The John Prescott incident was a good one. To be fair to Prescott, the thrower threw the egg quite hard at close range straight in his face. It looked like it would have hurt.
Prescott reacted quickly and decked him. Prescott isn’t the most popular politician in the country, but I think a lot of people quite respected him for this. Egg throwing isn’t exactly a mature contribution to the debate.
The police didn’t press charges against either the egg thrower or prescott. I think they might have wanted to prosecute the thrower, but they would have had to do prescott as well, so they left it.
Throwing stuff at people is not “free speech”. It’s not exactly a capital offense either but claiming “free speech” does give you the right to attack others and damage property.
If I go around randomly punching people in the face, could I claim that I am freely expressing my “art”?
rjung quote:
Here’s an interesting spin-off from the OP: What if the thrown egg had missed? (Either intentionally or accidentally) Would it still be considered “assault” or “vandalism” if no damage was done?
It would be considered “attempted assault” or some such thing.
That said, I was a little disappointed by Arnolds comeback line:
My only problem with considering it assault is that assault is generally intended to cause physical harm to the victim, whereas pie-throwing is clearly not intended to cause physical harm – and indeed, in almost all cases DOESN’T harm its victim.
Throwing an egg is to throwing a punch as stealing a candy bar is to stealing a car. You shouldn’t treat them the same. Both are illegal, but one is much worse than the other.
(I’m kind of expecting someone to come in and call the egg-throwers terrorists, since they’re trying to use violence to influence the political process).
It’s only free speech if you throw money at a candidate.
Have any of the pie throwing people used a successful “free speech” defense? As it is more light hearted it would have a better chance imho but ianal. I don’t see it working myself, it’s clearly an assault.
On the subject of him having missed: isn’t there always some sort of “Public Mischief” charge that’s handy in these situations?
Actually just the threat of violence, meant to coerce not harm, is assault as well. If someone gets the impression they might get hit with eggs/pie any time they try to make a public appearance then I think we can fairly call it assault.
Lighten up you guys!!! What this world needs right now is a few more people who can laugh off the little stuff. That’s what Arnold did. He took the high road, even though egg tossing is technically not free* speech* (as others have already pointed out).
Here we are in America in 2003:
**
“He hit me with a cream pie. I’m gonna sue!”**
Lighten up? So someone has an issue with AS, and they show their displeasure by tossing an egg, and we laugh it off? What if it did miss, and hit someone else? If I was on my way to work, and stopped in to see what was going on, and I got my suit pelted with an egg, I’d not only have to go change it, but I don’t think the egg thrower would be paying me for my time. Now AS did take it well, but if we just laugh and “lighten up”, what happens the next time? Is it ok to do three times before it becomes a pain, or six? More? What happenes if it hits someone in the eye and causes damage, then is it more serious than if it missed, even though the intent is exactly the same? And I personally think only a coward would do something like this, as it doesn’t resolve any issues, only creates new ones.
Umm GOM, are lawsuits your pet peeve or something? Noone here has mentioned suing anyone. People don’t really need lightening up either, this wasn’t meant as a joke. It’s not shots from the bell tower but it is a real shithead-style tactic. Obviously YMMV.
I agree this is a minor thing and most anyone should shrug it off as Arnie did.
However, anyone care to speculate on what would happen to you if you threw a raw egg at and hit President Bush? Somehow I don’t think the Secret Service would be forgiving. The thrower would probably be labelled a terrorist with a bio-weapon.
Seriously though…is ‘assaulting’ the President of the US a worse crime than assaulting any other citizen (forgetting for a moment the lack of wisdom/intelligence such an act would entail)?
I like calling it criminal mischief. Getting hit with an egg is hardly a violent encounter, and the threat of it isn’t a threat of violence. It’s a threat of being annoyed and bothered and of having one’s suit ruined. Criminal mischief sounds right. Assault doesn’t sound right, and terrorism doesn’t sound right – but if you consider it violence, it meets the technical definitions for both.
