Maybe vandalism. There's no way to prove guilt of assault when there was clearly no possibility of harm occurring even though those around could have thought so.

Why are you set on giving serious harm to this guy? What this guy did was harmless, he knew it was harmless. He wasn't trying to cause harm, so why give him harm?

I've been trying to look at this case objectively, I'm sure I don't have all the facts but this looks like something that would go through based on the cases I've heard about before. Like I said before, whatever this guy meant to do or show isn't important in the eyes of the law. What matters is how the officers saw his actions and if the average person can see them, under the worst case scenario, having the potential to cause harm.

Why should they assume worst case scenario? The actions already happened. We know exactly what the result of his actions were. There's no worst case scenario, there's only the facts of what he actually did.

That's how assault law works. And just to correct myself, the 'worst case scenario' is determined by what the defense sees, not the jury.

The worst case is determined by the defense? What?

Situation:
Police officer is standing monitoring the protest. This man comes up and throws a red liquid at him. If the police officer interprets the action as having the potential to cause harm in any way, then assault has occurred.

Sorry l mis-wrote, I meant the person who was assaulted

Okay. I'm a paranoid schizophrenic. Everyone is committing assault against me.

Alright, so assault law is poorly written. Good to know.

Basically someone could blow on me in a way that startled me, I (at the time) think I'm under attack and build a case for assault. If that isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.

Assault should be determined by the outcome of the action.
Attempted assault there can be some leeway of interpretation but it shouldn't be the defendant interpretation.

And I'm a paranoid police chief talking to angry protestors. Someone throws a paper airplane at me, but it had a sharp point and could have hit me in the eye, blinding me forever. Even though it didn't, it could have, so I deserve to be compensated as such.

You don't get charged with murder if the person doesn't die, you get charged with attempted murder. They are different things.

How is this thread blowing up so much? This guy threw gunk on other people. He was arrested. This is the system working. Working beautifully. We can't have a world where this behavior is permitted. How would you like it if someone threw fake blood on you?

The jury exists to ensure that the person's standard is reasonable on a larger standard. If you're a paranoid schizophrenic (you probably won't make it past preliminarily hearings by the way) you are within your rights to bring an assault case for whatever, look at the beach ball example. You could bring a suit if you felt threatened by the beach ball being thrown at you, but you won't win because most jurors won't see that as a valid fear. We are arguing over whether or not having a mysterious red substance thrown at you can induce the fear of bodily harm. I believe that it can, and if this goes to trial the jury will find as such. You guys are obviously not in agreement.

Well, I should have refreshed. Assault is poorly named. Battery is what happens when something bad actually happens, Assault is essentially 'the threat of battery'

You're also all confusing civil and criminal implications here.

From the civil angle, it's a moot point. From the pictures, thus guy looks judgment proof.

From the criminal, he assaulted these people when he threw fake blood on them. He should be punished, just like anyone who did something like that. The punishment shouldn't be 225 years, but it won't be. It will be far less.

Dudes. Relax. This is a lot less complicated than you're making it out.

Just a bit of discussion, one I find interesting. Isn't that what the forum is for?

We overcomplicate everything, lol...

Is criminal not the one where "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies? Could it not be said that the commissioner and those who got a little stain on their shirts weren't actually afraid of being harmed?

Yes bo, thats the biggest difference between criminal and civil assault/battery. The standard on which guilt is judged. And that is a possibility, but that's for a jury to decide, people who have all the information and actually get to see the testimony from those involved. We can only give surface interpretations. Whatever decision the jury makes (assuming the case goes to trial) then I'm sure that it will be the most informed decision possible.

In theory, yes, but what we know is that no harm actually occurred nor was there any realistic possibility of harm occurring, and yet he is facing nine counts of assaulting an officer.

I think the realistic possibility of harm is what is up for debate. I can see a situation where it was some sort of acidic or poisoned substance. There was a case in a law book I read about someone who decided to play a prank on his friend. He took an air-soft gun, removed the orange tip, and staged a fake robbery. After scaring his friend, he took off the mask and started laughing. The friend didn't think it was funny. Looking back on it, there was clearly no possibility of harm occurring, yet it was still considered assault and the guy was found guilty of assault.

I just don't see why we need hypotheticals when the action already took place and the possibility of harm has already been eliminated.

"Is criminal not the one where "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies? Could it not be said that the commissioner and those who got a little stain on their shirts weren't actually afraid of being harmed?"

Assault in a criminal context often doesn't maintain the distinction between assault and battery that exists in a civil context. That will depend on how the state's statutes are written.

Beyond a reasonable doubt would apply if this went to trial. I wouldn't think your theory of the case would prevail, though. For one, it looks like they got this on video. So, although he has a constitutional right to take this to trial, I don't see how that would be better for him than taking a plea deal.

Also, depending on how the statute he's charged under is written, "fear of being harmed" may not even be an element of the crime. The definitions of assault you get on a Google search are general common law principles. They're not wrong, but they're an incomplete picture for any one case. For any crime, you really have to look at what the statute says.

Assaults are by nature hypothetical. They're all about what could have happened in the eyes of the plaintiff.

Invictus is correct. A plea deal would be best for the defense, but exactly how are the distinctions different? I'm aware that the criminal differences are 1. the burden of proof is judged on a higher standard and 2. the prosecution must provide specific statutes that prohibit the actions of the defendant. But beyond that what (if any) are the major differences?

Maybe we could start listening to victim testimony in cases of rape, police brutality, and murder like we do in assault...

How are civil and criminal cases different? How much time have you got? Civil cases are generally about money, criminal cases are generally about freedom. The government is always a party in a criminal case, not always in a civil one. Rules of procedure are quite different for each type. Many constitutional protections do not apply in civil suits. It goes on and on.

I don't need the generals, I'm asking specifically about the procedural differences between civil and criminal assault.

I've already said, it will depend on state law. Both definitions could vary. The word "assault" may not even be used in some states' criminal statutes.

He assaulted nine cops, and was charged with nine counts of assault on a police officer. I don't understand how this is confusing to anyone.