BITsquire

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@LauraEarthname @MarioNawfal So fragile 😂🤣

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@EFHutton123 @MarioNawfal Also, to be clear, regardless of the elements…….I would be absolutely shocked if the Lady In Pink gets convicted 😂 Obviously. Please do not confuse my exercise in legal definitions and elements, with the thought that I think she’ll be found guilty of this……she won’t be.

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

I think I’ll let you explore the exercises of reading and deductive reasoning on your own. That said, I’ll give you some hints to get started:

1. “Elements” of a “Theory” of any statutory offense (of which there can be multiple), are not governed by the semantics of the title of the statute. When facts…..like a “touching”……are applied to a particular theory of recovery, the law looks to “case law” to interpret the meaning of the “statutory framework”.

2. The “Model Penal Code” was created in 1950, and while distinguishable and more uniform (which was the point), is steeped in “English Common Law” (established roughly 850–900 years ago, emerging after the Norman Conquest of 1066 and taking shape in the king’s courts in the 12th–13th centuries - but I’m sure you’re Google search powers would obliterate me on that 🤣) elements and legal theories, as it was the original framework.

As distinct common‑law offenses, “assault” and “battery” in the Anglo‑American sense have been around for roughly 700–800 years, developing in English royal courts from about the 12th–13th centuries and then carried into American common law.

…….I’ll leave it to you to link the rest of that chain up (if you can……..or Google search it maybe 🤷‍♂️).

3. Go read Winston Perez Hernandez v. United States, 286 A.3d 990 (D.C. 2022)

(simple assault via offensive touching (ONE OF A FEW MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THEORIES UNDER THE D.C. “Assault” statute, which……wait for it……MIRRORS COMMON LAW BATTERY) requires a voluntary, non‑accidental touching plus at least general intent regarding the contact and purpose/knowledge as to its offensive character. In practice, the “elements” of the touching theory post‑Hernandez are typically phrased as:
1.a voluntary, non‑accidental touching of another person (no need for injury beyond an offensive contact), and
https://t.co/3qJFsiqYSd least general intent to perform that act, with purpose or knowledge as to its offensive character. The court further held that the mens rea for the “offensiveness” of the touch may be satisfied if the defendant acted “purposefully” or “knowingly,” adopting Model Penal Code concepts (purpose = conscious object to cause the result; knowledge = awareness it is practically certain the conduct will cause that result…..which is what we call, “GENERAL INTENT”).

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@EFHutton123 @MarioNawfal Your Google search is mind blowing 😂 I am not even going to waste my time explaining the intricacies to you, as I am sure you will provide another Google search response equally as mind blowing 🤣

[Sam Price @CryptoLifer33]

the 200 ma on the weekly is catching us like a snow flake in the wind Bitcoin dump may catch a relief bounce here.

[The Gateway Pundit @gatewaypundit]

JUST IN: President Trump Announces He is Nominating Todd Blanche to Serve as Attorney General (VIDEO)

READ: https://t.co/SdpUvrxIHK

[David Pollack @DavidPollackUSA]

How do they know so decisively that Bass won when there is 322,000 votes still remaining? And why can’t they make the same call for Spencer Pratt, who is further ahead of Ramen, than Karen is ahead of Pratt.

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@elonmusk @eastdakota @zephyr_z9 😂

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@AutismCapital 😂🤣

[Autism Capital 🧩 @AutismCapital]

Goddamn it he’s an incredible poster.

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@Yentovon_ @MarioNawfal Here’s another one 👇 “touching only” fact pattern. I am not misinterpreting anything.

👇

Perkins v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 326, 523 S.E.2d 512, 2000 Va. App. LEXIS 16

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@Yentovon_ @MarioNawfal I am not. That is just the example from the Hardy v. Commonwealth case, as referenced in the case I am citing.

I am referring to the “slightest touching of another” language.

In any event, you’re going to believe what you want to believe, which you are free to do. Take care

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

Sure. Here you go: Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 67, 608 S.E.2d 509, 2005 Va. App. LEXIS 60

“At common law, any touching "in anger, without lawful provocation," however slight, including "spitting in a man's face," was sufficient to support a battery conviction. Hardy v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. (17 Gratt.) 592, 601 (1867). 1  [*71]  "The slightest touching of another …if done in a rude, insolent or angry manner, constitutes a battery for which the law affords redress." Crosswhite v. Barnes, 139 Va. 471, 477, 124 S.E. 242, 244 (1924)(citation omitted); see also Adams v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 463, 469, 534 S.E. 2d 347, 350 (2000). The term "battery" possesses "a long history of definition by" the courts, and therefore, it "carries [its] historical construction" when used by the General [***4]  Assembly in a statute. Quintana v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 127, 140, 295 S.E. 2d 643, 649 (1982). "In Virginia, it is abundantly clear that a perpetrator need not inflict a physical injury to commit a battery." Adams, 33 Va. App. at 469, 534 S.E. 2d at 351.”

That said, in my opinion, based on “Lady In Pink’s” immediate responsive apology and what happened, I don’t think there is no jury on the planet that would find her guilty 😂

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@Yentovon_ @MarioNawfal Show me that legal, statutory definition.

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@Rusty19742 @FortressAmerica @MarioNawfal Agreed 🔥 Epic name

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

@FortressAmerica @MarioNawfal Fair point, which is true. That said, statutes and interpreting precedent from across the U.S. are fairly uniform for Assault and Battery…….but not always.

[BITsquire @BITsquire]

a) Battery is what we call a “general intent” crime. “Specific Intent”, like to harm, as you reference, is not required to complete the offense. As far as “offensive” is concerned, that definition for purposes of Battery is ANY unwanted touching.

If you have another definition, from a LEGAL SOURCE, I am happy to look at it.

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

🇺🇸 TMZ just dropped video of the incident where Rep. Luna says a protester assaulted her.

[Benny Johnson @bennyjohnson]

One of the best posts in the history of this platform.

Having children in 2026 is heroic and thankless and you owe every parent a debt of gratitude for selflessly investing everything in the continuation of the American people.

Without parents we have no civilizational future…