Talk:Battery (crime)

Comments

I've heard two attorneys discussing assault vs. battery, and IIRC one said that assault without battery was not a crime (per se, e.g., the act could be a crime as intimidation, but not as assault) in their jurisdiction (and the other did not protest).

My dictionary says lawful battery is by definition contradictory, but the assault thing above is so unexpected that confirmation would be worthwhile. If contact sports and surgery are forms of battery, and normally lawful due to their relatively benign intent, the article needs fixing, and the title of the article should instead be Battery (law). --Jerzy(t) 23:36, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Your concerns appear to have been addressed by the article battery (tort). I have tried to expand the article by introducing gradations of the criminal offense, mostly based on the penal code of Georgia (U.S. state). Ellsworth 23:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article only deals with US law. English law is distinctly different from most US jurisdictions, predominantly in its lack of statutory defintions of assault or battery. There are also different definitions in England and Wales (a single jurisdction within the UK). I have corrected the section on the English law of battery with statutory references and the key cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.79.184 (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bodily secretions"

"Directing bodily secretions" seems quite vague for a legal definition. Would spitting at someone then be considered aggravated battery? --72.75.50.145 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

US law, common law elements, and distinctions between assault and battery

I reorganized this article slightly and added the common law elements of battery. I created a separate section for U.S. law and, within that section, a subheading for the distinction between assault and battery. Finally, I added the language concerning the common law elements. --G77 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to dangerous Russian website

In the section about Russia, there is a link to russian-criminal-code.com. This website appears to host viruses/malware. See http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/russian-criminal-code.com for reference. I have removed the link as a safety measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanus Secundus (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Intro needs fixing by a law expert

Most legal pages describing battery describe it as unlawful "physical violence" and not as "physical contact" as in the intro of this article. Even Wikipedia's own Assault and Battery page uses the term "physical violence". Also, Black's Law dictionary is used to cite "harmful, offensive, or sexual contact" as the correct definition. The version that is available online only mentions "physical violence or constraint". There is no mention of offensive contact or sexual contact. There clearly must be a difference between unwanted "physical contact" and "physical violence" as being battery, or you couldn't bump into somebody, or brush into others at the train station or sidewalk, and security guards couldn't push people, etc. This seems to be mentioned later on as "an unlawful application of force" in the U.S. section and by "this does not include everyday knocks and jolts" for the U.K. section, but no distinction in made in the introduction that "physical contact" is violent or offensive, leading one to believe than innocent contact is illegal also. This can be corrected by simply changing "physical contact" to "physical violence" since not all contact is violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure all battery requires physical violence. Some touching is unwanted but non-violent, such as someone on the subway putting their hands on someone else's body in a socially inappropriate way (which may or may not be sexual) or after an explicit warning not to, but in a way that would not reasonably be expected to cause physical harm to or prevent movement of the victim. I think the distinction of battery with everyday bumping into people in some jurisdictions is simply that the touching is both intentional and offensive. -- Beland (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"Battery"

The usage and primary topic of "battery" is under discussion, see talk:battery (electricity) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Decriminalized in Russia?

This article suggests battery was decriminalized in Russia in 2016, but I'm wondering if that's really accurate. - 129.242.218.39 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battery (crime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907131325/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2116678 to http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2116678

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Globalization tag

The article has apparently been tagged since 2010 saying it needs globalization, and the tag was changed in February 2018 to say it has a Northern Hemisphere bias. However, I do not see any discussion here on the talk page about this asserted problem. Is the tag appropriate? I suggest removing the tag unless some justification and discussion of the problem is given here on the Talk page. Tags aren't supposed to just sit on top of articles as permanent criticism that no one is responding to. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Battery

Battery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.7.79.227 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

meri berrery ka parsant%100 nahi hota hai 47.15.165.14 (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)