Assault causeing bodily harm = counter suit?

Question

I come upto someone, demanding money that is owen (because he took an item from my store then used it then sold it), I pushed him a bit he looked away so i lightly slap him to get his attention, he laughed at me, stepped off then, then he punched me in the mouth causeing me to loose my front tooth (root canal) and braces and what not to the sum of a couple thousand dollars. What would be the charges (both parties)

Answer 1

Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, assault is used to refer to the actual violence, while in other jurisdictions (e.g. some in the United States, England and Wales), assault refers only to the threat of violence, while the actual violence is battery. Simple assaults do not involve deadly weapons; aggravated assaults often do.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. When assault is defined like this, exceptions are provided to cover such things as normal social behavior (for example, patting someone on the back).

English law makes distinctions based on the degree of injury, between:

common assault (which can be even the most minor assault)
assault with actual bodily harm (ABH)
assault with grievous bodily harm (GBH)

You are both guilty of assault.

Assault doesn't have to be a full blown punch. Many states define assault as, among other things, "offensive touching." A push and a slap, however light and harmless, would meet the definition of assault in any state I know of.

The other guy is also guilty of assault, based on what you have told us. Self defence is not going to be a valid argument against the charges.
It goes like this...
If I am walking down the street and some dude walks up and punches me in the nose for no reason, then steps back and doesn't make any attempt, and doesn't behave as though he is going to, hit me again, and I get PO'd about it, hitting him back, then I am no longer acting in defence, but out of anger or retribution. Neither of these is an acceptable reason to strike someone in the eyes of the law. Had my reaction time been fast enough, I could have hit him as soon as he wound up to hit me, while he was hitting me, or before he had a chance to back away after hitting me. However once the aggression from him stops, the law expects me to stop.

A judge is likely to consider aggravating circumstances as to what led up to the altercation, and who was the instigator, and a judge certainly would understand why one would get angry enough to hit someone who attacked them, but stopped doing so, but that doesn't relieve them of the charges. It just might get them a harsher or more lenient punishment.

Answer 2

Sorry to have to say it, but I think you are in trouble on this one.

If he took something from you, you should have handled that legally, either by contacting the police or filing a lawsuit against him in small claims court. If you had done so, the law would, most likely, have been on your side.

However, the way it happened, you were the first one to touch him. It doesn't matter how little or how much force was used. You pushed him, and then you slapped him, and that's assault. He has a very good case that he was simply defending himself, and the law will probably pretty much be on his side.

I imagine that the charge or you will be assault, and if there is a charge for him, it will be theft. I seriously doubt that there will be charges brought against him for assault as he was responding to you. Also, unfortunately, in legal matters, assault is usually a lot bigger deal than theft, because the human body is always valued more highly than any material goods.

I really suggest you get a lawyer, because I have a feeling you will probably be needing one.

Answer 3

"I pushed him a bit.......he looked away.....so I lightly slap him"
That tells the judge that you assaulted him......he attempted to avoid a conflict .......and you assaulted him again. The term "lightly" does nothing for your defence because it's a word that's subject to interpretation.
You're looking at defending on an assault claim.....he's looking at self-defence.

What ever he took from your store is a non-issue. It doesn't justify your pushing or slapping him unless he was stealing it at the time and your action was considered reasonable force required to stop the theft. Your question seems to suggest that the theft happened some time ago.

Good luck in court but you just might be sending good money after bad.

Answer 4

No that will just drag this whole ordeal out. A coworker of Andrea McNulty has come out and said that Andrea bragged about having consensual relations with Big Ben, so from what it sounds, he should not have to deal with this BS much longer.

Answer 5

well since you used physical violence first you've got trouble. all he has to say is that he was defending himself from you, and he's off the hook. You shouldn't of gotten physical with him. It's just as much your fault. If he stole something from you you should of handled it in a legal way, i.e. lawsuit or police.

Answer 6

two wrongs dont make it right, you hit him ==assault he hit you defending himself from further attack, he used the minimum amount of force needed to stop you attacking him,
can you prove theft, if not you could and should face assault charges.

Answer 7

Assault for both.

Had you kept your hands to yourself, you'd gotten his attention in civil matters court anyway.

Answer 8

You assaulted him and he robustly defended himself. You go down and he goes free.

Answer 9

1st tell me: y did u take law into ur hands??