[Closed] Bitten by dog

I’ve been dogged by a bittern.

[img] [/img]

Oh, well done sir! A small, but perfect work of genius.

My dog is well trained, under control at all times

This is colossal arrogance. It's an animal with its own mind, you are never fully in control of it.

Ooh look, he gets it.

Statement retracted.

Also, what’s with giving Tj a hard time? Beginning to go too far.

This piss takings funny as is the denials from some and their lack of comprehension ( for different reasons.

.  Ta Kilo for getting it

It’s the cats that are the real danger,

It is the humans that are the real danger.  Animals are great and would just get on with it.

It is the humans that are the real danger.  Animals are great and would just get on with it.

This is true. Cats are still dicks though. I love a dog bite thread. It’s pretty much the same as a religion thread.

I don’t think, in fairness to Angeldust, that he thinks that loose mad dogs are a good thing, I think he’s trying to talk about a theoretical situation where there already is a random mad dog, and is offering pragmatic ways of dealing with this. I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that dogs aren’t the owners responsibility, it’s just recognised that in the real world, some owners are dicks, and it’s a good idea to have tactics in place.

These threads are always bizarre; it always comes down to ‘this is how you deal with this’ vs ‘I shouldn’t have to deal with this!’. Neither are wrong, nor mutually exclusive, yet neither seem to be able to reconcile their position with the others.

Especially TJ.

This

Oh good lord. NO ONE is suggesting that mad dogs should be allowed to roam. But to take your analogy and run with it;

Drunk drivers should NOT be allowed on the roads. However, the DO exist and if you come across one, do you a) modify your behaviour if possible by putting as much space between them and you, or b) walk/drive/ride exactly the same way as normal, chuntering “bloody drunk drivers, shouldn’t be allowed on the roads” as you get smeared along the armco by the pisshead.

Sometimes it’s pragmatic to modify your behaviour, even if you shouldn’t have to.

And this

This is colossal arrogance. It’s an animal with its own mind, you are never fully in control of it.

lol I think you might be scraping around a bit now.  So the situation above, which to be fair has taken a slightly weird turn (check above if you like, I can only assume you have missed it), is me and my dog, which takes out some of the 'mad dog' unknowns: Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along.  Not barking.  This scared someone.  From 50 yards away.  TJ is telling us that this is illegal.  What do you think it's going to do, spontaneously combust, damaging a 60 yard radius?  This is going a bit Monty Python.

So, I guess you could argue that there is a really small chance that I might drop down dead during this walk, and thus let go of the lead (unlikely, but could happen).  Then simultaneously, my dog, despite 12 years of never showing any aggression, might spontaneously go feral and attack someone (again, pretty unlikely, but you never know).  If you think this is a risk, then the only option is to ban all dogs completely.  I'm guessing some people would quite like that....but it isn't going to happen is it.  We should probably ban all cars too, because sometime people drive those irresponsibly, or even drunk.....

Having read the whole thread (very entertaining) I'm not really going to contribute much (not a dog owner) but...

Don’t be ridiculous.  That is an idiotic, pedantic, misrepresentation of the law in all but the most extreme situations.

Yes, its pedantic and maybe a bit 'woolly' however it is NOT a misrepresentation of the Law. That is the wording of the legal Act. The sanction for being in breach of this would be in proportion for the breach, but that doesn't change the fact that TJ is correct in his application (not interpretation) of the Law. While a dog on a lead at a distance might be difficult to prove 'reasonable apprehension' but if somebody could say "that dog barking is making me anxious and I believe I could be injured/attacked" then that is a breach of the act, and therefore unlawful.

To give it a good comparison (sorry Cougar, don't think self defense on its own is completely comparable) think of it as Bullying and Harassment (most workplaces would have a policy on this). The INTENTION of the person 'bullying' does not matter, if the 'victim' feels bullied, they ARE bullied.

If a person feels apprehension that a dog may harm them, then the owner (or guardian at the time) of that dog is in breach of the Law. not once has TJ said that a dog in this situation would be put down/any sanction levied, other than maybe a quiet word, on the owner.

