Warren Dew wrote:Except, as was hashed out in a previous thread, simple "assault" in the UK corresponded to "aggravated assault" in the US.

I've just noticed I'm making the same point as OlivierK and zulumoose, but I'll post it anyway.

As far as I can tell from reading the legal definitions, that is not correct. Roughly, the UK offence of common assault includes both the US offence of assault, and also the US offence of aggravated assault. If someone slaps someone else without causing serious injury, then this is assault in both the US and the UK, but in the UK it would appear on the statistics for violent crime, while in the US it would not appear on the statistics for violent crime because it would not be aggravated assault.

On the UK government website, the Crown Prosecution Service outlines the three separate offences against the person here: common assault, actual bodily harm, and grievous bodily harm.

cps.gov.uk wrote:In simple terms, Parliament has determined that there should be separate offences reflecting three levels of injury - Common Assault, ABH and GBH.

As a starting point, where there is no injury or injuries which are not serious, the offence charged should generally be Common Assault. Where there is serious injury and the likely sentence is clearly more than six months' imprisonment the offence charged should generally be ABH. And where there is really serious injury the offence charged should generally be GBH.

Very occasionally, it will be necessary to depart from this basic approach in cases where the injuries are at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. In such cases the level of injury will not be the only factor to be considered, as this may not alone accurately reflect the nature and seriousness of the offence as a whole. The presence of aggravating factors will be highly relevant to the likely sentence - by way of example, an injury may not of itself turn out to be serious but the manner in which it was caused (such as through strangulation) may indicate that a sentence of more than six months is likely. However, the aggravating factors should never in themselves be the basis for deciding the appropriate charge.

Using the Cornell website here, the US law for assault (not aggravated assault) varies in different states:

Assault
Definition

The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but generally falls into one of these categories:

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.

3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.

Using the Cornell website again here for the US definition of aggravated assault:

Aggravated Assault
Definition

A criminal assault — a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with one's person — involving an additional, aggravating factor, such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.

Amusing to non-Americans I guess.

I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault. Presumably the figures for assault are going to go up an awful lot.

It's been considered in other countries to, somehow I doubt you will get that in the US

mrjonno wrote:I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault. Presumably the figures for assault are going to go up an awful lot.

It's been considered in other countries to, somehow I doubt you will get that in the US

France is currently thinking about a law too. Right now, there is no law that can be applied in the context of street harassment. A law, with a fine, has been put in place in Brussels, and only 5 fines have been delivered in 2 years. Such a law is mostly un-applicable, because of the lack of evidence.

mrjonno wrote:I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault.

Correction, some cities are planning to do this.
There's no law being presentend or considered in parliament.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault.

Correction, some cities are planning to do this.
There's no law being presentend or considered in parliament.

For the purposes of counting crimes I'm not sure that makes much difference, point is appart from crimes that leave bodies consistently comparing crimes between countries is extremely difficult. It's a reasonable assumption that other assaults are going to be proportional to murder unless Americans just believe in doing the job properly

... or have a massively different level of access to ranged deadly weapons.

Oh wait.

mrjonno wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault.

Correction, some cities are planning to do this.
There's no law being presentend or considered in parliament.

For the purposes of counting crimes I'm not sure that makes much difference,

You don't think counting crimes that are only crimes in a small part of the country with nation wide crimes makes much of a difference?

OlivierK wrote:... or have a massively different level of access to ranged deadly weapons.

Oh wait.

Should really check on how many people are injured by fire arms rather than just die, pretty much if you shoot anyone in the UK deliberately if the person survives its attempted murder.

I wonder if that is the same in the US?

I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

If pointing a gun at someone is assault then 99% of the time the police do it in the US would be a crime in the UK (we should count those in the statistics).

I was thinking if you shoot someone is it automatic attempted murder in South Africa/UK/US. I don't think stabbing someone in the leg is an automatic attempted murder but shooting them would be

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I believe the Netherlands is about to criminalise wolf whistles and rude gestures as sexual assault.

Correction, some cities are planning to do this.
There's no law being presentend or considered in parliament.

For the purposes of counting crimes I'm not sure that makes much difference,

You don't think counting crimes that are only crimes in a small part of the country with nation wide crimes makes much of a difference?

I think you are missing the point, what is a crime and how it is recorded varies massively between countries while murder doesn't

That is true of almost how everything is reported all over the world. There is no uniform way. In my work I was involved trying to compare car accidents from different countries. It was a nightmare trying extract anything meaningful for comparison. I think the same is true of the criminal world.

zulumoose wrote:I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

It is. If you threaten someone with a firearm it is a felony. If you had a firearm to any other crime such as robbery, burglary, rape, etc you heighten the charge against you in many jurisdictions. It is aggravated assault at that point.

And discharging a weapon within certain distances of residential areas is illegal. I cannot just go in my back yard and fire my gun without due cause (I.e. self defense is really the only legitimate reason). One of my neighbors discharged his firearm because a copperhead bit his 6 year old daughter so he killed it while his wife took her to the ER, but he did get a citation from the police for it.

We had a guy shoot a deer in my neighborhood and we couldn’t figure out who did it. The entire community was outraged at the fact someone would discharge their firearm in our small area. It’s common sense not to do that as the risk of hitting someone not intended is too high. But in my 10+ years living in that neighborhood that’s all I remember.

