OT: The Movies Thread

[beardown07]

Christmas Vacation's another classic

 

[nuraman00]

Just set the DVR to record Elf for tonight..

I'm a bit apprehensive, because I haven't gotten into Will Ferrell yet. Old School was pretty good. "A Night at the Roxbury" was worth watching once.

Never seen Anchorman. Since there's a new one coming out in 2013, I should watch it before that comes out.

I just don't have much exposure to Ferrell, so I don't know if I like him.

 

[nuraman00]

The ref
Bad Santa...both very funny...prolly not for kids tho.

I remember wanting to watch that when it came out.

Good to see it got a recommendation from you.

 

[nuraman00]

Christmas Vacation's another classic

Yeah, I probably missed that one with regards to the holiday season. It's not showing up on the DVR as scheduled to air in the future.

I'll probably have to Netflix or Amazon Instant Video it.

 

[beardown07]

Just set the DVR to record Elf for tonight..

I'm a bit apprehensive, because I haven't gotten into Will Ferrell yet. Old School was pretty good. "A Night at the Roxbury" was worth watching once.

Never seen Anchorman. Since there's a new one coming out in 2013, I should watch it before that comes out.

I just don't have much exposure to Ferrell, so I don't know if I like him.

Elf is good for the whole family. Funny show. Instant xmas classic.

 

[beardown07]

I prolly quote the movie Anchorman as much as any...right up there.

 

[MHSL82]

And the way George chases after Mary in the alternate universe, with how aggressive he is, could be considered some sort of misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor battery. Especially since the chaser is a male, and the person trying to run away is a female. It might not be battery, as George might not have known his actions were offensive, according to the definition in wiki. But it's close.

++++++++++++++++

Battery (crime) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specific rules regarding battery vary among different jurisdictions, but some elements remain constant across jurisdictions. Battery generally requires that:

an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.

Under the Model Penal Code and in some jurisdictions, there is battery when the actor acts recklessly without specific intent of causing an offensive contact. Battery is typically classified as either simple or aggravated.

Although battery typically occurs in the context of physical altercations, it may also occur under other circumstances, such as in medical cases where a doctor performs a non-consented medical procedure.

The person doing the battery doesn't need to know it's offensive - he just needs to know that he's doing the touching. The touching has to be offensive, so that's why that's there. Otherwise, a tap on the shoulder would be bad because the actor knows he's touching the person, but here the act is not offensive.

To determine if the act is offensive, a reasonable person standard is applied - where if the actor would know that a reasonable person would be offended - as determined by the jury, then there that element of the crime is satisfied. Punching a stranger for wearing brown glasses instead of black is something a reasonable person would find offensive. Catching a fainting person where you happen to bump into a private area, would probably not. (I can't imagine someone intending on being somewhere knowing someone would faint and taking advantage.)

Sometimes, the circumstances of the actor is factored in - for example, a mentally challenged person might not know that he's touching or could reasonably, given his circumstances, think that it wasn't offensive - like a hug in the wrong place. Intent is also factored in, for if someone genuinely falls into the wrong place on another's body and there are charges filed, the fact that he fell could be used as a defense against intent. The jury has to believe him, of course. I haven't looked this up, but consent would negate the offensiveness of the touching, but good luck to the actor proving that if the victim's is pressing charges.

Putting your hand out on a pole in a bus or something right where a woman's chest is would be an example of an action that "the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching." In other words, this is not just fighting, punching, etc. It would be harder to prove he knew this, but a jury may find it obvious depending upon the circumstances. Having a seizure, there's no intent or knowledge of the touching. In a circumstance where he thinks, and the jury believes, that his feet under the table is leaning against the table leg, when it really was the stranger's legs, that might not qualify as intent or knowledge. If the woman reports rubbing up and down, the jury probably won't believe him. He doesn't need to know that playing footsie with a stranger is offensive.

 

[MHSL82]

Just set the DVR to record Elf for tonight..