If we want to get technical, that's a fair comment, but pedantic as you say.  Idiotic, pedantic, but technically not a misrepresentation (IANAL, but I'm willing to accept your advice on the jargon).  I agree it is the interpretation that is ridiculous. You also need to consider it within the specific scenario TJ says is illegal:

Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along.  Not barking.  This scared someone.  From 50 yards away.  TJ is telling us that this is illegal.

I'm not sure what is to gained from considering this from anything other than a real world perspective, other than to satisfy TJ blind bitter fury?

Angeldust, you have repeated alleged that TJ is driven by 'blind bitter fury' and 'anger', but there doesn't appear to be any evidence for that allegation (and yes, I've read the whole thread). I really think it would be helpful if you stopped doing it.

not once has TJ said that a dog in this situation would be put down/any sanction levied

Pretty sure he did on page one but cant be bothered to look

Edit ok p2 said this

a dog dangerously out of control ( which legally means scaring someone) can be put down

Have tried to not get involved because I've stated my case many times before on other threads. However, one comment I'll make wrt

While a dog on a lead at a distance might be difficult to prove ‘reasonable apprehension’ but if somebody could say “that dog barking is making me anxious and I believe I could be injured/attacked” then that is a breach of the act, and therefore unlawful.

Reasonable apprehension. If someone has a (genuine) phobia of dogs I can see that they could be scared by a dog's presence whether on a lead or not, behind a fence or not etc. but surely the definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something - which kind of precludes it being a reasonable apprehension.

Not saying it wouldn't still be an alarming experience - I have a good friend with a different phobia and while she knows it is 'ridiculous' it doesn't stop it happening - and of course I'm always on the side that responsible dog owners should have proper control at all times and be sensitive to others including phobics. But to claim someone's breaking the law because of an irrational fear is stretching it, surely?

Reasonable apprehension. If someone has a (genuine) phobia of dogs I can see that they could be scared by a dog’s presence whether on a lead or not, behind a fence or not etc. but surely the definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something – which kind of precludes it being a reasonable apprehension.

Exactly.

While I agree this seems a bit 'too over the top' in this scenario, as TJ says, this could be a breach of the Act. It is WHOLLY dependent on the person who is scared. Whether this would be understood and excepted, say for example by a jury of peers or a police officer, is a different question.

Also, 'real world perspective' as in what the Law ACTUALLY says then?

You do seem to have gone slightly off-piste from the OP though.

confronted with a rather angry collie… I stop and try to skirt round said dog, but he then goes for me and bites my leg…

This is a breach of the Act.

Yes, of course it’s the owners fault the dog is there (assuming it has an owner) but that doesn’t help the person trying to avoid being bitten in that instant does it!

Everything post far has hinged on the fact that dog owners should be responsible, if the owner was not present that is irresponsible. This should be fixed.

I’m guessing you are not too familiar with dogs judging by your description of trying to avoid it, and how much it shook you up (inc passing out).

Firstly, this is patronising, and quite frankly insensitive. Does that mean if you get bitten by (pick another animal not a dog...) a shark you wouldn't be shook up?

Dogs are usually friendly if you know how to approach them (yes, I know you shouldn’t have to know, but this is real life)

This is not completely accurate, Dogs are like people and can 'just' take an instant dislike to a person/anybody at this particular time. however for the OP he didn't approach the dog, it approached him.

Of course, if the dog was genuinely mad, there was probably no avoiding it.

Then this dog should not be off the lead or out of control of its owner.

edit: removed formatting

Edit ok p2 said this

a dog dangerously out of control ( which legally means scaring someone) can be put down

Not would, could. Also that would be the maximum sanction, for at a guess, attacking and seriously injuring.

Speeding can result in an instant driving ban. That's not a sanction used for every speeding violation.

But to claim someone’s breaking the law because of an irrational fear is stretching it, surely?