I should add…to make the above ‘on-topic’ that I ask to ascertain if politicians enjoy a greater level of protection from ‘minor’ assaults than the average Joe. If they do how far down the political ladder does tha protection exist and does it extend to candidates for office (I know presidential candidates at some point get Secret Service protection)?
In one sense I think politicians are ultimately citizens like anyone else and not deserving of special protection in the law but on the flip-side they are bound to be far more likely targets than Joe Citizen so perhaps greater legal protections are in order. As such maybe simple egg throwing while minor to most people in most cases would be a bigger issue when directed at candidates/politicians.
Assault might be the wrong legal term. I don’t know. Throwing an egg <> slapping someone in the face <> punching someone in the face <> beating someone with a baseball bat. They are all varying degrees of the same thing but you would not receive the same punishment for commiting these acts. Let’s just call it ‘terrorism’.
To expand on CarnalK’s post: Assault is an act that puts the victim in fear of a harmful or offensive touching. Battery is the touching itself.
And the touching need not be intended to cause physical harm. It only need be offensive. If I go up to a random woman and grab her boob, that’s battery even if I squeeze really gently.
Perhaps if you were the one hit, particularly if you were hit in the face (I know Arnold wasn’t), you would change your mind. No one can say for sure where the egg was aimed, but I’d bet it was for the face. As hard as an eggshell is, there was the real possibility of damaging an eye. How is that not violent?
I agree with those who have called it an assault. Actually, since it was more than a threat, battery is probably more accurate. In California that can get you up to a year in jail, and deservedly so. I know that because, as a juror, I helped put a batterer away for a little “cooling off” period.
To answer the OP directly, no, throwing an egg isn’t free speech. Yelling is free speech. Crass, vulgar, and not likely to move people to one’s point of view, but free speech nonetheless. Egg throwing is assault if it misses, battery if it hits.
Civilized people don’t attack others. Uncivilized ones deserve to be locked up.
Geez…I hope you’re not on my jury should I ever find myself in court!
People in this country need to lighten up. Everything doesn’t need to be labelled a heinous offense. A little perspective is in order. So some guy (or gal) throws an egg. Stupid, lowbrow and dumb as it is it is just an egg. If they are caught they should be made to pay for cleaning or a replacement set of clothes and given some community service but I think hitting them with a felony and a year in jail is more than a bit much. If somehow much more serious damage is inflicted then maybe consider hitting them with a felony charge. I suspect that simple community service and making them fork over a few hundred for new clothes serves the purpose of society by sending a message to the egg thrower that the act just isn’t worthwhile to ever repeat and society gets something back from the community service.
Sorry if I seem stern to you, Whack, but I don’t think it’s “just an egg.” It is a missile with the potential to do great damage (put an eye out). And it’s not a kid with a mis-aimed BB gun, it’s an adult who should be held responsible for an adult act of violence.
As for it’s being a felony, it isn’t. Assault and battery can be a felony, depending on its severity, but in this instance it would be a misdemeanor. It is, however, a crime.
If the culprit were caught, he (it’s most likely a “he”) could be charged with a misdemeanor, and might spend up to a year in jail. If the act had blinded Arnold, it might be elevated to a felony, but probably not even then. Any California attorneys out there who can clarify this?
Anyway, this was (probably) not just a childish prank, but an act intended to stun, hurt, intimidate. It was an act of violence, and it shouldn’t be tolerated. I agree with the idea of community service since no damage was done, but there should be some kind of penalty.
The man I spoke of in the trial on which I was a juror was convicted of a misdemeanor. I don’t know what his sentence was, as the jurors were dismissed as soon as the verdict was rendered. I did find out after the trial, however, that this soft-spoken young man had been convicted before of the same crime. We weren’t allowed to know that during the trial because it might have colored our decision. We came to the right verdict without the prior bad act in evidence. I don’t think we were harsh at all. Most of us (including me) would have recommended a mild sentence if anybody had asked us.
