Tuberville v Savage ([1669] EWHC KB J25) is an English decision about the requirements for both the tort of assault and the common law criminal offence of common assault. The court held that a conditional threatening statement, without an intention to fulfil an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault. -Wikipedia Law Text. There is one issue. The Actus Reus of assault is to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful force being used against them and a threat of immediate harm or future harm may cause the victim fear. Any action or words, reckless or otherwise, may cause fear. See R v. Parmenter. Reckless is sufficient men's rea unless it is a sporting competition where we say there is permission or consent to reasonable, contextual physical contact but not deliberate assaults with intention to cause bodily harm on other parties during competition. See Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980) for more on the exception to assault with consent to participation in sporting competition. For more on the men's rea of recklessness and the chance that your victim has an unusual frailty leading to death after you punch him in the arm as a friend at the pub, see R v. Hayward (1908). Whether or not the owner of the Angel Ronan Photo you see here is black or Amerindian or East Indian, what does your behaviour amount to whether or not you believe there is no law against it to communicate or demonstrate your hegemony as based on your name or your complexion? ARGFULG.

 Tuberville v Savage ([1669] EWHC KB J25) is an English decision about the requirements for both the tort of assault and the common law criminal offence of common assault. The court held that a conditional threatening statement, without an intention to fulfil an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault.       -Wikipedia Law Text.   

There is one issue.  The Actus Reus of assault is to cause the victim to apprehend unlawful force being used against them and a threat  of immediate harm or future harm may cause the victim  fear.  Any action or words, reckless or otherwise, may cause fear. See R v. 

 Parmenter.  Reckless is sufficient men's rea unless it is a sporting competition where we say there is permission or consent to reasonable, contextual  physical contact but not deliberate assaults with intention to cause bodily harm  on other parties during competition. 

See Attorney-General's Reference (No 6 of 1980) for more on the exception to assault with consent to participation in sporting competition.  For more on the men's rea of recklessness and the chance that your victim has an unusual frailty leading to death after you punch him in the arm as a friend at the pub, see   R v.  Hayward (1908).   

Whether or not the owner of the Angel Ronan Photo you see here is black or Amerindian or East Indian, what does your behaviour amount to whether or not you believe there is no law against it to communicate or demonstrate your hegemony as based on your name or your complexion?   

ARGFULG.