I am actually on solosam’s defense on this one. Look, the law essentially says that you commit assault by doing either “a”, “b”, or “c”. So solosam was basically arguing that this situation applies to “b”.
Basically, it doesn’t matter if he left out “c”. All the law says is that if you do a, b, or c, then you have committed assault. Whether this situation does apply to “b” or not is a different debate. But the fact that solosam left out “c” is irrelevant because he is arguing that the woman clutching a pepper spray bottle applies to situation “b”.
In other words: it doesn’t matter if the situation in question does not apply to “c”; all you need for it to be considered assault is for one of the letters to apply. In this case, solosam is arguing that this situation applies to “b”. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant; the point is that he can ignore “c” if he wants to, because this law states that if a person does “a”, “b”, or “c”, then he/she has committed assault. So even if the person does “b”, but not “a” or “c”, then he/she has committed assault.
Because he can for reasons explained above.