What you call 'common sense' is utterly subjective. The law at least makes a stab at objectivity.

Assault, first degree, penalty.
565.050. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if he attempts to kill or knowingly causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to another person.

2. Assault in the first degree is a class B felony unless in the course thereof the actor inflicts serious physical injury on the victim in which case it is a class A felony.

Assault, second degree, penalty.
565.060. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the second degree if he:

(1) Attempts to kill or knowingly causes or attempts to cause serious physical injury to another person under the influence of sudden passion arising out of adequate cause; or

(2) Attempts to cause or knowingly causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; or

(3) Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person; or

(4) While in an intoxicated condition or under the influence of controlled substances or drugs, operates a motor vehicle in this state and, when so operating, acts with criminal negligence to cause physical injury to any other person than himself; or

(5) Recklessly causes physical injury to another person by means of discharge of a firearm; or

(6) Operates a motor vehicle in violation of subsection 2 of section 304.022, and when so operating, acts with criminal negligence to cause physical injury to any person authorized to operate an emergency vehicle, as defined in section 304.022, while such person is in the performance of official duties.

2. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause under subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section.

3. Assault in the second degree is a class C felony.

Assault in the third degree.
565.070. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

(1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

(2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

(4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

(5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or

(6) The person knowingly causes physical contact with an incapacitated person, as defined in section 475.010, which a reasonable person, who is not incapacitated, would consider offensive or provocative.

2. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. A person who violates the provisions of subdivision (3) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

4. A person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree more than two times against any family or household member as defined in section 455.010 is guilty of a class D felony for the third or any subsequent commission of the crime of assault in the third degree when a class A misdemeanor. The offenses described in this subsection may be against the same family or household member or against different family or household members.

There you go. Missouri code.

HeySeuss said
Feel free to look up some legal definitions sometime, guys. There's whole law libraries sitting online for the purpose of reference. It's not a question of damage, it's the action itself.And no, CNN reporters do not constitute hostile entities. If you think otherwise, well, I hope you never need your rights in the face of law enforcement. The guy was obeying orders even without being shoved; he was stating that he would not resist and that he would comply. That's not precisely hostile or uncooperative, despite whatever your definition of hostility is.

Yes, that's the part they turned on the cameras for. By his own admission (in the exact same video) he said he's been standing there all day, so this encounter dragged on for at least several uncooperative hours before he was gently led back, and decided to hop on the cross over it.

Great, now read the specific sections that apply to that contact:

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

--

(5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or

Don Lemon isn't going to sue. But that was caught on camera and that cop didn't give a fuck even though he (theoretically) knows the law he is supposed to enforce.

You can complain about damage done and so forth, but that doesn't change the definition of the law or what occurred. Everyone thinks they have 'common sense' and everyone's 'common sense' varies considerably.

Take it for what you will.

HeySeuss said
What you call 'common sense' is utterly subjective. The law at least makes a stab at objectivity.

Turns out you're wrong, but accepting you were right,

So?

You aren't making a legal appeal in a court, you are making a moral and emotional appeal on a forum. Argumentum ad baculum/populum has no sway here.

HeySeuss said
Great, now read the specific sections that apply to that contact:

Clearly, we're not going to reach a common ground over this, so I'm stopping.

That "offensive or provocative" thing is subjective, and as a matter of fact refers to a "normal person". Common sense.

An appeal to the legal definition is argumentum ad populum? Give me a break. You know what that means, don't you? It means an appeal to majority's sentiments and belief. (For example; common sense.) The law is not popular sentiment and belief.

If anything, the two of you insisting that it's only an assault if it results in substantial damage or that it should be governed by common sense is the argument to the masses. Pointing out that substantial damage is not a per-requisite for an assault isn't me appealing to the popular belief at all. It's me referring to the letter of the law.

Now, as someone who actually lives in the Ferguson-Florissant area, I just have to put my opinion up on this matter. I don't have anymore evidence about this whole situation as any of you do and honestly it's terrifying when you drive down the street and see stores that you've been to before smashed in. My opinion isn't driven toward the shooting of Michael Brown, it's toward the 'protests' that are going on night after night.

I don't care what people say on the news, what you all have heard, but these protests are in no way shape or form peaceful. Half the people are hood rats from downtown St. Louis who are coming up to Ferguson and taking advantage of the situation. Most of them don't really care that Michael Brown was shot, they just want to take part in the chaos. If they really cared that someone was shot, they wouldn't be out stealing shoes, weave, and rims. You know, that same night, two other kids were shot downtown, but no one cares about them at all. They're just all too eager to make this whole situation a racial issue.

