Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:50 pm Posts: 10229 Location: WA (aka Waaaaaaaahhhh!!) Gender: Male
In sports when a player blatantly assaults another player, why don't they ever take it to trial?
Like when that lineman from the Titans stomped on the other lineman's head from the Cowboys.
Or when Aaron Brooks (Oregon) elbowed Ryan Appleby (Washington) in the face last season.
Or when this Duke guy shoves a violent forearm into Tyler Hansbrough's grill.
You do that on the street, you go to jail. You do it on the field, you have to sit out a game or two. Doesn't make sense to me. That's assault, brotha'.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:10 am Posts: 17256 Location: Chichen to the Thing
Bammer wrote:
In sports when a player blatantly assaults another player, why don't they ever take it to trial?
Like when that lineman from the Titans stomped on the other lineman's head from the Cowboys.
Or when Aaron Brooks (Oregon) elbowed Ryan Appleby (Washington) in the face last season.
Or when this Duke guy shoves a violent forearm into Tyler Hansbrough's grill.
You do that on the street, you go to jail. You do it on the field, you have to sit out a game or two. Doesn't make sense to me. That's assault, brotha'.
Athletes are above the law.
_________________ I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Bammer wrote:
In sports when a player blatantly assaults another player, why don't they ever take it to trial?
Like when that lineman from the Titans stomped on the other lineman's head from the Cowboys.
Or when Aaron Brooks (Oregon) elbowed Ryan Appleby (Washington) in the face last season.
Or when this Duke guy shoves a violent forearm into Tyler Hansbrough's grill.
You do that on the street, you go to jail. You do it on the field, you have to sit out a game or two. Doesn't make sense to me. That's assault, brotha'.
Implied consent.
When an athlete consents to participate in a sporting event, especially a contact sport, there is implied consent that there will not only be legal contact, but also a certain degree of contact outside of the rules (fouls). In general, it's understood that when one participates in a sporting match, that fouls will be handled by the officials on the field, and if necessary in the commissioner's office.
On rare occassions, there is an instance of assault that is so blatant and outside the bounds of the game that it rises to the level of criminality, and the law is brought in (or they assert themselves in). Donald Brashear comes to mind.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
Bammer wrote:
In sports when a player blatantly assaults another player, why don't they ever take it to trial?
Like when that lineman from the Titans stomped on the other lineman's head from the Cowboys.
Or when Aaron Brooks (Oregon) elbowed Ryan Appleby (Washington) in the face last season.
Or when this Duke guy shoves a violent forearm into Tyler Hansbrough's grill.
You do that on the street, you go to jail. You do it on the field, you have to sit out a game or two. Doesn't make sense to me. That's assault, brotha'.
Implied consent.
When an athlete consents to participate in a sporting event, especially a contact sport, there is implied consent that there will not only be legal contact, but also a certain degree of contact outside of the rules (fouls). In general, it's understood that when one participates in a sporting match, that fouls will be handled by the officials on the field, and if necessary in the commissioner's office.
On rare occassions, there is an instance of assault that is so blatant and outside the bounds of the game that it rises to the level of criminality, and the law is brought in (or they assert themselves in). Donald Brashear comes to mind.
Todd Bertuzzi is a more recent example, as well.
Is there anything in the contracts that would also require such incidents to be processed via the league office as opposed to pressing charges?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Bammer wrote:
In sports when a player blatantly assaults another player, why don't they ever take it to trial?
Like when that lineman from the Titans stomped on the other lineman's head from the Cowboys.
Or when Aaron Brooks (Oregon) elbowed Ryan Appleby (Washington) in the face last season.
Or when this Duke guy shoves a violent forearm into Tyler Hansbrough's grill.
You do that on the street, you go to jail. You do it on the field, you have to sit out a game or two. Doesn't make sense to me. That's assault, brotha'.
Implied consent.
When an athlete consents to participate in a sporting event, especially a contact sport, there is implied consent that there will not only be legal contact, but also a certain degree of contact outside of the rules (fouls). In general, it's understood that when one participates in a sporting match, that fouls will be handled by the officials on the field, and if necessary in the commissioner's office.
On rare occassions, there is an instance of assault that is so blatant and outside the bounds of the game that it rises to the level of criminality, and the law is brought in (or they assert themselves in). Donald Brashear comes to mind.
Todd Bertuzzi is a more recent example, as well.
Is there anything in the contracts that would also require such incidents to be processed via the league office as opposed to pressing charges?
