>>6679
>You can't just say "defined as assault"
Yes I can.
Speech is not just words, retard. Gestures and actions are also define as speech.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
http://bfy.tw/34L3
>1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs 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.
>At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
>An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
>Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
The law is quite clear about what assault is. Outside of SJW and Nazi havens where war is peace and freedom is slavery, assault has a very clear definition where "offensive" is known to directly mean "in a way meant to cause bodily harm."
Do you even law, brah?