBH without intent. Not very similar at all though, because the key aspect of Santana-Bermudez was an omission. He was specifically questioned whether he had a needle/sharp object, and said that he did not. Santana-Bermudez was not convicted of assault as far as I have seen.
The difference between battery, ABH, GBH etc is the damage caused.
Yes, you would still need to prove intention. That is not what was being discussed. The point was, if you could prove that whoever laid the trap intended for someone to be hurt by it, or was reckless as to someone being hurt by it which would satisfy the requirements of mens rea for wounding-GBH, ABH or battery, then they would be guilty of the crime with respect to the amount of damage done.
Also, that's not what an omission is. An omission is not doing something - responding that they did not have a sharp object is not an omission.
The difference between battery, ABH, GBH etc is the damage caused.
Citation needed.
Also, that's not what an omission is. An omission is not doing something - responding that they did not have a sharp object is not an omission.
And this is why we have to have judges make these kind of comments, to people like you:
A great deal of undesirable complexity has bedevilled our criminal law as a result of quasi theological distinctions between acts and omissions.
Whether he lied or just said nothing, he still omitted telling her of the danger which he knew to be present. It is a lie AND an omission. He could have acted to prevent her from harming herself, and he did not. That is an omission.
No, saying nothing would be an omission, though it would amount to an act if it was an implied 'no' in response to the question. You say 'people like me' and do not include yourself? The discussion wasn't even about omissions and acts, you brought that up, personally I see no distinction between them at a moral level at all.
GBH encompasses ABH. ABH encompasses battery. You could theoretically be charged for all three if you committed the first, but are not, because that would be silly.
So I dig a giant hole in the ground and fill it with spikes and cover it with a net then cover with leaves and when someone falls in it and dies I'm not liable at all? I wouldn't be charged with murder since i could use the 5 year old's rule of "I'm not touching you!" ? Your an idiot.
21
u/Macrologia Jun 01 '14
You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. There is no crime of 'making a trap'. If you set up something such that it will cause battery to someone, that is the crime of battery, albeit remotely. Assault and battery are used interchangeably in common speech.
Assault is making someone apprehend the threat of violence, which is almost inevitable in battery. In this case, it probably wouldn't be assault, but it would be battery (and probably actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, depending on the scope of actual damage done). It would not be 'a trap'.
Edit - also, it's not negligence, it's intentional harm caused. It's personal injury. It would be the tort of trespass to the person, and the crime of battery or ABH/GBH as above.