To be honest, I agree. BUT the wording of the Act does not preclude this. That being said, if a person has a phobia to that magnitude and becomes scared of the barking I would imagine they would leave the area or at the very least move away. While technically the owner has breached the Act, if nothing else happens I would imagine that everyone would carry on with their day.

edit: removed formatting

if a person has a phobia to that magnitude and becomes scared of the barking I would imagine they would leave the area or at the very least move away.

I agree, and as a responsible dog owner of course I'd try to remove the 'threat' even if it's irrational, I don't want to discomfort or even inconvenience.

What if they are say picking their child up from school, and there's another incredibly well behaved dog on a lead with another parent also waiting for a child. Neither can move away, they need to wait for their young kids. Is the dog owner breaking the law by remaining at the school gate even if they're asked to move away?

Angeldust, you have repeated alleged that TJ is driven by ‘blind bitter fury’ and ‘anger’, but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence for that allegation (and yes, I’ve read the whole thread). I really think it would be helpful if you stopped doing it.

Okay, since you asked :-)....If TJ is as intelligent and self aware as he says he is, I'm just trying to figure out why he is reading things into posts that aren't there (evidence above), then unable to accept/address that when confronted about it? (also, evidence above).  Options: 1) Trolling; 2) he is getting so worked up about the subject he can't think straight.  The legality thing is just bizarre too.  It just seems a bit desperate....the sort of thing you might do in an irrational blind fury to try and win an argument.  Childishly repeating 'I'm not angry, I'm laughing at you, I'm not angry' while refusing to address anything....just makes me think he is really angry!  The lady doth protest too much.  Also, from experience, he does this whenever he gets worked up.  He obviously loves it too, because he keeps coming back, even after one of the most humiliating and well known 'lifetime' bans in STW history.  As daft as I think he might be, it's keeping things interesting.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What if they are say picking their child up from school, and there’s another incredibly well behaved dog on a lead with another parent also waiting for a child. Neither can move away, they need to wait for their young kids. Is the dog owner breaking the law by remaining at the school gate even if they’re asked to move away?

Good question Jon, I've no idea! I would say that according the wording of the Act then yes they are. However if the dog is sat next to their owner, not barking and not moving away then they would not be in breach (all guesstimated but on the wording of the Act they'd be fine I think). Of course that would raise the question of are they being responsible by taking the dog with them in the first place? Up to you what you think about that!

...into posts that aren’t there (evidence above)

Sorry dust, pot and kettle I'm afraid. You've been shown evidence of what the Law says. To be clear I'm not taking sides with either of you as I haven't decided what I think of the argument yet as its complex in my opinion, but while I agree TJ is getting worked up (IMO), that doesn't mean the evidence presented is false.

edit: onewheel beat my last point!

Not would, could. Also that would be the maximum sanction, for at a guess, attacking and seriously injuring.

Exactly I very much doubt a dog has been destroyed for anything short of a bite but TJ will quote that "its backed up by case law" ad nuseum despite never showing a case where a dogs been destroyed for anything short of a bite. He'll then blather on about a dog can be destroyed for not being controlled on a cycle path etc its pretty tedious tbh.

Speeding can result in an instant driving ban. That’s not a sanction used for every speeding violation.

Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening. Its unlikely a dog running up to TJ and licking his had is going to kill.

More like a drunk shouting abuse at me is scary and he could be arrested but the punishment would be worse if he hit me.. not sure of a better analogy!!

i just read through this swapping the word 'dog' for 'child'. Both arguments still seem fairly valid.

He’ll then blather on about a dog can be destroyed for not being controlled on a cycle path etc its pretty tedious tbh.

While I get your point, the Law does state this, but (guidance on) sanction MUST depend on outcome I would imagine, so quite possibly nothing short of a bite would warrant destruction.

Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening

So can being bitten by a dog!

edit: removed formatting.