Just found what's probably the best short comment on the subject to date ...

willhud9 wrote:

zulumoose wrote:I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

It is. If you threaten someone with a firearm it is a felony. If you had a firearm to any other crime such as robbery, burglary, rape, etc you heighten the charge against you in many jurisdictions. It is aggravated assault at that point.

And discharging a weapon within certain distances of residential areas is illegal. I cannot just go in my back yard and fire my gun without due cause (I.e. self defense is really the only legitimate reason). One of my neighbors discharged his firearm because a copperhead bit his 6 year old daughter so he killed it while his wife took her to the ER, but he did get a citation from the police for it.

We had a guy shoot a deer in my neighborhood and we couldn’t figure out who did it. The entire community was outraged at the fact someone would discharge their firearm in our small area. It’s common sense not to do that as the risk of hitting someone not intended is too high. But in my 10+ years living in that neighborhood that’s all I remember.

Unfortunately, the stats say otherwise. That’s the point.

The reality most countries if someone found a way to convert a mobile phone to a deadly taser as society we would look at ways of either restricting mobile phones or getting manufacturers to do so.

The concept of 'its my right and i will do what i want to" does not belong in a civilised country. If a 'right' causes significant harm to a society you at least consider changing that right

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

zulumoose wrote:I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

It is. If you threaten someone with a firearm it is a felony. If you had a firearm to any other crime such as robbery, burglary, rape, etc you heighten the charge against you in many jurisdictions. It is aggravated assault at that point.

And discharging a weapon within certain distances of residential areas is illegal. I cannot just go in my back yard and fire my gun without due cause (I.e. self defense is really the only legitimate reason). One of my neighbors discharged his firearm because a copperhead bit his 6 year old daughter so he killed it while his wife took her to the ER, but he did get a citation from the police for it.

We had a guy shoot a deer in my neighborhood and we couldn’t figure out who did it. The entire community was outraged at the fact someone would discharge their firearm in our small area. It’s common sense not to do that as the risk of hitting someone not intended is too high. But in my 10+ years living in that neighborhood that’s all I remember.

Unfortunately, the stats say otherwise. That’s the point.

Unfortunately, many people also don't know basic laws and what is and is not illegal.

Many parents for example do not know what is and is not child endangerment and what they can and cannot do that may result in their child being taken away by authorities for the child's safety. Furthermore, the majority of accidents involving small children are with basic household objects such as razors, electric outlets, and cleaning supplies. Unfortunately a lot of laws are lenient when it comes to incidents like this. "Oh your kid almost electrocuted himself with that fork and outlet, well consider yourselves lucky, here is a hand slap." it really should be, "Oh your kid almost died because you fell asleep and weren't watching him?" Well that is a fine of $5,000 for child endangerment and if it happens again you face losing custody of the kid.

The same is true for gun laws. If someone discharges a weapon illegally in the area the punishment SHOULD be higher. Higher punishments DO deter crime. Richmond city saw this. Possessing a gun illegally carried with it a minimum 5 year jail sentence. And it worked. A city where homicide was WAY above the national average saw its homicides drop. Now there are of course multiple factors, but the change in law and punishment went a long ways to reduce the homicide rate.

The same can be said for all sorts of gun crime. If an accident happens in a home with a gun it should come with a fine. You were accidentally shot by your kid due to your negligence in leaving the gun in a place your child could get it and play with it? Well have a steep fine for negligence and endangerment as well as lose access to the gun until you complete a gun safety course showing that you understand how to properly store and secure a firearm, especially around children. Furthermore, all proceeds from the gun safety course and fines for negligence/endangerment all go towards victims of gun violence and research into preventing gun violence.

I am very much pro-gun. As I have said I have hunted with guns and enjoy recreational shooting. I am not afraid of guns nor am I afraid of people with guns. My life is not dictated with a fear of being shot or encountering some violent whacko. So I will not agree to regulations banning a certain kind of gun over another kind of gun, etc. and realistically such regulations would never ever get passed in the US.

So on a more realistic scale the discussion needs to be on what kind of gun control can we implement that is a) not going to cause the conservatives and the gun lobby to think the government is going to seize their guns and b) what is going to deter people the most from using said guns irresponsible/negligibly?

Mass shootings are anomalies in the gun violence scene. I am defining mass shootings as events like Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Las Vegas, not the shootings simply involving 3 or more people. The majority of shootings in the country involve crimes of passion in which someone is angry and irrational and seeks to end something quickly. Whether it be a stupid argument and alcohol is involved and a guy draws his gun and starts getting carried away and in anger shoots the person/people. Or a disgruntled husband (men are more likely to commit murder) finding out his wife is cheating on him and so in anger takes things into his own revenge scheme. Oftentimes those who are involved with gun shootings/deaths regret their impulsive decision.

The focus I want is laws that will reduce the amount of people who have guns who are more likely to impulsively shoot someone. If someone is married both partners should need to sign paperwork about the possession of the gun, and both partners should take mandatory courses on gun laws, gun rights, gun safety, gun storage, etc. just as an example. I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence. Any gun control is seen as a step to do what the UK has and get rid of the guns and they do not accept that. Therefore we get nothing accomplished. You can go, "Well the GOP are obstructing progress" but again a good portion of the GOP's constituents own guns and the NRA is a powerhouse lobbying group. Ditch the talks of banning guns and open the talks the GOP would support, "Being tougher on crime" "gun education and safety" "state funded shooting ranges and gun lockers" etc.

Just food for thought.