I don't think such a thing can be contracted for, at least not in the US. I believe that contracts that waive the right to sue for intentional torts are against public policy in general (a standard sports contract will stop short of an absolute waiver), and nothing can stop the police or a DA from taking action if they feel it is necessary to protect the safety of the citizenry.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
This thread is actually about battery, right? If you're gonna bitch about assault during a sporting match you're a freaking sissy of epic proportions.
The battery/assault distinction is only in the law of torts. Simple common law assault is not a crime anywhere I'm aware of. The crime of "assault and battery", or simply "assault" has the elements of common law battery, if it were an action in tort.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
I thought assaults, generally speaking, involved simply the threat of violence, with the battery being the actual physical contact? Are you saying that is the case in civil torts, but the distinction disappears in criminal courts? If so, what's the difference between assault and battery?
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:02 pm Posts: 545 Location: just past the bar...
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
I thought assaults, generally speaking, involved simply the threat of violence, with the battery being the actual physical contact? Are you saying that is the case in civil torts, but the distinction disappears in criminal courts? If so, what's the difference between assault and battery?
(punkdavid, please correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially a semantic difference. while a civil suit for simple assault can still be brought, "assault" is the same as "battery" in the criminal context.
In civil assault claims, apprehension of physical harm or invasion is the damage, and a plaintiff must prove an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another in a rude or angry manner that creates a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present (immediate or imminent) ability to carry out the threatened injury.
In civil cases, battery occurs when a defendant acts with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with another person or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and a harmful contact with the other person results. Formerly, there was a requirement that the touch result from anger in order for a showing of battery, but that is no longer required. Any touching in rudeness or anger, however, will constitute battery and mistaken identity in such circumstances is no defense.
In the criminal context, assault is essentially whatever the legislature defines it as.
_________________ never trust a man in a blue trench coat
never drive a car when you're dead
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:14 pm Posts: 15317 Location: Concord, NC Gender: Male
oh, he gave the guy a bloody nose...big fucking deal. he didnt even break it. what would he sue him for? the money it took to get enough kleenex's to wipe the blood off oh him? (yes, yes i know, you're talking about a real trial and not a civil one, but still)
_________________ 255 characters are nowhere near enough
(punkdavid, please correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially a semantic difference. while a civil suit for simple assault can still be brought, "assault" is the same as "battery" in the criminal context.
In civil assault claims, apprehension of physical harm or invasion is the damage, and a plaintiff must prove an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another in a rude or angry manner that creates a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present (immediate or imminent) ability to carry out the threatened injury.
In civil cases, battery occurs when a defendant acts with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with another person or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and a harmful contact with the other person results. Formerly, there was a requirement that the touch result from anger in order for a showing of battery, but that is no longer required. Any touching in rudeness or anger, however, will constitute battery and mistaken identity in such circumstances is no defense.
In the criminal context, assault is essentially whatever the legislature defines it as.
ahh, thanks. So there's probably quite a lot of variation from state to state on the definition of assault?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
what about the assault we all receive when we click on one of bammers post?
You consent to that in much the same way we consent to a little pain each time you post a photo.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
B wrote:
Peeps wrote:
what about the assault we all receive when we click on one of bammers post?
You consent to that in much the same way we consent to a little pain each time you post a photo.
you love me and you know it, but alas, i dont bookmark the photos, the little closeted gay boys at rm do
Bammer?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
B wrote:
Peeps wrote:
B wrote:
Peeps wrote:
what about the assault we all receive when we click on one of bammers post?
You consent to that in much the same way we consent to a little pain each time you post a photo.
you love me and you know it, but alas, i dont bookmark the photos, the little closeted gay boys at rm do
B?
Your photobucket is my first bookmark.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
aleywwu wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
I thought assaults, generally speaking, involved simply the threat of violence, with the battery being the actual physical contact? Are you saying that is the case in civil torts, but the distinction disappears in criminal courts? If so, what's the difference between assault and battery?
(punkdavid, please correct me if I'm wrong) it's essentially a semantic difference. while a civil suit for simple assault can still be brought, "assault" is the same as "battery" in the criminal context.
In civil assault claims, apprehension of physical harm or invasion is the damage, and a plaintiff must prove an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another in a rude or angry manner that creates a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present (immediate or imminent) ability to carry out the threatened injury.
In civil cases, battery occurs when a defendant acts with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact with another person or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and a harmful contact with the other person results. Formerly, there was a requirement that the touch result from anger in order for a showing of battery, but that is no longer required. Any touching in rudeness or anger, however, will constitute battery and mistaken identity in such circumstances is no defense.
In the criminal context, assault is essentially whatever the legislature defines it as.
I think that pretty much summed it up.
Take your bar exam yet?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Your photobucket is my first bookmark. 