If you want to get semantic... from the Britannica
violence, an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by violence may be physical, psychological, or both. Violence may be distinguished from aggression, a more general type of hostile behaviour that may be physical, verbal, or passive in nature.
It's damage to belongings, and psychological.
Secondly, that’s about Arizona law and this happened in New York City.
Are you trying to claim that throwing liquids at somebody you dislike is legal in NY?
I don't even understand what point you're trying to get at. Are you claiming it's fine to just toss random liquids at others? My point is they both broke the law, they both should be impartially judged for it. How and why is that even controversial?
Are you trying to claim that throwing liquids at somebody you dislike is legal in NY?
Considering, as you pointed out, the woman wasn't charged, it sounds like it very well might be.
Ok, now you're the one making extraordinary claims. It's fairly obvious to anybody who stops to think about it that throwing liquids at others is not legal. That she's not getting charged is a case of partiality on the side of the AG, and is why I'm bringing it up as an injustice. I don't care if she's on my side, assault / violence should be a no-no.
I'm afraid you're the one who is making the claims. As I said, it might be legal. You're the one insisting it isn't. I'm not a lawyer. You seem to be one. Are you? In New York City? Otherwise maybe there's a legal reason she wasn't charged that neither you or I are aware of.
If you want to get semantic... from the Britannica
It's damage to belongings, and psychological.
Are you trying to claim that throwing liquids at somebody you dislike is legal in NY?
I don't even understand what point you're trying to get at. Are you claiming it's fine to just toss random liquids at others? My point is they both broke the law, they both should be impartially judged for it. How and why is that even controversial?
Considering, as you pointed out, the woman wasn't charged, it sounds like it very well might be.
Ok, now you're the one making extraordinary claims. It's fairly obvious to anybody who stops to think about it that throwing liquids at others is not legal. That she's not getting charged is a case of partiality on the side of the AG, and is why I'm bringing it up as an injustice. I don't care if she's on my side, assault / violence should be a no-no.
I'm afraid you're the one who is making the claims. As I said, it might be legal. You're the one insisting it isn't. I'm not a lawyer. You seem to be one. Are you? In New York City? Otherwise maybe there's a legal reason she wasn't charged that neither you or I are aware of.