What Does It Mean to "Knowingly" Commit Assault

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Illinois

No, this is not homework. This is me studying something on my own, but Google.com not given enough answers to point me in the right direction. Too many articles I've read discuss murder in relation to mens rea, which is not good enough, because there are other kinds of violent crimes that a person can be alledged of conducting "knowingly."

For the past couple of months, I've been studying the cognitive psychology of mens rea. One of the things I'm attempting to understand is what the MPC and State of Illinois considers "knowing" conduct. In the realm of assault, for what I understand according to Illinois Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, a person commits assault when he or she "knowingly" causes a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.

Quote:

---

To sustain the charge of assault, the State must prove the following proposition: That the defendant [ (knowingly) (intentionally) ] engaged in conduct which placed ____ in reasonable apprehension of receiving [ (bodily harm) (physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature) ].

---

For discussions, bodily harm / physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature will be termed "battery."

What is meant by "knowingly"?

What I'm attempting to understand is a synonymous language for the mens rea of assault in Illinois.

#1) Is it that a defendant "while in a state of consciousness" engaged in conduct which placed a person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery?
#2) Is it that a defendant "while in a state of consciousness with practically certainty or belief of the consequences of his or her actions on another person" engaged in conduct which placed a person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery?

The way I look at #1 is that it could be termed reckless or negligent conduct.
The way I look at #2 is that it can involve intentionally and/or knowingly causing a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.

#1:
For the first scenario, the defendant does not have practical certainty or belief that the conduct for which the defendant engages in will place a person in a reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery. For this first scenario, say that the individual is jacking around and wants to know if bringing a knife to his girlfriend is going to scare her: He does not KNOW that it will, but he considers that it MIGHT. I am unsure if this would be considered "knowing" conduct, as perhaps one could argue that the boyfriend's consideration that it "might cause a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery" could be considered willful blindness. I do not know if that is true: I don't know if that would be considered willful blindness. At no time does the boyfriend consider to ask the girlfriend if him engaging in that conduct would cause her to hold a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery (as such, the boyfriend does not engage in willful blindness by not attempting to determine before hand if it will or will not).

#2:
For the second scenario, say that the individual is angry at his girlfriend and believes that bringing a knife to her will cause her to shut up, be scared, and submit to him: He believes it will work. However, as an epistemological issue, beliefs are not known truths. However, I could see how a believing something will work goes along with the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. Thus, in the second scenario, as the individual holds the intent to cause a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, the individual would then during the act knowingly be causing a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.

As with the previous two scenarios, I'm going to give one more scenario:

#3) Say that a boyfriend is jacking around and wants to know if bringing a knife to his girlfriend is going to cause her to hold a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery: He does not KNOW that it will and he does not consider that it MIGHT.

I'm assuming that situation #3 would fall under negligence.

Thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

You're losing the meaning of knowingly. Knowingly doesn't imply certainly that the act will meet all the tenets of the crime, just that he did it with cognizance of what he was doing.

In your cases, he "KNOWS" that he brought the knife with the attempt to scare her. It matters not if he is certain that it will do so. If she is scared, he has knowingly assaulted her.

This is opposed to him pulling a knife to slice some apples. She might be scared he would stab her with it, but he wasn't acting with knowledge that doing so what he was doing would scare her.

As a heads up, I have a background in cognitive psychology.

I don't think that I am losing it:

Here are the Illinois Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for mental state, accountability, and responsibility:

5.00 MENTAL STATE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND RESPONSIBILITY

Quote:

---

[1] A person [ (knows) (acts knowingly with regard to) (acts with knowledge of) ] the
nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct when he is consciously aware that his conduct is
of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness
of the substantial probability that such fact exists.
[2] A person [ (knows) (acts knowingly with regard to) (acts with knowledge of) ] the
result of his conduct when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be
caused by his conduct.
[3] [Conduct performed knowingly or with knowledge is performed willfully.]

---

The mental state jury instructions state, "Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists."
For a "substantial probability," I believe it's stating more than 50%. That sounds reasonable.
And I'm going to put forth that if someone believes something, then the person believes it to be true.
And if someone is practically certain, the person believes there is more than a 50% chance that the outcome will occur, despite the person not using a probabilistic knowledge of things.
I state that, because I know that certainity is a probability concept. It could be argued that a person who is practically certain is without doubt.

Having read the mental state jury instructions, I'm under the impression that at least on Illinois jury in the past had doubts about what was to be understood as "knowingly."

With the #3 scenario, the boyfriend does not know it will scare her: He wants to find out if it will. It's not an attempt; it's an investigation to the mind.

