U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzpost View Post
I'm a smoker and I totally respect non smokers rights. I would NEVER subject someone who doesn't smoke to my infernal habit. I won't smoke with a non-smoker even in my own car and refrain from smoking in restaurants even if it is allowed.

I do think it is rude of smokers that subject others to cigarette smoke. Having said that, I do believe it is my right to decide if I want to smoke or not. But imposing my second hand smoke on a non-smoker is something I will never do.
I appreciate your sensitivity to the health of others. plus one
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady View Post
Not all that long ago, people just exactly like you were saying that they didn't care if smokers smoked outdoors in public, as long as they didn't smoke in public buildings. That's one of the arguments they used, in these and other forums and in the legislature, to get smoking banned in public buildings. I didn't buy it then (nor did a lot of other people), and I've been proven right. Once it was banned in public buildings (and this was predicted, not just by me), the attempt would be to ban it outdoors - it actually started with, "You can't smoke in public buildings" and then "you can't smoke with 15 or 20 feet of the entrance of public buildings" and now it's "you can't smoke outdoors". Next will be you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home (and if your home is a condo or apartment, that is already under attack). Do you really think that people are so naive as to buy the statement above as fact, given the evidence?

Again, it's been made ultimately clear, for anyone with an eye to see, that it's not about public health. It's about control.

So what you're saying is society has realized even more the danger posed by smoking and taken further steps to protect people from the health issues associated with secondhand smoke.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:44 PM
 
10,167 posts, read 17,904,246 times
Reputation: 5781
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
actually, you are half right my friend.
Assault is the apprehension of dangerous or offensive contact.
It is an affirmative defense only if the contact was offensive because surely you were not offended if you consented. But if the contact was harmful, rather than merely offensive then consent is no defense.

soooo (sorry to steal your pun), but close but no cigar

using consent will not work in the smoking example because not only is smoking offensive, it is harmful.
Good lord, HT..my good friend (and I mean that sincerely)...I expect better of you than THAT one!

If you enter a place where you know ahead of time you are going to be "assaulted" (by your definition) why would you go into it to begin with???
By default, you gave the consent to be assaulted...if the definition of assault is that you breath cigarette smoke you knew ahead of time was going to be present.

Yes, if someone intentionally blew it in your face, in a personally provocative way? Of course, that is assault and you have every right to press criminal charges.

But do you honestly not see the difference in the two situations?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Good try...but no cigar (pun intended! ).

If someone goes into a place where they know ahead of time smoking is allowed? Then they take the responsibility for their own bad decisions as concerns their personal health. There is no "assault" involved.

Actually, as a relevant aside here, matter of fact, according to the Texas Penal Code, it is an affirmative defense to being charged with assault if the victim "consented" to the degree of force used aforehand.

That is to say, it is one thing to have somebody blow smoke in your face in a provocative manner; that is considered criminal assault (and should be!). On the other hand? If you go into a place where, you knew ahead of time smoking was allowed? Then you "consented" to it aforehand. You cannot claim you were assaulted simply because you breathed the second hand smoke from another patron simply smoking the cigarette.

Bottom line? Go to a place that doesn't allow smoking. Get away from those nasty smokers (and I agree many are), fer gosh sakes!

That's not entirely true, and is a misreading of the TPC.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
3,391 posts, read 4,494,559 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I appreciate your sensitivity to the health of others. plus one
Nobody should be subject to the harmful crap that I choose to breath now and then. BTW, I aim to QUIT this crap habit very soon! Thanks HL.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Assault is the apprehension of dangerous or offensive contact.
It is an affirmative defense only if the contact was offensive because surely you were not offended if you consented. But if the contact was harmful, rather than merely offensive then consent is no defense.

Not in the criminal sense. That's for tort liability.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Good lord, HT..my good friend (and I mean that sincerely)...I expect better of you than THAT one!

If you enter a place where you know ahead of time you are going to be "assaulted" (by your definition) why would you go into it to begin with???
By default, you gave the consent to be assaulted...if the definition of assault is that you breath cigarette smoke you knew ahead of time was going to be present.

Yes, if someone intentionally blew it in your face, in a personally provocative way? Of course, that is assault and you have every right to press criminal charges.

But do you honestly not see the difference in the two situations?
lol, assault is not something you expect to encounter, that is why people are outraged enough to sue about it, that is why your example didn't make the cut
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
Not in the criminal sense. That's for tort liability.
which part are you in disagreement about?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 29,611,084 times
Reputation: 7667
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzpost View Post
Nobody should be subject to the harmful crap that I choose to breath now and then. BTW, I aim to QUIT this crap habit very soon! Thanks HL.
good luck, my grandad has been trying for 40 years
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Purgatory (A.K.A. Dallas, Texas)
5,010 posts, read 13,823,214 times
Reputation: 2450
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
which part are you in disagreement about?

For criminal liability in Texas, the traditional tort definitions of "assault" and "battery" are rolled into just assault.

And the contact can be harmful and consent still a defense, as long as it wasn't "serious" harm.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top