Burt Reynolds Slaps Reporter (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Then I'd be making fun of Reynolds too. One should just pity the "Sean Penn"s of the world

 

[todd stone]

if anything the journalist should be ashamed of being such a wuss taking a slap like that.

 

[CraigL]

Please...punching back would only get him in trouble. Suing gets him money and fame.

I hope he does it. Burt is an ass.

 

[Bill Griffith]

While Burt was out of line touching the guy, whether joking or not, The reporter sounds to be completely disrespectful, in both appearance and preparedness.

I mean some people may like Burt some may not but no matter what, he's put his time in and deserves a certain amount of respect.

I imagine Burt felt like he was being disrespected and knew, in this day and age, punishment does not seem to be dealt out as it should, and him being a stubborn old fart decided to act. Bad judgement, but Burt has never been known for his judgement.

I'm happy to see old people act like this when faced with outright disrespect, good for him I say. Respect your Elders boy!!!

 

[Aaron Silverman]

That wasn't just assault; that was battery!

Assault = taking a swing

Battery = connecting

The reporter was being paid to act like a twit -- Burt was on his own recognizance (and what an ego -- "don't you dare interview me in a wrinkled shirt!).

 

[Mark Maltais]

We don't have "battery" here in Canada

We have assault (level 1), assault cause bodily harm (level 2) and aggravated assault (level 3)

Level 1 would be a slap (no injury)
Level 2 would be a black eye or other "transient" injury
Level 3 would be a stab or broken limb (something "less" transient)

 

[Damin J Toell]

Yes, you do. See, for example, this site on Canadian common law:

"Assault is the threat of force, and battery is actually using the force."

See also: this Canadian law dictionary's entry for "battery".

Derived from British law, Canadian law recognizes the tort of battery, one of the classic intentional torts.

DJ

 

[Jeff B.]

Heh, I can't believe so many people are defending Burt Reynolds. After watching that video I'll never think of him as anything except an asshole. Why should he be able to do something like that because he is a movie star? Show some friggin class. Whether or not the guy was dressed poorly and asked a stupid question doesn't mean he should be degraded like that. I would love Burt Reynolds to try to slap me in the face.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The same should be said about the reporter.

 

[Jeff B.]

You are right.

 

[Mike Brogan]

Of course the reporter/producer shouldn't sue but Burt should apologize for being a jerk. Why would anyone take fashion advice from a cranky geeze in a bad toupee and a dye job mustache?

As for the question he asked; sure it was a fluff question for people who watch fluff entertainment segments on their local news. What did he want the guy to ask on the middle of a busy red carpet for an Adam Sandler movie?:
"Excuse me Mr. Reynolds; taking into account the current socio-political atmosphere with that of the 70's, do you think any parallels can be drawn with the original film's themes of 'brute strength overcoming authority' with that of the remakes, vis-a-vis; the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq?"

 

[ThomasC]

Not bad. Maybe you should take his job. Adding a political slant might have garnered a more interesting response and generated more publicity.

 

[Bill Griffith]

Burt would have slapped him for asking a question he didn't understand.

 

[Berk]

He is, after all, The Bandit!

 

[Mark Maltais]

I stand corrected

BUT...

I've charged hundreds of people with various assaults and in a CRIMINAL charge we don't have battery. Now in a CIVIL law suit, yes it could be worded as battery for a civil tort litigation but as far as a criminal charges we fall on the three levels of assault.

Even in a civil tort I've rarely heard of it as "battery", it's just an old common law and is no longer widely used, even though it's still on the books. When it is used it falls under "Common Assault" which is assault level 1.

But your right, it is still there. I just never deal with the tort portion of laws...you must be a lawyer!

Doesn't matter anyways, Burt didn't slap the guy here and if he did well lawsuits aren't the same here as they are the States. Some lady would never get a million bucks for spilling a hot cup of coffee on her lap here! One of the things you'll hear in Canada when it's compared to the states is "O.J. never would have gotten off in Canada...but he would have served 6 months!"

Here is Canadian government site for the Criminal Code of Canada http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/ and here is the actual wording for various assaults, in case your interested in that sort of thing.

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or

(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.

Application
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.

Consent
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of

(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;

(c) fraud; or

(d) the exercise of authority.

Accused's belief as to consent
(4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 244; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 21; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 245; 1972, c. 13, s. 21; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 22; 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 19.

Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
267. Every one who, in committing an assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or

(b) causes bodily harm to the complainant,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

What fun reading