You’ve been shown evidence of what the Law says

Yes, and how do you think that law applies to the scenario we are talking about?  Again, I'm forced to repeat myself, but:

Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along.  Not barking.  This scared someone.  From 50 yards away.  TJ is telling us that this is illegal.

Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening

So can being bitten by a dog!

We were talking about being scared not bitten...well I was anyway

That depends angeldust, which scenario are you talking about?

 A dog under control on a lead 20 feet away can bark in the opposite direction and scare someone who is afraid of dogs.

Page 2, Yes in breach according to the Act.

He wasn’t barking.  Just walking along.

Page 3. No not in breach according the the Act.

AA, yes if we aren't talking biting then its a bad analogy, as licking his hand and biting aren't the same action. What I was getting at though is, say, doing 35mph in a 30 is going to get a warning/points/fine. Doing 80 in a 30 would get a ban. but both are the same act, just to differing magnitudes!

edit: angeldust's point, I am only going on the evidence posted on this thread. I haven't read the Act itself, or any guidance. I could be wrong in that this scenario is dealt with within supporting documents and it clarifies what the Act says.

Violence against animals is illegal and imprisonable.

I'm guessing you don't know how to behave around judges.

I do know some of them are happier when being controlled proper;y in a collar and leash.

That depends angeldust, which scenario are you talking about?

Lol, the one I copied in the very post you replied to.  Here is it again:

Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along.  Not barking.  This scared someone.  From 50 yards away.  TJ is telling us that this is illegal.

I can copy and paste this all day if I really have to, but it's getting a bit tedious I'm sure you would all agree.

Sometimes it’s pragmatic to modify your behaviour, even if you shouldn't have to

Just to close this one off; of course I lock my house in order to protect my possessions from theft, despite the fault lying entirely with burglars. I modify my behaviour in order to mitigate the risk.

The reason the suggestion that we modify our behaviour is a bit irritating, and I am not suggesting the writer is doing this - he clearly is not - is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog's poor behaviour.

This is like being told; well of course I burgled your house, leaving that upstairs window open, you was asking for it..

lol I think you might be scraping around a bit now. So the situation above...

Which has little to do with your general mistaken belief that your dog is always under your control.

It's the same arrogance you display in your first post, and in trying to apply your common sense to the law.

Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.

Which has little to do with your general mistaken belief that your dog is always under your control.

Ah, I wondered what you were on about.  Nothing to do with this thread really then.  Still, knock yourself out.

Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.

Which is my first post on this thread summarised into a sentence.  Glad we agree on something.

is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog’s poor behaviour.

This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.

This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.

Yeah.  You'd think on a cycling forum people would understand the bad egg cyclist analogy, but apparently not.

Ah, I wondered what you were on about. Nothing to do with this thread really then.

Well it was a direct reply to something you wrote in this thread, so yes.

Which is my first post on this thread summarised into a sentence.

No it doesn't, but if you agree with me that you can't stop dogs from biting people then it looks like you're agreeing with me that an owner is never fully in control of their dog. Well done, have a biscuit. 🙂

Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.

Muzzles, innit?.

Muzzles, innit?.

Ah, but what if the muzzle breaks, or the dog suddenly develops opposable thumbs and removes it himself?  Don't you know an owner is never fully in control of their dog?  Literally anything could happen.

Or when you remove the muzzle to feed the dog it bites you as it doesn't like being muzzled.

That would be a sensible suggestion that kept the conversation on topic and in the realms of reality, which would be of benefit to all.

Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.

Best not though eh, as that would be taking the piss. 😉

Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.

🙂 I can feel the anger and rage from the other side of the internet.  Do I need evidence for this one, or is it obvious enough?

is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog’s poor behaviour.

This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.

Key word is 'some'.

My experience of actual dog owners in the wild is positive, bar the odd dickhead, pretty representative of people generally.

Or when you remove the muzzle to feed the dog it bites you as it doesn’t like being muzzled.

I sense a business opportunity, after the muzzle sales obviously. Dog soup. Not made of dogs, that would be K9nibalism, obviously...

