Recognizing this horse can't really get any deader, let me see if I can explain in simple English what seems to be eluding everyone.
MS is trying to draw a distinction between plain English & legalese. The "use it in a sentence" approach is a pretty lame way to illustrate the point. To perhaps oversimplify what I believe he's trying to say, in plain English, violence requires ACTUAL unwanted physical contact intended to cause harm. If I make no physical contact with you or do not contact you with a weapon, by this definition, I have not committed a violent act. Legalese includes the THREAT OF (potential) violence. In plain English, there is most certainly a difference between
actual and
potential. They are NOT the same. This distinction is blurred as far as the law is concerned -
potential IS the same as
actual regarding the
legal definition of violence. This is what I believe he was trying to convey when he said:
threats of violence equate to actual violence. It's a trick that lawyers who write these codes use all the time.
So in plain English,
actual and
potential are not the same. In legalese, they are the same, at least as far as violence is defined. The law defines armed robbery as a violent act. If I point a gun at you but don't pull the trigger or otherwise physically contact or harm you, I have not been violent per the plain English definition, but I have been by the legal definition. Regarding statutory rape, minors are considered legally incapable of consenting to sex. But we all know that teenagers know what they want and what they don't want. If an underage girl wants to have sex with an adult and goes through with it, the sexual contact that ensues is not unwanted and is not violent by the plain English definition. But since she is legally incapable of consent and rape is considered violent, statutory rape is legally defined as a violent act. (Not defending sex with minors, just focusing on the semantics.)
MS suggests using the OED definitions of violence to illustrate his point. While
intimidation is not included as part of the plain English definition, it is included in the legal definition. The primary definition of violence in the
OED is "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." The "Law" definition in the OED is "The unlawful exercise of physical force
or intimidation by the exhibition of such force."
Hope this helps. To kill this thread.
