united-states police new-york-state
Is dumping a bucket of water on a police officer assault?
<p>In NYC, headlines include locals dumping buckets of water on the police officers.  </p>

<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/new-york-cops-throwing-water-de-blasio-unions/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/23/new-york-cops-throwing-water-de-blasio-unions/</a></p>

<p>In New York State it is not assault. <a href="http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.00" rel="noreferrer">Third degree assault</a> (the least degree) is defined as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or</p></li>
  <li><p>He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or</p></li>
  <li><p>With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>It might be <a href="http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.15" rel="noreferrer">menacing in the third degree</a>, defined as when one</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to
  place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical
  injury or physical injury.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The jury would decide based on these <a href="https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/120/120-15.pdf" rel="noreferrer">instructions</a>, which does not clarify the situation much, but clearly the officer(s) would have to think that there was more to it than just water.</p>

<h2>Yes</h2>
<p>From the <a href="/questions/tagged/new-south-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;new-south-wales&#39;" rel="tag">new-south-wales</a> Criminal Trial Bench Book (or Judging for Dummies):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An assault is any act — and not a mere omission to act — by which a person intentionally — or recklessly — causes another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence: <em>R v Burstow; R v Ireland</em> [1998] 1 AC 147. Thus it is the fear which is the gist of assault.</p>
<p>Battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another. But the word “assault” has come to describe both offences: see <em>DPP v JWH</em> (unrep NSWSC, 17 Oct 1997).</p>
<p>Barwick CJ in <em>The Queen v Phillips</em> (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 472 described an assault in the common law sense of the word as follows: “Such an assault necessarily involves the apprehension of injury or the instillation of fear or fright. It does not necessarily involve physical contact with the person assaulted: nor is such physical contact, if it occurs, an element of the assault.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Obviously, being doused with water is unlikely to cause harm, however, the police don’t know its water - it might be battery acid and that lack of knowledge creates the required the “apprehension”.</p>
<p>Its a common law rather than a statute law provision so it should be applicable in all common law jurisdictions that haven't made it a statute definition.</p>
