Note that I was using md2000’s argument.
A damage can be an expense or cost. Getting something dirty can incur a cost of cleaning or replacement or lost opportunity to earn if it takes time and effort to clean.
So, if I got it right, the courts would need to decide what constitutes injury using the precise wording in the state and any case law, right?
In one state blowing cigar smoke intentionally in someone’s face may be battery, in another throwing urine at someone may not be a crime. The soot as seen in the videos seems a bit more harmful than the urine to me as it creates dangerous driving (or cycling) conditions and makes breathing difficult, whereas urine just has the “ew” factor and smell (which the soot also has).
Hmmm. Is unsolicited cologne spraying in department stores battery?
Depending on the force and the follow through you can break someone’s nose. Regardless it is much different because you are hitting someone with an object. Striking someone is assault.
You really want to force it to fit don’t you? No, having to throw your dirty clothes in the wash or having to take a hose to your car does not equal damage.
That’s pretty much right. Some states may have an assault statute in which this practice fits. Each state is different. For instance the word battery does not appear in my states statute. It’s either assault or aggravated assault. No battery. In some states it may fit the assault statute. Or maybe in the harassment or criminal mischief statute. Or it could depend on the particular circumstances in each individual case.
I drive a really small car because it gets better gas mileage. Are they “protesting” tightwads too?
Are you a tort lawyer? I don’t have to force anything. Any resulting cost might constitute harm that is remediable with an award of damages. How do you think tort law actually works?
Battery is a civil law concept too. I can’t believe that there’s no civil cause of action for battery or an equivalent in your state.
The question was about criminal assault, not civil tort (nor pollution laws for that matter).
The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, 2C:11-1(a) defines bodily injury as “physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.”
So save me some time: did you already check the annotated code?
I love this. On one hand, you have a political group trying to do what they can to extend the lifetime of US oil reserves and protect the environment; on the other, you have people doing exactly the opposite for sheer spite. Sorry, but only one of those groups is being reasonable. The other is just being jerks, even if environmentalists are occasionally smug. And of course there’s a healthy dose of racism, zenophobia, and “southern spirit” (read: confederate jackassery). Because of course there would be.
Moderator Note
I already told people to stop trying to debate Hail Ants remarks back in post #24, and to confine themselves to the legal issues involved. No warning issued, but the next person who continues this hijack may be liable for a warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
As an honest question, if a person has asthma and a sudden puff of diesel soot incites a painful asthma attack, does that count? Or does the asshole have to have known that the person was asthmatic and their (probably already unlawful under emissions regulations) attack would incite such pain?
It gives no lower limits to “physical pain” or “illness”. Again, the gas is purposefully noxious, and the driver is deliberately attacking them with the smoke. Exposure causes illness, however mild, including irritation to the eyes/nose or skin, inhalation of particulates, etc.
The statute also allows conviction for “attempted” injury. There is no reason why the law would not apply.
I’m sure you understand the difference between criminal and civil. We are not talking about suing.
A prosecutor could try and it’s possible but unlikely to get through the court. One element of the assault statute is intent. In this case the intent is obviously to annoy and harass not to injure.
But the good news is we are extremely draconian with other laws. If the asshole decided to hit you with an Airsoft gun instead of exhaust they would get an assault charge and a gun charge since Airsoft is considered a firearm.
Yes, that counts. In intentional tort and criminal law there is a doctrine called the “eggshell skull” rule which says that you take your victim as you find him. In other words, an unknown special condition that makes the victim more susceptible to injury is your problem as a defendant.
For the record, “coal rolling” (or rather the truck modifications used to produce it) isillegal.
I asked if you checked the annotated code. What cases have applied this statute – what does the caselaw say?
Criminal statutes are construed strictly in favor of the accused.
I don’t agree that to an ordinary non-asthma suffering person, the kind of effect felt while inside a car would be either “physical pain” or “illness” within the meaning of that law, but since I don’t know New Jersey caselaw, I could be wrong.
I haven’t done the research. I’m asking you if you have or you’re simply reading the words and deciding for yourself what they mean.
Doesn’t the first part of this legal debate all boil down to intent? After which, it is obviously established by the videos, we can move onto the next part, was it criminal? Yes or no, was there any damage, property or personal wise?
no, it isn’t assault. Assault is a narrowly defined criminal offense.
You’d have to pick one of the tort claims available/commonly accepted. Intentional Inflication of Emotional distress, Negligence, interruption of peaceful enjoyment of land (or whatever its called), something like that, one of those torts.
Of course, the problem with that is you’d have to have evidence of the specific inident, and evidence that it’s THAT guy who did it, and evidence that you were harmed. That’s difficult to comeby unless you videotape your whole life. Plus, you probably aren’t actually harmed by a puff of smog here and there
A local ordinance banning the practice would be a better bet