Pixiq

Hmmm ... here in Florida a verbal threat alone isn't enough - there needs to be some overt act (say taking a swing at someone - not necessarily connecting.)

I did some quick googling for the relevant Massachusetts statute and while I didn't find the precise text the discussions I found seem to indicate your interpretation is right:

for example http://www.delsignoredefense.com/lawyer-attorney-1588955.html

"The definition of an assault, under Massachusetts law, is that a person was in imminent fear of bodily harm. With an assault charge, the alleged victim was not struck, but claims to have been in fear that they were going to be struck or threatened with bodily harm."

(As an aside - this seems awfully broad to me. All sorts of entirely innocent behavior could conceivably cause a sufficiently nervous person to fear imminent bodily harm.)

Perhaps in your state, that is true. But it's not true in every state.

In some states, assault is a synonym to battery. In others, they are separate crimes. In some states, assault is an attack without causing injury and battery is causing injury. In others, any attack is assault. In still others, a verbal threat can be assault, and battery only occurs when an actual attack takes place.

You can't definitively state that a threat isn't assault, because in some places, it is.

Wrong. Battery is the term used when they actually hit you in some states. I would assume, based on your statement, that that's how your state describes it. But not all states do that.

In some states, you can kill someone with an act of assault and never batter them, for example. Every state has differently worded laws on the matter.