my own words used against me?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

you will have to wait until that issue is resolved.

My response:

No, no, no!

The whole purpose of this thread IS to give our writer "resolve". That "resolve" is based upon her statement giving the "offending party" permission to strike her.

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Well, Stephen?

I'm waiting for your learned response.


IAAL

 

[rmet4nzkx]

My response:

No, no, no!

The whole purpose of this thread IS to give our writer "resolve". That "resolve" is based upon her statement giving the "offending party" permission to strike her.

IAAL

NO, NO NO!!!! (picture RMET stamping her feet and turning red) this case is in TEXAS not CALIFORNIA!

IAAL YOu said:

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenk
Hahaha. Great Halloween joke.


My response:

I'm right, and you're wrong. It's just that simple.

Tell me, Stephen, at what point is it considered enough, or not enough, permission to be hit?

Consider boxers, as an example. Is it required to sign an agreement to engage in a boxing match, or is it simply enough to say to each other, "go ahead" - - understanding that the permission is being given to be punched.

Where is the line drawn?

Well, the line is drawn when permission is given, and that's exactly what our writer gave - - knowing that she could be punched.

"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." (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938 [198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)

CA PC 242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
upon the person of another.
However CA law doesn't apply to a TX case.

ASSAULT: A physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. (TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 22.01) An assault is "aggravated" if it causes serious bodily injury,, or, the actor uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. (TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 22.02)

BATTERY: A battery is the use of force to cause bodily injury, or, contact with someone in an offensive manner.

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree
if the offense is committed against: < >
(2) a member of the defendant's family or household, if
it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been
previously convicted of an offense against a member of the
defendant's family or household under this section; or
Text of subsec. (b)(3) as added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 294, § 1


§ 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person commits assault as defined in § 22.01 and
the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including
the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the
commission of the assault.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if
the offense is committed:

(3) in retaliation against or on account of the
service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or
person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or

 

[Kane]

My response:

It doesn't matter. Her testimony in either type of action will still be the same, and that is, she gave her permission to be hit.

IAAL

Sorry, IAAL, you're wrong. No court is going to say she gave permission to the other girl to hit her.

If you had experience in criminal courts, you'd know this.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

And If YOU had experience at all, you'd know that the poster assumes the liability in the use of "Fighting word" and their eventual consequences. She can't at once say "Go ahead and hit me" then cry foul when the event occurs without also assuming some responsibility.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

NO, NO NO!!!! (picture RMET stamping her feet and turning red) this case is in TEXAS not CALIFORNIA!

IAAL YOu said:
CA PC 242. A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
upon the person of another.
However CA law doesn't apply to a TX case.

ASSAULT: A physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. (TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 22.01) An assault is "aggravated" if it causes serious bodily injury,, or, the actor uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. (TEXAS PENAL CODE SECTION 22.02)

BATTERY: A battery is the use of force to cause bodily injury, or, contact with someone in an offensive manner.

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree
if the offense is committed against: < >
(2) a member of the defendant's family or household, if
it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has been
previously convicted of an offense against a member of the
defendant's family or household under this section; or
Text of subsec. (b)(3) as added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 294, § 1


§ 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an
offense if the person commits assault as defined in § 22.01 and
the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including
the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the
commission of the assault.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if
the offense is committed:

(3) in retaliation against or on account of the
service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or
person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or

My response:

Rmet, how much would you like to bet that one of the reasons why our writer came to this site was because the ADA in the criminal action asked her this very question, and is letting our writer know that the case is now in danger of being lost due to her statement? Hmmm? How much would you care to bet me?

Yes, you're right, it is Texas law that applies. But, California and Texas are not far off from each other. The dividing line is whether the act was "intentional" or "permitted." The perpetrator could NOT know what was in our writer's mind when the statement was made; i.e., that permission was given; thus, that's the problem the ADA is having with the case.

Once our writer testifies to her statement, the case is all over. Defendant "Not Guilty."

IAAL

 

[rmet4nzkx]

My response:

Rmet, how much would you like to bet that one of the reasons why our writer came to this site was because the ADA in the criminal action asked her this very question, and is letting our writer know that the case is now in danger of being lost due to her statement? Hmmm? How much would you care to bet me?

Yes, you're right, it is Texas law that applies. But, California and Texas are not far off from each other. The dividing line is whether the act was "intentional" or "permitted." The perpetrator could NOT know what was in our writer's mind when the statement was made; i.e., that permission was given; thus, that's the problem the ADA is having with the case.

Once our writer testifies to her statement, the case is all over. Defendant "Not Guilty."

