What Does It Mean to "Knowingly" Commit Assault

I have a B.S. in Neuroscience. I posted as untouchedworld here. Also, newbs checking past threads is poor. Also, I've found my answer: I was either reckless or negligent.

No, you were not. What the heck are you basing this on?

I thought your crap sounded familiar, just couldn't remember which butt it came out of previously.

The fact that there is a lack of evidence. I'm aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. However, in this situation, there is no evidence except the object itself. And I have all kinds of counter-evidence.

There's the old stubborn mule we all remember. Just because you think there is no evidence does not mean there is none. I'd go back and review your posts but they've been nuked and I'm not bored enough to hunt them down on Google. Go away troll.

From experience I have seen: Argument made by the defendant that no threat was made, I was merely cutting up veggies and my partner thought that I was going to do bodily harm. I never verbally threatened her nor did I do anything that would have been construed as a threat. They were still convicted. When the totality of the offense is laid out in court, the question is "would the average person feel threatened under these circumstances?" The fact that a knife was "brandished" usually indicated that the State will be able to piece together a good argument to prove that a crime was committed upon looking at the totality of the scenario.

Actually, I found a great article on this, which is recent: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12036/abstract

Locke, D. (2013), Practical Certainty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12036

The standard would be whether a reasonable person similarly situated would conclude that the plaintiff was in fear or apprehension of imminent harm. Not a neuropsychologist, or parapsychologist, or a pseudopsychologist, but a reasonable person in similar circumstances. Juries apply that standard, as do courts. Then they look at the facts and make conclusions. It's an old process, but it works.

Fallacy of tradition.

Quote:

---

Quoting tophat

---

Moving an object would be a volitional act,... However, the result from moving the object may be of negligence.

---

Whether you try to dazzle them with your brilliance or baffle them with your BS it is irrelevant. An average, reasonable person would expect that during an argument, domestic related or otherwise, one brandishing a knife or any other item that is readily adaptable to cause another harm should know that doing so would put another in reasonable expectation or fear of receiving a violent injury.