Tray Dub wrote:Intent to harm is a reasonable criteria for an act to be deemed offensive, which is part of the criteria for battery.
Not exactly. Intent to harm is part of the criteria for assault. Causing harm is automatic qualification for battery.
Tray Dub wrote:At this point, this argument is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to count the number of fingers Hout used and then use that to determine whether he did something criminal. He clearly was trying to get Blount's attention, nothing more. Your characterization of it as a slap is what's absurd. If you think that's offensive, then we're just going to have to disagree. I think in no way was just the act of tapping (I'll continue to call it tapping because your one finger definition is news to me, but call if whatever you will) offensive.
tap:
to strike with a light but audible blow or blows; hit with repeated, slight blows: He tapped the door twice.
2. to make, put, etc., by tapping: to tap a nail into a wall.
3. to strike (the fingers, a foot, a pencil, etc.) upon or against something, esp. with repeated light blows: Stop tapping your feet!
4. Basketball. to strike (a ball in the air) in the direction of a teammate or of the basket.
5. to enter information or produce copy by tapping on a keyboard: to tap data into a computer; to tap out a magazine article.
6. to add a thickness of leather to the sole or heel of (a boot or shoe), as in repairing.
–verb (used without object)
7. to strike lightly but audibly, as to attract attention.
8. to strike light blows.
9. to tap-dance.
–noun
10. a light but audible blow: a tap on the shoulder.
11. the sound made by this.
12. a piece of metal attached to the toe or heel of a shoe, as for reinforcement or for making the tapping of a dancer more audible.
13. Basketball. an act or instance of tapping the ball: Hanson got the tap from our center, who, 6prime;9″ tall, couldn't lose a jump ball.
14. a thickness of leather added to the sole or heel of a boot or shoe, as in repairing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tap
It was not a light blow. Therefore, it was not a tap.
If you did what Hout did to a random stranger walking down the street, they would be offended. Therefore, it is reasonable for Blount to be offended by the strike.
Tray Dub wrote:His WORDS were offensive. But we're talking about physical battery, which means his words don't factor into this conversation. I sincerely disagree that his physical actions were intended to do anything offensive to Blount. There's no reason to conclude he had any other motivation other than to get Blount's attention. What he did with Blount's attention is irrelevant.
The words do factor into this conversation because the context is a factor for battery. For example, as the link I posted explains, a person walking through a crowd cannot reasonably expect not to be touched. However, a football player minding his own business, walking off of a field can reasonably expect people to not seek him out specifically and hit him on the shoulder while taunting him. Therefore, the intent to offend with words makes the hitting of Blount's shoulder offensive, whatever Hout's purpose was for doing it.
If a friend hits my shoulder jokingly because they think I did something wrong, I am not offended. However, if someone I am in a heated argument with does it, it is offensive. The context matters.
Your theory that Hout hit Blount solely to get his attention doesn't make sense because Hout was yelling right into Blount's ear. People tap peoples shoulders when they want to whisper something to them discreetly. Not when they want to yell in their face. There is no way that Hout was concerned that Blount might not be aware of him yelling directly into his ear.
What Hout did is similar to when someone hits someone on the back extra hard in order to sarcastically compliment them. "<slap> Good job buddy!" It's meant to be disrespectful.
Tray Dub wrote:Actually, if you want to prove that it falls under the definition of battery, you do need to show that an offensive action includes tapping someone's shoulder. You haven't yet. A precedent would be enough to convince me I'm wrong. But the definition you provided simply isn't enough, because it leaves unclear what exactly IS offensive conduct.
You don't seem to understand how this law works. What is offensive is not up to you or the person committing battery. It is up to the person who is offended. There is no list that includes or eliminates specific types of things like tapping or hitting.
It has to be non-consensual: check.
It has to be offensive to a reasonable person: check.
It's beyond me how you could question whether or not Blount could reasonably be offended by the strike, given the context of the moment and his words. The entire motivation for Hout was to try and belittle Blount so that he could go back to the locker room and laugh about it with his pals. Obviously, given Blount's reaction, it offended him. If you look closely at the video, it appears that the hit is what offends Blount. Hout hasn't even finished the sentence he was saying before Blount's fist lands on his face.
Tray Dub wrote:It deserved to be repeated because you bolded a selection from a passage on a website, and then offer no real explanation why that bolded passage proves your point. You bolded offensive conduct, but then didn't explain what exactly is offensive about getting someone's attention by touching his shoulder. Hout wasn't trying to harm Blount with the shoulder tap, he was trying to get his attention.
No reason exists for you to think that me bolding something was intended to prove any point. That really is a strange understanding of the purpose of bolding. I bolded "offensive conduct" to emphasize that you don't have to harm or intend to harm someone in order to commit battery. It was done with the intention to clarify why I posted the quote.
