The box office has been down for 17 weeks straight, not even Star Wars could lift it, the likes of Tom Cruise and his tard-like behavior won't help it. :laugh: I bet it'll get something like Batman and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, not much more. It's going to have lots of competition with Batman, Bewitched, Herbie, and Land of the Dead, imo. Their last movie together didn't so hot for a Cruise/Spielberg flick.

That says it all doesn't it? She's really an atrocious little actress. I CANNOT believe she was cast next to Christian Bale. That? Makes me want to vomit. He is such a fabulous actor, he deserves an equally strong actress at his side, not Joey from Dawson's friggin' Crick :laugh:.

Oh yeah, and what were those water-mic pranksters charged with? Assault? So, if I was walking down the street and someone came up to me and sprayed water in my face I could press charges against them? Gimme a break :rolleyes:

But it's not at all unusual for an actress not to return in batman flicks - none of the previous women did :shrug:

I'm surprised Cruise's people haven't tracked Dissy down and sued him for accusing Tommy Boy of being a fag.

Yep - I bet you'd just laugh it off and been genteel about the whole thing :laugh: :rolleyes:

Bring it on. Like I said, Cruise makes Nathan Lane look butch.

Truth is always an absolute defense :cool:

Yeah, but honestly, how would they be able to find an actress as strong as he is and an actress who the young boys want to oogle and get erections over? There aren't that many out there. All the good ones are at least in their late-thirties. I wouldn't be opposed to Sienna Miller, though...

No. And Nicole seems way too cool to have done that. :confused:

Are you serious? How is that assault?

It is acutally battery in most states :shrug:

But, here is the general legal def. of assault and battery:

If the victim has been actually touched by the person committing the crime, then battery has occurred. If the victim has not actually been touched, but only threatened, then the crime is considered to be assault.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/v...lt_battery.htm

and

Introduction
In the context of criminal law, "assault and battery" are typically components of a single offense. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. The wrongful touching need not inflict physical injury, and may be indirect (such as contact through a thrown stone, or spitting). This article describes the law of assault and battery as it is commonly applied, although the law may vary in any specific jurisdiction.

Assault

An assault invoves:

An intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force;
Under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril;
Where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented.
Note that an assault can be completed even if there is no actual contact with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant had no actual ability to carry out the apparent threat. For example, a defendant who points a realistic toy gun at the plaintiff may be liable for assault, even though the defendant was fifty feet away from the plaintiff and had no actual ability to inflict harm from that distance.

Battery

A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or substance put in motion by that other person. Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury, and could not reasonably be expected to cause injury. A defendant who emphatically pokes the plaintiff in the chest with his index finger to emphasize a point may be culpable for battery (although the damages award that results may well be nominal). A defendant who spits on a plaintiff, even though there is little chance that the spitting will cause any injury other than to the plaintiff's dignity, has committed a battery.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...t_battery.html

An assault is a physical or verbal violation of someone. I'd say it qualifies, especially as it was unprovoked..

Wow. A little spray of water can lead to assault charges. I'll remember that the next time I engage in water balloon fights :laugh:.

Great. Well, I don't think the punishment fits the crime in this case. But I guess those guys were released of all charges eh?

They need to be made an example of to make sure it doesn't happen again with more serious consequences..

Well, the concept of priviledge in general prevents amny things from being assault and battery:


Privilege

In order to be liable for an assault or battery, the defendant must lack privilege to assault or batter the plaintiff. The following are examples of "privilege":

Consent

Where a defendant has the plaintiff's consent to commit an act of assault or battery, the plaintiff may not later bring a lawsuit. The most typical context for consent occurs in sports. The intentional foul in basketball, or the tackle in football, are an anticipated part of the game. While it may be possible for certain conduct to be so far outside the realm of what is reasonable to nonetheless give rise to a tort - for example, chopping an opposing player off at the knees in a football game, an action which is known to have a very high probability of causing serious and even crippling injury - rule violations which are part of standard play are unlikely to support a legal action. Consent also exists in the context of authorized medical or surgical procedures.

Police Conduct

A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest. A defendant who suffers injury as the result of reasonable force exerted by the police to effect a lawful arrest will not be able to sustain a lawsuit against the arresting officers for assault or battery.

Self-Defense

A person who is assaulted may use such reasonable force as may be necessary, or which at the time reasonably appears to be necessary, to protect himself or herself from bodily harm. An act of self-defense must ordinarily be proportionate to the threat. That is, if you believe a person is going to spit on you, depending upon the context it may be reasonable to push the person away, but it would not be reasonable to hit the person with a baseball bat.

A plaintiff may be expected to withdraw from the threat, if possible, before engaging in forcible resistance. However, if the plaintiff is in his own home and the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff's household, a plaintiff will typically not be required to further withdraw from the threat once the plaintiff has retreated to his own home.

Defense of Others

Defense of others is similar to self-defense, and usually occurs in the context of one family member protecting another. Some jurisdictions permit a defendant to assert defense of others, even where the defendant is mistaken as to the existence of a threat, as long as the mistake is reasonable. Other jurisdictions do not permit this defense unless there was an actual threat or battery against the other person.

