'Psylocke' posted by Little green man - 10/08/2013, 16:28:02
Re: reasonable force. As with any kind of force it would dneepd on the circumstances. To take an extreme example: someone is about to shoplift food to feed their hungry child, and the telepathic store owner wipes their memory to the point that they don't even remember they have a kid. Yeah, that would probably prevent the crime, but it couldn't possibly be reasonable.Another example: suppose a hot-headed person is insulted in a bar, whips out a knife and starts to attack the insulter. Erasing their memory of the last couple of minutes, thus undoing the insult, would probably be reasonable in order to prevent a violent or even deadly attack.Re: assault. I think it would qualify under most statutes, partly because the damage is, in fact, physical: at some level the victim's neurons must be rewired or otherwise physically affected. So take Missouri's 3rd degree assault statute: A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person recklessly causes physical injury to another person. Mo. Rev. Stat. 565.070. (NB: Intentionally causing physical injury would satisfy the recklessness requirement.) The statute (that part of it, anyway) does not require a physical touch, just a physical injury. And it's good to have a broad law like that because there are real-world ways to hurt someone without touching them (e.g. lasers, radiation exposure, cutting brake lines). If the amnesia were serious enough to qualify as serious physical injury, then higher degrees of assault would be available.Some assault statutes might be written to require a physical touch, but I think most states have broad enough laws to encompass the injury caused by inducing amnesia.