I can feel the anger and rage from the other side of the internet.  Do I need evidence for this one, or is it obvious enough?

Nope, not obvious. It's a debate, using exactly the same tactics that you've been using for the last 5 pages. It doesn't automatically follow that someone who disagrees with you is angry, raging or bitter.

I think this is taken pedantry to uncharted levels, even for STW.  Are we now saying to have a dog 'fully under control' it has to be under mind control to make sure it doesn't make any unexpected movements?  Perhaps we could also have some sort of minority report future crime squad initiative as a back up.

Are we now saying to have a dog ‘fully under control’ it has to be under mind control to make sure it doesn’t make any unexpected movements?

No. HTH.

There are legal definitions of under control and under close control IIRC

The jist is from what I remember is "under control" means within sight and will return immediately when called.  Under close control means at heel or with 2 m of the owner / controlling adult.

A friend of mine had a well trained dog that never went on a lead.  Always under either control or close control

I am not sure England has the "close control" option - which is a legal requirement in scotland for any dogs around livestock.  A dog not under close control around lifestock can be shot by the landowner.  2 friends of mine watch over their lambing fields with a shotgun to hand

Ta onewheel - its nice to know someone can see it.

Nope, not obvious. It’s a debate, using exactly the same tactics that you’ve been using for the last 5 pages. It doesn’t automatically follow that someone who disagrees with you is angry, raging or bitter.

Sure.  Accusing someone of spousal abuse out of the blue on a thread about dogs, does start my anger and bitterness sense tingling a smidge though.

The jist is from what I remember is “under control” means within sight and will return immediately when called.  Under close control means at heel or with 2 m of the owner / controlling adult.

Yeah but what if it conforms to all that but still scares someone?  That's against the law, right?

That’s against the law, right?

Yes, it appears so.

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

• makes someone worried that it might injure them

Yes, it appears so.

🙂

...and if someone has a dog phobia?

My mum can train a labrador to  sit alone in a room  whilst holding a cooked sausage in it's mouth without eating it for 15 minutes.

That's close control.

Hope this helps.

Sure.  Accusing someone of spousal abuse out of the blue on a thread about dogs, does start my anger and bitterness sense tingling a smidge though.

But no such accusation was made. Perhaps your anger and bitterness against people who claim the right not to be terrified or attacked by dogs causes you to see things that are not there.

…and if someone has a dog phobia?

Then they should avoid dogs.

Then they should avoid dogs.

Yes, we agree again.

But no such accusation was made. Perhaps your anger and bitterness against people who claim the right not to be terrified or attacked by dogs causes you to see things that are not there.

It is there though, isn't it?

Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.

It's bizarre, but it is there.

But it's not. There is no accusation there that you abuse your spouse.

Yes, very good.  I guess the bling fury is making you.....blind.  I award you my top pedant sticker.  Could we at least keep this interesting?

Hiding behind could's and whether's is at best weaselly words, at worst exactly what we blast the Brexiters, the Trumpers and more recently the likes of May and Rudd for.

If there wasn't a veiled accusation there, why even create that impression? And don't use the words to hide behind. Quack.

angel dust - really - invoke hattersleys rule - "when in a hole stop digging"

Hi TJ.  I'm still waiting to be informed about how my dog was breaking the law?  You dug the hole, left it, and other people starting digging another one some distance off, for some unknown reason.  I've just stayed at the edge looking down, slinging mud :-).

Bizarre thread is bizarre. Someone needs to set terms of reference for this discussion, because it appears that people are arguing over different things. Honestly, there’s more agreement than disagreement here.

Could we at least keep this interesting?

Haha!

there’s more agreement than disagreement here..

No there's not.

If there wasn’t a veiled accusation there, why even create that impression? And don’t use the words to hide behind. Quack.

Go and look at the context in which it occurred. sbob was making a point about angeldust's debating technique. He was not accusing, or implying that any spousal abuse had taken place.

