Report a Comment

Actually, I do remember learning in Law101 that in 'assault and battery' it's the battery part that is the physical contact. The battery part, despite common usage, doesn't involve the actual physical part:

'At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+(crime)

So, technically, I guess they're correct in claiming battery ... provided they can prove there was 'an apprehension'. Problem here is that, like the Gays in the Military issue where it was claimed that disruption would be caused by integrating gays into the military, how can you control how another person feels? And why should you have to? If seeing someone in a wheelchair drunk makes you apprehensive, I'd say the problem lies with you and not with that person. In any case, if this thing ever manifests itself as a criminal case, it's going to be interesting watching these cops try to explain how they were apprehensive of a drunk guy in a wheelchair. Of course, we all know it'll never come to that. The District will be sued for $10 Million ... settle for $1.5 Million and everyone will go home happy ... except for the taxpayer who'll be left holding the short end of this.

by Lance on May 26, 2011 8:57 pm • link • report