If this really was just a protest, then things wouldn't have gotten out of hand like they have. If it was just a protest, I wouldn't be afraid to walk down the street in the middle of day, or drive in certain areas where I live. I say let the cops do what they want. They could easily go about their "protesting" in a different way, and yet they all continue to shoot off guns in the middle of the night, burn down buildings, and scream "Fuck you," to the police. The quicker all of this is over, the better.

HeySeuss said
An appeal to the legal definition is argumentum ad populum? Give me a break. You know what that means, don't you? It means an appeal to majority's sentiments and belief. (For example; common sense.) The law is not popular sentiment and belief.If anything, the two of you insisting that it's only an assault if it results in substantial damage or that it should be governed by common sense is the argument to the masses. Pointing out that substantial damage is not a per-requisite for an assault isn't me appealing to the popular belief at all. It's me referring to the letter of the law.

You're not referring to the letter of the law. You're referring to an unreasonable interpretation of a word in the law. Police are allowed to touch people. There is nothing wrong with this conduct, and to insist otherwise -- especially in the context of a race riot -- is irresponsible.

That link cites a case of simple touching, not a shove as given here.

I should have stopped when I said I was going to stop.

Really? Define "serious" in quantitative terms. How about offensive or provocative. How many newtons? What surface area? What duration? What coordinates on a person's body? Your own quote says "normal person".

But fine, I will join you at this inane echelon of ticky-tacky legal sophistry. The cop who "assaulted" Don Lemon has not been found guilty by a jury of his peers. Ergo, he has not broken any laws, though he may be suspected. Ergo, he has not yet legally assaulted anyone.

Same reference as before, posted again, because apparently it needs to be repeated;

Assault in the third degree.
565.070. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

(1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

(2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

(4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

(5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or

(6) The person knowingly causes physical contact with an incapacitated person, as defined in section 475.010, which a reasonable person, who is not incapacitated, would consider offensive or provocative.

2. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. A person who violates the provisions of subdivision (3) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

4. A person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree more than two times against any family or household member as defined in section 455.010 is guilty of a class D felony for the third or any subsequent commission of the crime of assault in the third degree when a class A misdemeanor. The offenses described in this subsection may be against the same family or household member or against different family or household members.

All the tiny details of the situation really don't matter. At all.

The law is being broken in both courts. I imagine there are absolutely hood rats taking advantage of the situation but that's due to the fact these peaceful protests, which were at one point peaceful, and at one point protests, have practically escalated into a riot. They are quick to turn this into a racial issue because it is. Mike Brown is innocent. He is absolutely innocent and the proof is almost ridiculous.

But that doesn't matter.

What matters is the fact that we've gotten to a point where cops are patrolling a city like some kind of private militia, tear gassing JOURNALISTS for christ's sakes and completely ignoring the constitution and foundation of laws, rules and beliefs this country was founded upon. These are not people looking to serve justice. And what's even worse is there will be no justice. Nobody is going to punish these cops for abusing their power. These cops want a reason to pull their triggers.

What's even worse is if our founding fathers were hypothetically brought back to life and shown the situation before them they'd be shitting themselves at the sight of so many African American's.

This doesn't feel like a country man. It's disgusting. When shit get's real anybody that can do anything will do nothing because it'll merely put a target on their back. It's disgusting.

Politicians are irrelevant.

Coffin vs. US. You say he criminally assaulted Lemon, when that has not been proven via a valid public trial, the verdict pronounced by a jury of his peers. You are, therefore incorrect.

Whatevs, it's gone from, "That's not the definition of assault!" to "common sense!" to "argumentum ad populum" to "wait until he gets his day in court."

Which will never happen, refer to Thundercat's post as to why.

HeySeuss said
Whatevs, it's gone from, "That's not the definition of assault!" to "common sense!" to "argumentum ad populum" to "wait until he gets his day in court." Which will never happen, refer to Thundercat's post as to why.

So by law and common sense, you're wrong. That's my point.

Mike Brown is innocent. He is absolutely innocent and the proof is almost ridiculous.

What evidence could you possibly have of that?

Now it's my turn to let this go, but with caveat; if you have to loudly declare victory on the internet, you probably didn't win. Don't let that stop you from continually asserting that you won, though.