Talk:aggravated assault

Tea room discussion
Should we have a list of senses, one for each different definition used in some jurisdiction?—msh210 ℠ 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a separate subpage for statutory definitions? I would find this to be a dubious proposition in the main entry, as there are many words which are defined in statutes for particular purposes. I can think of a half dozen federal statutes offhand that have distinct definitions of "employee", whether it be for tax purposes, labor relations, ownership of intellectual property generated in the line of work, etc. Doubtless state statutes are legion on this point. bd2412 T 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Black's doesn't give an exhaustive list or table of definitions, but has one main definition and a select few definitions from statute or case. An appendix would seem the right place for anything that was trying to be more comprehensive or particular. It would provide a good basis for the main definition or definitions if there were clear classes of definitions. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are the legal definitions so diverse that different senses are required? Doesn't it mean “assault with wounding or endangerment of life” everywhere? “Varying in definition by jurisdiction” is redundant, because it applies to every single legal term in the world.


 * If the everyday meaning substantially differs regionally, then yes we should provide different senses.


 * But isn't legal dictionary out of scope for Wiktionary? I don't think we should be duplicating or summarizing statute, or writing encyclopedic articles about it. —Michael Z. 2008-09-25 00:29 z 


 * "Law" is one of the contexts that we support, like "computing" or "finance" or "physics". Existing definition seems SoP, though we do not have the right sense of aggravated (but see aggravation). It is incomplete, however, omitting situations where the assault is committed in the course of another crime or is especially heinous. A more complete definition would seem not so SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the thing to do would be to use the definition in the Model Penal Code, which is the collective work of a group of top experts in criminal law and is fairly widely adopted. The MPC states as follows:
 * (2) Aggravated Assault. A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he:
 * (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or
 * (b) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.
 * That would be the best "legal" definition to use, in my opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I've changed it to that and added a usage note. Comments/reversion welcome.—msh210 ℠ 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's left out the serious injury clause. If that is added, then it ought to apply in Canada, too. —Michael Z. 2008-09-25 17:34 z