How words affect apprehension in assault
<p>Assault has four elements:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>intent</p></li>
<li><p>apprehension</p></li>
<li><p>causation</p></li>
<li><p>damages</p></li>
</ol>

<p>To meet the apprehension requirement there must be a reasonable belief or awareness of imminent harmful or offensive contact that would be a battery if completed.</p>

<hr>

<p>My textbook discusses how words may affect apprehension. They say the following:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Words may characterize or even negate a gesture – “if it were not for your white hair I would punch you in the nose.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The book also says</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But words cannot present a tortious alternative – “your money or your life”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what my textbook is trying to say by this. I think that in the first sentence it is showing an example of words that negate apprehension. The second sentence, however, confuses me. Explain what the text means by tortious alternative <strong>and</strong> whether the tortious alternative prevents apprehension or allows it.</p>

<p>You would have to ask the author what their intent was, <em>but</em> it makes more sense if "alone" appears after "words". §31 Restatement, Second, Torts says</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Words do not make the actor liable for assault unless together with
  other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable
  apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with his
  person.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As the commentary says, mere words with no action do not make you liable for assault. You could categorize verbiage in terms of alternative (conditional) threats (§30, "your money or your life") or an unconditional threat ("I'm gonna beat you"). The word of the example presents an alternative, but it is not tortious (because there are only words, not acts).</p>

united-states tort