IAAL

No doubt her statements may have and or will come up as an issue, that's why I said

Since the charges are pending and we only have the facts as you have presented them, you will have to wait until that issue is resolved. Then you will know whether or not or to what extent, your dare, factors into the outcome. That outcome, would in turn determin any further options available to you.

Because we are only getting their side of this, from their perspective and I did use the term, "dare" which could also be equally seen as a threat or permission by the other party. I also thought that OP might be thinking that if the "pending" criminal charges were dropped and/ or disproven that she might be contemplating some civil action which would then be limited by collateral estoppel under Texas law, correct? Looks like she "sucker punched" herself

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

No doubt her statements may have and or will come up as an issue, that's why I said Because we are only getting their side of this, from their perspective and I did use the term, "dare" which could also be equally seen as a threat or permission by the other party. I also thought that OP might be thinking that if the "pending" criminal charges were dropped and/ or disproven that she might be contemplating some civil action which would then be limited by collateral estoppel under Texas law, correct? Looks like she "sucker punched" herself

My response:

I don't think our writer would be collaterally estopped from bringing a Civil action no matter how the criminal action turns out. Remember, the threshold of proof is different in a Civil action. But, the statement she made would still work against her in a Civil action; so, yes, I agree with you that she "sucker punched" herself.

IAAL

 

[rmet4nzkx]

My response:

I don't think our writer would be collaterally estopped from bringing a Civil action no matter how the criminal action turns out. Remember, the threshold of proof is different in a Civil action. But, the statement she made would still work against her in a Civil action; so, yes, I agree with you that she "sucker punched" herself.

IAAL

I found some case law with that finding, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=/sc/1947648&invol=2

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I found some case law with that finding, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=tx&vol=/sc/1947648&invol=2

My response:

Sorry, it's not on point or even controlling law. Our situation has to do with two private parties. Your case law has to do with a public entity and a public entity employee, and the various immunities that public entities enjoy under the law.

Sorry. You were close, yet so far.

IAAL

 

[Kane]

Saying, "C'mon," "I dare you," "do it," or any combination of those or similar phrases is not consent for someone to assault you.

If it was, what exactly is she consenting to? Getting punched, kicked, stabbed, throttled, what?

This girl was just trying to show she wasn't afraid of someone who was threatening her. She wasn't consenting to getting punched, or to any kind of assault.

You two don't know what you're talking about. I doubt that either of you is a lawyer, and I'm sure neither of you have actual experience in criminal courts.

Find one single case that says Texas law is what you say it is, and I'll apologize.

Otherwise, why not just admit you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Saying, "C'mon," "I dare you," "do it," or any combination of those or similar phrases is not consent for someone to assault you.

If it was, what exactly is she consenting to? Getting punched, kicked, stabbed, throttled, what?

This girl was just trying to show she wasn't afraid of someone who was threatening her. She wasn't consenting to getting punched, or to any kind of assault.

You two don't know what you're talking about. I doubt that either of you is a lawyer, and I'm sure neither of you have actual experience in criminal courts.

Find one single case that says Texas law is what you say it is, and I'll apologize.

Otherwise, why not just admit you don't know what you're talking about?

My response:

Kane, not surprisingly, no one is reading or listening to whatever you have to say. Don't play with the attorneys. You don't have the education.

IAAL

 

[You Are Guilty]

Consent as Defense to Assaultive Conduct
The victim's effective consent or the actor's reasonable belief that the victim consented to the actor's conduct is a defense to prosecution under Section 22.01 (Assault), 22.02 (Aggravated Assault), or 22.05 (Deadly Conduct) if:

(1) the conduct did not threaten or inflict serious bodily injury; or

(2) the victim knew the conduct was a risk of:

(A) his occupation;

(B) recognized medical treatment; or

(C) a scientific experiment conducted by recognized methods.

10 characters? Bah, I have a whole quote full of em!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

My response:

Sorry, it's not on point or even controlling law. Our situation has to do with two private parties. Your case law has to do with a public entity and a public entity employee, and the various immunities that public entities enjoy under the law.

Sorry. You were close, yet so far.

IAAL

That's not my fault, that is Texas mentality where one thinks they may provoke someone and then claim innocense. That case was pretty bizarre lol, the trooper threatening and then shooting at a car with young children in it because the mom driving the car fleed, yet she couldn't sue because she was guilty of a crime.

 

[Kane]

My response:

Kane, not surprisingly, no one is reading or listening to whatever you have to say. Don't play with the attorneys. You don't have the education.

IAAL

That's what I thought.

The sad thing is, you and your friends are doing a disservice not only to real attorneys, but to this site as well.