You're still missing the point. The probability doesn't mean the overall probability in the world that something happens, it's what he thinks will happen. Sure, if i pull out a knife and start dicing onions, there's a low probability in my knowing mind that someone will be scared.
If I pull a knife with the intent to scare people, there's a substantial (100%) case that I have knowing committed the assault.

You have other threads with similar "investigations of the mind" including one entitled "Is It Considered Stalking if You Don't Know the Person is Following You". It sounds like you're in a bad relationship getting worse - best of luck.

Any reasonable person, which is the standard courts generally rely on, would KNOW that brandishing a knife at someone is likely to cause them to fear harm. Even something as seemingly innocuous as pulling out the knife and saying, "Hey, look at this cool new knife I got" could lead someone to fear harm, depending on the totality of circumstances.

Off topic: Our newbs are getting very good at checking post histories. This is a good thing.

Which scenario are you referring to, flyingron?

If you mean by "it's what he thinks will happen" by "it's what he believes will happen," then I'm going to say that falls under the "practical certainty" category, whereby a person is consciously aware with practical certainty that the person will be placed in a reasonable apprehension of a battery. For scenario #1 and scenario #2, the boyfriend does not hold a belief about what will happen.

free9man, as you're discussing the "reasonable person," that is why I've also attempted to discuss the issue of recklessness and negligence. An individual who was negligent was not acting as a reasonable person.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

You're still missing the point. The probability doesn't mean the overall probability in the world that something happens, it's what he thinks will happen. Sure, if i pull out a knife and start dicing onions, there's a low probability in my knowing mind that someone will be scared.
If I pull a knife with the intent to scare people, there's a substantial (100%) case that I have knowing committed the assault.

---

Well, if you pull out a knife and start dicing onions (I make a fair amount of burgers and salads), why would you consciously consider that someone around you would be scared? You don't know that. You're not psychic, right? All you're really doing is dicing onions. Do you have a borderline personality and think about stabbing someone with it? Are you the kind of person who has it in conscious consideration ALL of the time while driving about hitting someone on the road while driving?

Maybe I'm a negligent driver, but I don't always consider that I'm going to hit someone while on the road, especially while driving. During rush hour, a good amount of the time (not CONSTANTLY like I'm OBSESSED). While the car in front of me appears to be about 10 cars away? No... maybe if I'm on the highway going 70mph and the car in front of me steps on the brakes. Yeah, I think then.

Otherwise, when I'm in a kitchen, it's not in consideration. When I'm moving a knife around in a kitchen and people are around, I often act as a reasonable person to not drop it, so it does not injure someone; but I do not consider the fear of which people will have for me moving it around.

Quote:

---

Quoting tophat

---

free9man, as you're discussing the "reasonable person," that is why I've also attempted to discuss the issue of recklessness and negligence. And individual who was negligent was not acting as a reasonable person.

---

Not acting as a reasonable person should is how your sentence should have ended. That is the standard on negligence.

Brandishing a weapon at someone is an intentional act, not a result of negligence.

While it could be considered reckless conduct, it would be a hard sell in court. No one says, "Gee, I wonder if brandishing this knife is going to scare her" because everyone with half a brain would know it will.

Moving an object would be a volitional act, for sure, lest the individual have some syndrome or disorder. As moving an object would be volitional, it could be argued that an individual moved an object intentionally. However, the result from moving the object may be of negligence. I don't know if you have ever studied neuroscience, free9man, but there are some arguments about free will vs. determinism when it comes to volitional act: Because people have said that there are electrical readings from the brain shortly before a person moves an object, as though a person was pre-destined to move the object. Weird stuff.

Quote:

---

Quoting tophat

---

Otherwise, when I'm in a kitchen, it's not in consideration. When I'm moving a knife around in a kitchen and people are around, I often act as a reasonable person to not drop it, so it does not injure someone; but I do not consider the fear of which people will have for me moving it around.

---

You do not have to consider their fear because you are not using the knife in a manner that might cause them fear. I suppose if someone had aichmophobia, they'd fear it but they can always leave the room.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting tophat

---

Moving an object would be a volitional act, for sure, lest the individual have some syndrome or disorder. As moving an object would be volitional, it could be argued that an individual moved an object intentionally. However, the result from moving the object may be of negligence. I don't know if you have ever studied neuroscience, free9man, but there are some arguments about free will vs. determinism when it comes to volitional act: Because people have said that there are electrical readings from the brain shortly before a person moves an object, as though a person was pre-destined to move the object. Weird stuff.

---

There is a world of difference between academic theory and the real world. That neuroscience theory is nice but worthless in a courtroom without a lot of money and time to try and get it in. And no, that has nothing to do with free will. The electrical impulses are the brain telling the arm to move the object, unless you are claiming it happens before the person makes the decision to move the object. Even then, the counterargument depending on the location of the activity would be that it is the brain thinking about and reaching the decision to move the object.

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.