Btw, Illinois tracks the old common law definitions of assault:
A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery. 720 ILCS 5/12‑1
Aggravated assualt has a long definition depending, among other things, on the victim:
A person commits an aggravated assault, when, in committing an assault, he:
(1) Uses a deadly weapon or any device manufactured
and designed to be substantially similar in appearance to a firearm, other than by discharging a firearm in the direction of another person,. . .
(2) Is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to
conceal his identity or any device manufactured and designed to be substantially similar in appearance to a firearm;
720 ILCS 5/12‑2
Battery is the actual physical contact:
(a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.
720 ILCS 5/12‑3
That's also the way the terms are used in tort (civil law).
New York, by contrast, defines assault as the harmful contact:
A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a
deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; . . . [there is more]
§ 120.05 Assault in the second degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he
causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person . . .
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
NYCS § 120.00 (this is a misdemeanor).
--- On Mon, 4/6/09, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> From: John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Abolition of prisons (Was: Angela...)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 8:11 PM
> Jordan Hayes wrote:
> > John Thornton changes the subject by saying:
> >
> >> If you think there is no distinction who would you
> >> rather face, a person seeking to kill you or a
> person
> >> who wants your wallet and MAY harm you if you
> don't
> >> give it to them?
> >
> > The distinction we were talking about is the one
> that's between robbery that involves physical assault
> and that which doesn't -- not some strawman like the
> difference between robbery and rape.
> >
> > I know it was a few messages ago, but you do remember
> writing this:
> >
> >> Robbery is the #1 violent offense (~30% of total
> violent
> >> crime) in spite of the fact that the majority of
> robberies
> >> involve no physical assault to anyone.
> >
> > ... right? I took that to mean that you think
> "robbery without physical assault" (as though the
> mere threat *isn't* physical?!) shouldn't be a
> "violent" crime.
>
> I'll try to explain this more clearly.
> I object to robbery being included in the category of
> violent crimes with rape, assault, and murder since it is
> not a crime committed with intent the harm others as these
> crimes are.
> Robberies that include assaults should be included in the
> category of violent crimes under assaults.
> Robberies with no physical assault should be categorized as
> robberies and nothing more.
>
> >
> > You later tried to shift gears and say something about
> "desire to harm others" ... but there's plenty
> of "violent crime" that doesn't involve this
> "desire" -- negligent homicide, for instance.
> Surely you aren't hoping we'll call that
> "non-violent" too?
>
> I didn't shift gears, you misunderstood my original
> point.
> A drunk driver who killed someone and was found guilty of
> negligent homicide is not a violent criminal in my opinion.
> If you wish to label this as violent crime you certainly
> can but I don't believe that is a defensible position.
> They are a criminal, just not a violent criminal. The
> reason being their crime had no desire to harm others.
> I don't think it is justifiable to put this type of
> crime in the same category as murder and rape.
> Why is this a violent crime?
> If a doctor kills a patient through negligence and is found
> guilty of negligent homicide is he a violent criminal that
> needs to be incarcerated to protect the public or an
> incompetent doctor that needs to be prevented from
> practicing medicine in order to protect the public?
> For you negligent homicide (drunk driver) equals
> "violent crime" equals murderer (angry man killing
> immigrant students)?
> That thinking seems daft to me.
>
>
> >
> > Go make up some more words if you want. Just
> don't be surprised when you fail the bar.
>
> I have no intention of taking the bar so this isn't
> really a concern for me.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk