> None but difference is that I actually know what I'm talking about.
So in your reasoning standing still next to a woman is already assault....
Your reasoning is crooked and that is how it is.....
It doesn't really matter what you have to say there, Lou, I've proven my point as correct and backed it up with the relevant law and an article. There's absolutely no reason for you to act all butthurt. If you don't like the law, petition to have it changed instead of trying to argue with me.
Your technically right on this statement i agree, Jim would be "assaulting an officer" the moment he didn't put the mic down.
Like you state, even if the woman would be a cop and Jim would be viable to "cause, assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a law enforcement officer" it would still make the charge "assaulting a police officer" not "assault" as you state in your first comment.
Luckily i don't live in a police state and this would be thrown out of court instantly over here.
None but difference is that I actually know what I'm talking about.
In DC, merely resisting an officer passively is assault. So, like I said, if he'd done that to an officer, he'd been arrested for assault.
And, like I said, I'm sorry that you don't agree with it but that's how it is.