That was an assault. He was impeding her movements,which in Canada is an assault. Yelling in a person's face is an assault. I am not a liar,but you are definetly an idiot.
Only in Canada you say, well that was filmed in the US. If he was impeding her then her body-guards were doing a lousy job, as I recall there was physical contact between one of those and somebody (not sure if it was Alex or not) that was an actual physical assault. (and really you do not attempt to define that he was using words but leave it open to speculation that it could have been a physical attack, that makes you a total liar (deceiver) and a fuktard as well). And really why would an upstanding person such as she is need a body-guard in the first place?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a
Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.
Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.
