Can a football player be prosecuted for tackling a fan? A hypothetical scenario: An athletic event is being played in the U.S. (Let's say it's American football). A fan runs onto the field and disrupts the game. A player performs a rough, aggressive "football tackle" on the fan and holds the fan for security to arrive. Click here for a video of similar circumstances. Although, my question is different than what's shown in the video. My fact pattern includes the player performing a rough / aggressive "football tackle" on the fan. Question Did the player who tackled the fan commit a crime (or tort) of assault or battery against the fan?
I'll use California penal code 837 as an example, though most other states have similar statutes: A private person may arrest another: For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence... 839 says: Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein. Generally, someone making an arrest is allowed to use &quot;reasonable force&quot; to effect the arrest. The question then becomes, is the act of interrupting a football game a public offense? Once a fan at a football game enters the field, assuming it is a violation of the license granted to the fan, they are trespassing. These fans are often drunk when performing their midfield dance so that is another public offense for which they could be arrested. Once arrested, the interloper must be turned over as soon as possible to a magistrate or peace officer. The person making the arrest is always subject to being sued. It is a question for a trier of fact to determine if unreasonable force was used in effecting the arrest. My guess is that in most of these cases security simply ejects the exuberant fan from the premises and the fan never looks back. If a lawsuit were to be filed it would be based on unreasonable force being applied during the arrest. California penal code 240 defines assault as &quot;an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.&quot; Certainly, one could be charged with assault in effecting a citizen's or private arrest but it would go back to the definition of reasonable force and what force was necessary to effect the arrest. If someone resisted arrest I think it more likely that that person could face an assault charge.
This may constitutes harassment, which is against the law in most jurisdictions. But what counts as legal harassment is not obvious. Taking Washington state as an exemplar, RCW 9a.46, the stated intent of the law is to criminalize "repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim", and mailing glitter in order to annoy a person would not match that desideratum. In Washington, the law is limited to threats of physical harm or restraint or the intent to "substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety". There is no legal standard for judging what constitutes substantial harm to mental health. California defines "harassment" in its civil code as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner. More words, but still it is left to the jury to decide whether an act causes severe emotional distress. Emphasis was added in the text to highlight important elements missing from sending glitter to someone for the purpose of annoying. In general, annoying someone is not against the law, but repeatedly and severely annoying someone could be.
Yes Assuming you were assaulted (with or without battery) and you suffered injury (physical or otherwise) during that assault you are entitled to damages. The injury has to flow from the assault but not necessarily from the assaulter. For example, if you fled across the road and were struck by a car you could sue your attacker. Because assault is an intentional tort, it is not necessary for you to prove that actual financial loss was suffered - this is not negligence. The court can assess economic loss, non-economic loss and exemplary (punitive) damages.
I'm confident that there has been no successful breach of contract lawsuit on that basis: that is not the right legal basis. Actions against a shoplifter would either be under tort law or, much more likely, criminal law. Put simply, theft is a crime, encoded in the laws of all nations, and the government will shoulder the burden of punishing a shoplifter. Since the goal of criminal law is to guarantee a well-ordered society (not to restore the victim of the crime), a victim of theft may have to pursue their own legal case against the criminal, if they want to be restored for their loss (let us say that the criminal also ate the evidence).
Not exactly, some actions that fall under &quot;antisocial behaviour&quot; are crimes in of themselves and they can be prosecuted in the normal manner (Of course where someone is prosecuted for those they're prosecuted for the specific crime not &quot;antisocial behaviour&quot;) This doesn't mean however that doing anything that's not explicitly illegal leaves the Police powerless. In the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 there's a pretty broad definition of the term &quot;antisocial behaviour&quot;: (a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, (b)conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises, or (c)conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. A constable can issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) or the Police and select other organisations the option to apply for a civil injunction aimed at preventing the perpetrator(s) from continuing, the injunctions are ordered by Magistrates sitting in a civil capacity and the standard of proof is the civil one - i.e. &quot;balance of probabilities&quot; not &quot;reasonable doubt&quot;. Violating a CPN can lead to a fine of between £100 and £2500 while violating such an injunction is considered Contempt of Court and while that still isn't a criminal offence can still see the guilty party land in jail for up to 2 years.
They could be prosecuted in any state where there was evidence that part of the crime was committed. Realistically, either State A or State B could prosecute for conspiracy to murder as an additional charge, because the conspiracy clearly spanned more than one state, even if they can't prove where the crime was committed, although physical evidence (e.g. traces of camp sites, footprints, testimony about landmarks, evidence of poop with human DNA from the victim in it), would usually make it possible to show that some part of the crime was committed in the state. There is probably also a federal crime that could be implicated such as "murder involving flight across a state line" (hypothetical, but I'm sure that there is something similar on the books). I'm not going to address the further hypothetical as it is too bizzare and law is ultimately very context specific. Find a more plausible fact pattern, perhaps with a different crime, and ask a separate question if you want to really address the issue.
&quot;Checking someone's digital footprint&quot; could be stalking, depending on the circumstances. The better question to ask is about the legality of a certain action, and not the specific name used in a jurisdiction (although indeed in Washington there is a defined crime of &quot;stalking&quot;). I don't know what you mean by &quot;checking someone's digital footprint&quot;, and it is not defined by law. Looking at RCW 9a.46.110, we can first discern that it does not matter for the definition of the crime where these people live or where the robbery took place. If two people from Alberta travel to Alaska and harass or murder a person from Texas, Washington law does not enter into the equation. The crime that you're asking about is the snooping, so for Washington to have jurisdiction, the snooping has to be &quot;in&quot; Washington. That does not mean that both parties have to be in Washington – there can be complex jurisdictional laws if the accused is in another state or country. The accused can easily be prosecuted in his own state, he can also be prosecuted in a foreign country, if he is caught there or if he is extradited to that country. For the act to be stalking, the first element is that &quot;He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and...&quot;. Harassment is defined in that section as a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of his or her child. Since there was no communication between the parties, there is no harassment in the legal sense. There is no &quot;following&quot; either, therefore the act fails to constitute stalking w.r.t the first elements. Since the crime is defined by a conjunction of elements and your scenario fails on the first conjunct, it is not &quot;stalking&quot; (it is also not &quot;harassment&quot; as defined in RCW 9A.46.020, 9A.46.060.
As the answer by Dale M correctly states, it is a statutory cause of action. To classify it further, it would be a strict-liability tort, I believe, as there need be no proof of damages, and there is no duty of care. Instead there is a duty not to engage in the prohibited action. In this respect the statute approaches the criminal. A more familiar but analogous action would be a suit for copyright infringement where statutory damages are sought. The infringer owes no duty of care, and is bound by no contract. But the law imposes a duty not to infringe. The plaintiff need not allege or prove any actual harm, the fact of infringement of a registered work with a valid copyright is all that s/he need prove. The limits on damages are specified directly in the statute, and the court may award any amount that is within those limits, provided the infringement is proved and no active defense is established. The purpose of the award of damages is to deter future violations as much as to compensate the plaintiff.