I saw the context, there was a veiled but pretty clear accusation of a god complex, and then a firm implication that could extend to controlling behaviour which could be physical as well as mental

we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental

If that wasn't intended then it should be retracted and apologised for. Hiding behind 'clever' wording and saying that isn't what was meant is the sanctuary of the politician.

Sbob appears to be trolling, plain and simple. He’s taken a fairly extreme position on one side of the debate and has then proceeded to bait angeldust. I can’t evidence it, but I don’t feel that his position is a genuine opinion, unlike Teej. I could be wrong, of course.

Doesn't really help conclude the dog discussion, but I can confirm I am neither a God, or a wife beater.  I'm quite happy to occupy the middle ground between the two.

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

makes someone worried that it might injure them

How can you prove the dog made someone worried?

easy  if the person says they are scared thats all it needs.  Thats how the law is written.  Same as if you are worried someone is going to hit you that is assault even if they do not

this still going on?  Some folk are like canines with osteoliths

could extend to controlling behaviour which could be physical as well as mental

Now if only we could apply this to the packs of ferrel dogs roaming through our woodlands everything would be grand.

There’s a guy walked past my house yesterday I ran out and hit him as I thought he was a threat, the law says I can and there’s been cases to test it.

easy  if the person says they are scared thats all it needs.  Thats how the law is written.  Same as if you are worried someone is going to hit you that is assault even if they do not

Just wondering how far this goes. Can one apply the same rationale to Cows or Shetland Ponies? Two species that I really don’t like. I mean scare me.

funk - specific legislation for dogs - dangerous dogs act.  does not apply to other animals

easy if the person says they are scared thats all it needs. Thats how the law is written.

Doubt it. That doesn't prove the dog made them scared.

Same as if you are worried someone is going to hit you that is assault even if they do not

Doubt it even more. I could be scared of inner city youths due to their violent reputation, and worry about being hit if walking past a group of them. That's not assault. If you think it is then you have zero credibility on the above.

funk – specific legislation for dogs – dangerous dogs act.  does not apply to other animals

Damn it!

That’s not assault. If you think it is then you have zero credibility on the above.

I'm afraid it's you that has lost their credibility. One of the few things I remember from the year I spent studying at Guildford College of Law is that assault does not require any actual contact. The legal definition is:

An <b>assault</b> is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

So it's the fear of being hit that is the assault - actually being hit is covered by other offences.

:-).  Ta one wheel.

Rene - thats how the law is written. Quoted on this thread

I’m afraid it’s you that has lost their credibility.

No it's not.

So it’s the fear of being hit that is the assault

No, it's being deliberately made to feel fear of being hit. You would have to prove this, a feeling isn't sufficient evidence. It would need to be based on actions.

NOpe - does not have to be deliberate IIRC.  Seriously dude - go read the law and guidance.  NO contact is needed for it to be an assault.  If you feel threatened by somone even if the do not intend to be threatening it can be an assult.

I am no lawyer but I have done a fair amount of learning on legal stuff especially around assault and so on as its relevant to my job.

TJAGAIN

NOpe – does not have to be deliberate IIRC. Seriously dude – go read the law and guidance. NO contact is needed for it to be an assault. If you feel threatened by somone even if the do not intend to be threatening it can be an assult.

I am no lawyer but I have done a fair amount of learning on legal stuff especially around assault and so on as its relevant to my job.

Yes but there are varying degrees of / severity / classification of assault so assault as an umbrella term is something of a misnomer. It probably needs to be broken down into assault, common asault, battery, abh, gbh, aggravated etc

<h3>Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988</h3>
An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.

Note recklessly - this means it does not have to be deliberate
.  https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

If you feel threatened by somone even if the do not intend to be threatening it can be an assult.

Is not backed up by

...is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly...

You'd have to prove that the ‘assailant’ has intent or was reckless. Bearing in mind that it’s to a criminal standard of proof, that’s going to be near to impossible, unless there actually WAS overt and obvious intent or recklessness.

No offence unless there was intent or recklessness. You can’t just go around being professionally offended.