Re: More bad news

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Wouldn't seem off-topic re:
1. Addressing an issue of real vs. perceived radiation risk for RSO/HP/rad
protection.
2. Lab rad workers(?) who perceive rad risk here? (is this perception by either
the perpetrator or the "victim", who would rightly complain whether she
perceived risk or not, or the perception only by the police? reporter?)
3. Jim Huesgen's report that courts hold that it is "assault" with only a false
"threat of harm" re the water gun. Where does this leave NCRP? etc.?

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
===================

"Huesgen, Jim" wrote:

> As health law provides, for assault to occur only the threat of harm need
> exist.  If actual harm occurs, then battery has also occurred.
> Significantly, the courts have consistently ruled that the person being
> assaulted need only to believe that harm may have occurred to her for the
> assault to occur. Hence, it is possible to charge a person who holds up a
> bank with a water gun to be charged with assault *with a deadly* weapon.  It
> is a legal point, not radiation safety and probably off subject. Melissa?

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html