I'm a bit apprehensive, because I haven't gotten into Will Ferrell yet. Old School was pretty good. "A Night at the Roxbury" was worth watching once.

Never seen Anchorman. Since there's a new one coming out in 2013, I should watch it before that comes out.

I just don't have much exposure to Ferrell, so I don't know if I like him.

He's a USC alum, so I like him. As for his movies, he was becoming Chevy Chase Part Deux, but then has fallen a bit since.

 

[nuraman00]

I usually don't like actors/actresses that play supremely goofy characters. I prefer the situation to lead to the comedy, not the personality.

There's some exceptions, of course. I liked Jim Carrey in Batman Forever.

With Adam Sandler, while I haven't seen some of his more popular movies such as "The Waterboy", "Big Daddy", "Billy Madison", or "Little Nicky", I did like him in Punch Drunk Love, and that was probably his most normal character vs. what I heard about him in the other movies.

With Chase, I've seen him in "Nothing But Trouble", and "Dirty Work". I really like the movie Dirty Work, so I like Chase too.

I don't know if I liked "Nothing But Trouble", but I do remember it. I might have just liked watching it just because it was a movie and I was younger so movies in general were fun. We rented it the year it came out, so in 1991.

 

[nuraman00]

The person doing the battery doesn't need to know it's offensive - he just needs to know that he's doing the touching. The touching has to be offensive, so that's why that's there. Otherwise, a tap on the shoulder would be bad because the actor knows he's touching the person, but here the act is not offensive.

To determine if the act is offensive, a reasonable person standard is applied - where if the actor would know that a reasonable person would be offended - as determined by the jury, then there that element of the crime is satisfied. Punching a stranger for wearing brown glasses instead of black is something a reasonable person would find offensive. Catching a fainting person where you happen to bump into a private area, would probably not. (I can't imagine someone intending on being somewhere knowing someone would faint and taking advantage.)

Sometimes, the circumstances of the actor is factored in - for example, a mentally challenged person might not know that he's touching or could reasonably, given his circumstances, think that it wasn't offensive - like a hug in the wrong place. Intent is also factored in, for if someone genuinely falls into the wrong place on another's body and there are charges filed, the fact that he fell could be used as a defense against intent. The jury has to believe him, of course. I haven't looked this up, but consent would negate the offensiveness of the touching, but good luck to the actor proving that if the victim's is pressing charges.

Putting your hand out on a pole in a bus or something right where a woman's chest is would be an example of an action that "the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching." In other words, this is not just fighting, punching, etc. It would be harder to prove he knew this, but a jury may find it obvious depending upon the circumstances. Having a seizure, there's no intent or knowledge of the touching. In a circumstance where he thinks, and the jury believes, that his feet under the table is leaning against the table leg, when it really was the stranger's legs, that might not qualify as intent or knowledge. If the woman reports rubbing up and down, the jury probably won't believe him. He doesn't need to know that playing footsie with a stranger is offensive.

Thanks for the examples.

In the movie's case, George ran after Mary in the alternate universe, grabbing her shoulder, even as she was clearly running away from him.

(I'd have to check to see to what extent he actually touched her, as opposed to just chasing after her.)


Is this not offensive, because it wasn't a private area, but rather a shoulder?

Would then just be misdemeanor assault (because there's still physical violence)?


What if he grabbed and shook her shoulder for 15 seconds (as she kept saying no and resisting). Would that then be offensive enough for battery?

Your table leg example though doesn't involve a private area.

So maybe a reasonable person would find the description I gave earlier, from the movie, offensive.

 

[nuraman00]

I prolly quote the movie Anchorman as much as any...right up there.

So, beardown07, are you also a Bulls fan?

 

[MHSL82]

Thanks for the examples.

In the movie's case, George ran after Mary in the alternate universe, grabbing her shoulder, even as she was clearly running away from him.

(I'd have to check to see to what extent he actually touched her, as opposed to just chasing after her.)

