This article is just a stub which links to another one with a paywall.
https://archive.is/20240701171319/https://www.ft.com/content/ac9fcdd9-a320-403c-b482-ef636312e3cf
Hopefully this works for you, too – The original article on Financial Times contains a little more info than the Daily Beast version.
“Person who assaulted, charged with assault”
Why is this news?
Unfortunately if they are moneyed and attacking a prole it is indeed news.
Because the initial assault was news. Generally speaking, news stories with unresolved conclusions tend to release updates when they happen.
“Person who was assaulted, charged with assault”
Personally, I’m wondering why only one side gets charged. Both sides were assholes. Lock them both up.
Because she threw liquid at him and he punched her. Seems like two different levels of severity.
Well I’m not advocating for them both to get the same sentencing. He should obviously get a heavier sentence due to severity. I am however not a fan of excusing violence just because I happen to agree with their cause.
How is throwing liquid violence? We aren’t talking about acid or even urine. At least they did not claim such things.
If throwing liquid was violence, every asshole who pissed a woman off on a date would be able to get her charged.
https://coolidgelawfirmaz.com/throwing-a-drink-is-assault/
Drink is assault, punch with broken bones is aggravated assault.
First of all, assault and violence are not the same thing.
Secondly, that’s about Arizona law and this happened in New York City.
assault and violence are not the same thing.
If you want to get semantic… from the Britannica
violence, an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by violence may be physical, psychological, or both. Violence may be distinguished from aggression, a more general type of hostile behaviour that may be physical, verbal, or passive in nature.
It’s damage to belongings, and psychological.
Secondly, that’s about Arizona law and this happened in New York City.
Are you trying to claim that throwing liquids at somebody you dislike is legal in NY?
I don’t even understand what point you’re trying to get at. Are you claiming it’s fine to just toss random liquids at others? My point is they both broke the law, they both should be impartially judged for it. How and why is that even controversial?
The article is terrible. What actually happened? Was his violence actually unprovoked or was it self defense? It says some shit about him being surrounded and liquid thrown on him.
Violence is never appropriate, except in self defense.
If he wasn’t defending himself this is probably a hate crime, and he should have the book thrown at him.
Edit ah, the other comment linked article indicates he started things by trading insults with the group. So he walked into the situation.
Fuck what Israel is doing to Palestine. This dude should have just walked away in the first place.
If there is video of them pushing him down and surrounding him, then it’ll be a messy case.
I saw a longer video (maybe not the full one) that showed him turning around and engaging with them a couple of times, and someone threw what looked like juice at him - didn’t seem to be the bottle, just the liquid, and then he pushed past several people to punch that specific woman. I don’t think he can claim self-defense even if they had pushed him down before, because he walked pretty far to get to her without anyone attacking him or even stopping him.
IF she threw the liquid at him, and he punched her in retaliation, who’s actually in the wrong, legal-wise?
Edit: From the downvotes it seems people think I’m defending the guy. I was not, this was an actual question.
Him. Provocation is usually a mitigating factor, but not a complete defense, and it’s not like she just randomly threw a drink at him, there was an argument leading to it.
Even when it would be a defense it certainly wouldn’t excuse him in this circumstance.
Thanks, that’s the first I’ve heard of this legal concept.
It may be … sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge. … In extremely rare cases, adequate provocation has resulted in the defendant never being charged with a crime. In one famous example
Though in this case, doesn’t throwing a drink at somebody in itself constitute an offense of some sort? Could both parties not be prosecuted? I suppose AG bias might come into play then?
What’s the famous exaaaaammmmmpppple?!
:p
Buzz Aldrin, punching a flat earther
You’re the best!
If he hadn’t assaulted her he might have been able to make her pay his dry cleaning bill.
You can stop pretending to be a JAQing off American, btw. You outed yourself to all the native speakers.
I live in Norway, who’s pretending? Not my fault if you make assumptions.
If he hadn’t assaulted her he might have been able to make her pay his dry cleaning bill.
Yes? I don’t quite get the hostility. I’m curious about the legalities, nothing more.
Here’s a hint: stop editorializing when you’re JAQing it. Makes it a little obvious.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If someone was advancing on him after that it likely could be legally considered self-defense. But it sounds like he was pushing past people to go attack her. That’s not self-defense, that’s revenge.
Yeah, it wouldn’t be self defense since he wasn’t in any danger. Possibly provocation as the other commentor pointed out.
From the local news article:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/woman-hit-in-face-banker-brooklyn-pride-park-slope/5498437/
“We heard him say ‘what a bunch of useful idiots,’” said Micah. “He got about halfway down the block and I turned around and I said, ‘What did you say?’
Don’t ever ask someone “what did you say?” if you think they insulted you. You’re literally asking to be insulted again and there’s no upside.
Why is the person just identified as “banker?” Is that somehow relevant? Are bankers as rage filled as cops and I didn’t know about it?
He’s identified in the article. I think it makes more sense than putting his name in the headline. Nobody knows who “Jonathan whatever” is. We all know what a banker is
he knows he’ll get off scot-free
He won’t. The assault is on tape and clearly not justified by self defense. The woman’s nose was even broken, so he can’t argue no true harm was caused.
