Dr. Mark Smith

Issue: Was Hale's pouring beer on Reese harmful, offensive, or without legal consent or legal privilege?

Hale's actions were obviously harmful and offensive. The question lies in whether she had legal consent and/or privilege. That is, whether she felt threatened and in immediate need of defending herself.

In Arsenault, the court ruled that "Everyone has the right to protect themselves from immediate threats of harm. . . " The key word here is immediate. Because Hale did not pour beer on Reese until after she returned from the restroom, one must differentiate between self-defense and mere revenge. To answer this, one must consider the context of the incident for a conclusive ruling, and I look to Walker for this. In this case, the court ruled that "A person is entitled to protect themselves against both real and imagined threats." In Walker, the court determined that the two parties had created an intimidating atmosphere in a machine shop, and this atmosphere contributed to the assault." By the same token, one can envision that the atmosphere in a drinking establishment is given to sexual tension. Within this context, Brenda Hale felt threatened. Therefore, it is understandable that her reaction to a perceived threat might be both delayed and excessive.

Issue: Was the time lapse between the touching and the pouring of such length that Ms. Hale's actions could be construed as unwarranted?

As indicated in the above discussion, the context of the alleged battery affects the circumstances. Had the touching occurred in a classroom, office, or other such place, one might construe Ms. Hale's actions as unwarranted. However, as iterated in Walker, one must consider the context of an action, and, in this case, Ms. Hale was likely reacting to a perceived threat, even if that action was delayed by some minutes.

Issue: Was Reese's touching Hale harmful, offensive, or without legal consent or legal privilege?

As in the above discussion, Reese's action was doubtless intentional and, likely, offensive. However, one might contest the generally held definitions of "offensive" or " without legal privilege." Just as Ms. Hale's actions could be justified by the situation's context, Reese's actions are somewhat defensible.

In Walker, the court determined that "one must always consider the context of the alleged battery." First of all, a bar is often a place where people of both sexes come to socialize. Moreover, we know that both parties were with friends and were drinking alcohol. In this case, one can anticipate the possibility of such actions. Finally, although Mitch Reese's actions were crude and somewhat intrusive, they are not, by definition, without legal privilege. He patted Hale on the leg and, as far as we can determine, did not make any suggestive or offensive comments. Although the bar's context may have made Hale feel threatened by his actions, and her response could be seen as appropriate, the mere act of patting a leg does not constitute battery.