Is this not offensive, because it wasn't a private area, but rather a shoulder?

Would then just be misdemeanor assault (because there's still physical violence)?

What if he grabbed and shook her shoulder for 15 seconds (as she kept saying no and resisting). Would that then be offensive enough for battery?

Your table leg example though doesn't involve a private area.

So maybe a reasonable person would find the description I gave earlier, from the movie, offensive.

It doesn't have to be sexually inappropriate or to a private area to be offensive, unless it's sexual battery or sexual assault. It just has to be reasonably objectionable - not legal terms, here - like punching someone in the shoulder is not different than punching her in the boobs. But tapping someone on the shoulder to ask him where the train is, is different than punching him on the shoulder because he's blocking your view of the train map.

I just talked about the private area so that the example I was giving would be clearly offensive. You can touch anyone anywhere and it could be deemed offensive.

Interesting thing, but perhaps it complicates things, but in criminal law - assault is just causing apprehension of harm (no touching involved) and battery is the touching. Thus, if you hit someone in the back who didn't see you coming, you would be guilty of battery, not assault. But if he sees you chasing him and you attempt to hit him, and he's not hit, then you could be charged with assault despite not hitting him. Common law assault is different than an assault defined by code, so if your state defines it without reference to the requirement of apprehension (if it defines assault like battery) then ignore what I just said. I'd advise you, if I were your lawyer, not to hit or make anyone think you are going to hurt them.

 

[beardown07]

So, beardown07, are you also a Bulls fan?

not a huge basketball fan anymore.


Have you seen Ferrell's introductions tho for the bulls? Lmao..."and introducing Derrick Rose...his favorite movie is the notebook...

 

[nuraman00]

not a huge basketball fan anymore.


Have you seen Ferrell's introductions tho for the bulls? Lmao..."and introducing Derrick Rose...his favorite movie is the notebook...

Can you post a vid clip? Thanks.

What waned your interested on basketball?

Or is it that the Bears have taken up more of your time, thus not leaving enough energy to follow two sports?

 

[nuraman00]

I'd advise you, if I were your lawyer, not to hit or make anyone think you are going to hurt them.

LOL.

Where do pets factor into this?

If I chase a pet, and the pet is scared and running away, can the pet's owner (assuming it's not me) file an assault charge?

If it was my own pet, and someone reported me, or I did it in front of a cop, could I be charged with assaulting a pet?

These are by the criminal definitions, not common law.

 

[beardown07]

[YOUTUBE]wYylV1-xQLo&mode[/YOUTUBE]

 

[beardown07]

Can you post a vid clip? Thanks.

What waned your interested on basketball?

Or is it that the Bears have taken up more of your time, thus not leaving enough energy to follow two sports?

Still love to play it, and I'll watch college once in awhile...it's weird, cuz there is more "talent" in the NBA then ever before, but it seems a lot of the fundamentals have fallen off? Too much iso-ball

 

[MHSL82]

LOL.

Where do pets factor into this?

If I chase a pet, and the pet is scared and running away, can the pet's owner (assuming it's not me) file an assault charge?

If it was my own pet, and someone reported me, or I did it in front of a cop, could I be charged with assaulting a pet?

These are by the criminal definitions, not common law.

No, but let's say it's a famous, famous dog - maybe the celebrity could sue you based upon his terror of you hurting his cash cow (or cash dog in this instance). Let's say he can prove you want to hurt the celebrity's finances. Maybe on some civil charge, but not assault and battery. Only humans are protected by laws like that. Vick was guilty of killing dogs - killing must be battery - but he wasn't charged with assault or battery. In other words, you could be charged with animal abuse, which has entirely different legal terms and elements.

Forgot to add to the previous post - some jurisdictions, such as New York, refer to what, under the common law, would be battery as assault, and then use another term for the crime that would have been assault, such as menacing.

 

[nuraman00]

Staring Elf now.

 

[nuraman00]

Funny scene when Buddy sings the Christmas-gram.