Student Driver

Waste of air

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna I'm saying separate and apart from the legal argument, I think most people wouldn't be upset by this conduct and that the legal rule gives us an idea of what the moral judgment on the back end should be. But you are correct, I think we are at an impasse. Be well.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna Frankly, I don't think most people are offended by a slight touch of the arm to grab a person's attention—hence the outrage here. I think that the logic underpinning the law component applies to the normative interpretation of events as well.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna It's not just touching for no reason, but things like getting a person's attention generally fall under the umbrella of expected and allowed.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna That's just not true. It's generally defined by intent + body part. And touching people is normalized. We have a whole torts doctrine explaining that if you're in public, you should expect some amount of physical contact with people you don't know.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Paul41245740373 @TMZ Well first off, you said "another human being." Before we talk about the congress thing, do you agree I'm correct in general?

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna There's a difference between sexual contact and nonsexual contact. You do not impliedly consent to sexual contact. By being in public you do impliedly consent to a person harmlessly, and in a way that's not offensive to the reasonable person, touching you to get your attention.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@ArizonaRanger03 @IamSean90 It looks sort of like she was gesticulating. If that's the case, then there's probably no intent to make contact or substantial certainty of same.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jimsgems @RepLuna Generally, we impliedly consent to a bunch of reasonable and harmless social contacts—including touching a person to get their attention—just by virtue of being in public among other people.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@AudieKennedy @RepLuna It is NOT generally ANY unwanted touch. In the tort context especially, it must be either: (1) harmful; or (2) offensive to the reasonable person. This doesn't qualify.

Further, in general, you impliedly consent to certain regular public daily contacts. I'd guess this counts.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Paul41245740373 @TMZ Generally you can make all sorts of contacts with people in public, including polite attention grabbing gestures like the one here. You impliedly consent to it. Beyond that, if we're talking torts, contact must be harmful or offensive to the reasonable person. This was not.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@EricWillison1 @TMZ Generally though, it's not enough for the contact to be subjectively offensive. The contact would need to be offensive to the reasonable person. This was not. Further, in general, you arguably impliedly consent to small reasonable social contacts like this.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@malennroh1 @emeriticus Generally, you consent to certain kinds of contact in public, including harmless gestures intended to get one's attention. For the tort of battery, there must generally be harmful or offensive contact. Contact must be offensive to the reasonable person. That's not the case here.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@cmgsantiago @emeriticus Please explain how the conduct here was an "intimidation tactic."

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@PegasusICS @emeriticus That's not necessarily true. The intent for battery general requires an intent to make contact or a person's knowledge of near-certainty that there will be contact. There's also some amount of contact that day-to-day you consent to by virtue of being in public.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Schallabear @Dillymint @LargeInStature_ Maybe, but that's totally subjective. It's akin to an "ick" and it's worth challenging to figure out if it make sense to follow. Plainly, it doesn't.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Schallabear @Dillymint @LargeInStature_ I think my point above applies irrespective of the actual %. Further, it may not be a biological norm viol.'d for the kid. It's possible that there are environmental primers which he is responding to. Tone of voice, etc. It's not a safe assumption to make here.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Schallabear @Dillymint @LargeInStature_ a gay or LGBTQ person. I suspect that most people would not experience this surprise. I think that most people would consider that experience within the bounds of ordinary. In general, barring particular geographic location, it's probably not big news for the day.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@Schallabear @Dillymint @LargeInStature_ I don't know that it's fair to say 10% of population is abnormal. Normal isn't just average—it's also the things that are within the bounds of regular expectation. That is to say, whether your typical person would experience surprise at learning, in general, that they'd met 1/2

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@LargeInStature_ @Dillymint Normal doesn't just mean within the bounds of 51% or falling within the average for a person. It also includes behaviors which are ordinary but less common than average, so long as it is common enough not to be surprising to an average joe.

[Student Driver @StudentDriver6]

@jcasler44 @TheFrieze83 @tx_cole @pactconsumers Not just legally, but the customers who rationally and reasonably rely on insurance company services.