Voluntary (Mutual) Combat

Where the plaintiff voluntarily engages in a fight with defendant for the sake of fighting and not as a means of self-defense, the plaintiff may not recover for an assault or battery unless the defendant beat the plaintiff excessively or used unreasonable force. If two people voluntarily enter a brawl, it is unlikely that either will be able to sue the other. However, if one falls, and the other takes advantage of the situation by kicking him and causing injury, that act may well be considered to be an excessive use of force which would support a cause of action.

Defense of Property

Many jurisdictions allow the use of some amount of threat or force by a person who is seeking to protect his own property from theft or damage. In most jurisdictions, there is no privilege to use force that may cause death or serious injury against trespassers unless the trespass itself threatens death or serious injury. Please note that there are some jurisdictions with extraordinarily broad laws, permitting the use of significant and even deadly force to prevent the theft of property. (Leaving aside the moral issues of using physical force to defend property, be sure that you know your local laws before applying force in such a situation.)

Discipline

Some people are legally authorized to apply physical restraint or battery in order to discipline others. For example, in most jurisdictions, parents are legally authorized to apply reasonable physical discipline upon their children. In some jurisdictions, school teachers are permitted to apply a certain level of physical restraint or discipline against students. The staff of a mental health facility may have legal authority to apply reasonable restraint to prevent a patient from causing harm to himself, to others, or to property.

Merchant's Privilege

Most jurisdictions grant merchants the right to apply reasonable force to detain shoplifters, or other persons who the merchant reasonably believes are attempting to steal the merchant's property.

Provocation

Words alone, no matter how insulting or provocative, do not justify an assault or battery against the person who utters the words.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...t_battery.html
__________________________________________________

For all interested in more - that'll be $500 per hour :laugh: :rolleyes: :laugh:

If Tom had any balls to speak of, he would have done what Sharon Osbourne did and chucked a bucket of water at the ass instead of having him arrested.

I do love Sharon & her balls of brass. :nod:

That would make him guilty of assault and battery as well :laugh: - not to mention costing him $$$$ in the civil trial and making him look bad. I thnk a woman has a far better chance of getting away with that type of response than a man.

:nod: Thank you :xoxo:.

Maybe he should carry a bucket of water around with him for such a purpose - though I am sure there was one right by him in this instance :rolleyes: :laugh:

I have only two words for you dahling: Zsa Zsa.

Well, she hit a cop :laugh: And - I know many who though she was justified. If a guy had done that, they would have pinned him to the ground and kicked him for good measure :eek: :laugh:

I get that what they did was revolting, but he was a big baby about it. He simply could have chuckled for a brief moment, told them he had to move on, and left it at that. Or he could have simply said that it was rude and left. But no, he decided to create more bad press for himself. Spielberg must be pulling his hair out by now from being so worried about how Toothy is going to affect his movie.

Or how about Diana Ross? :laugh: I am pulling out all the crazy broads today! :] :]

Yes you are :laugh: La Ross - bless her heart.

Yeah, damage control is a bitch ain't it? :laugh:

I just do not see how this is bad press. I mean they attacked him in an effort to exploit him as he was graciously going to the fans to greet them :shrug: If anything, they alone look bad.

She belongs in a straightjacket.

Oh no doubt about it. But I do think that everyone is making much more out of this than need be. It was water for chrissakes not napalm.

He laughed briefly then went ape****.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ople_cruise_19

Cruise appeared to laugh but then asked the prankster: "Why would you do that?"

As the man gave a barely audible excuse, Cruise said: "Do you like thinking less of people, is that it?" The prankster tried to walk away but Cruise reached across the metal barrier, held his arm and said: "Don't run away. That's incredibly rude. I'm here giving you an interview and you do that ... it's incredibly rude."

The actor grew increasingly irritated and told the man: "You're a jerk."

Police detained the man who squirted Cruise and also arrested three other men who filmed the incident. The four were working on a new comedy show for British TV station Channel 4 in which celebrities are the targets of practical jokes.

I have no clue if he sought out the police or not, so there's no point in assuming anything.

"Attacking." :laugh:

That's exactly the kind of word that creates the bad press by making people think the whole mess is ridiculous. A lot of people look at this and think he overreacted. Couple that with his TomKat bull**** and it's just another thing to chalk up on the long list of his increasingly tard-like actions.

In your eyes, sure. They had a poll on one of those tittytainment shows this morning (The Insider or some such ****) and 69% said that they thought he was essentially an ass over the whole thing.

I know - I deleted that post :cool:



Well, we know now that it was water. But, what would be rushing through your mind if some crazed person sprayed your face, which is you livelihood, with some liquid while you were in a crowd. I would freak out a lot, esp. in this day and age.

I think you just hate Tom Cruise and refuse to cut him any slack :laugh:

I love how Spielberg is defending Toothy's Oprah appearance!

"What Tom did on `Oprah' was exactly what Tom did with me when he first told me about Katie Holmes. But the press didn't like the way Tom bared his soul to Oprah."

:laugh:

and those polls are soooooo valid :laugh: :rolleyes:

No, I already said their behavior was revolting. But that doesn't mean I don't think he overreacted.

So, the same applies to nicole Kidmann and her little outburst :shrug: :wavey:

and - throwing a pale of water at the guy would be better than telling him off :rolleyes:

Someone's bias is showing :laugh:

No, but they certainly give you an idea of what people think about the whole thing. They had no right whatsoever to spray his face, so what gave Toothy the right to physically put his hands on one of them?

I guess it would depend on what kind of "actor" I was...ba-dump, *cymbal crash*.