Gonna be a mess - got an excuse to agitate

[Bailey Guns]

Take it any way you want. You do anyway.

[00tec]

Or....

They could have put their zip ties on him. I agree that he was not completely innocent, but if his actions justify a use of force, they justify an arrest. Why is physical violence the go-to?

Edited for spelling

[Bailey Guns]

Or....

They could have put their zip ties on him. I agree that he was not completely innocent, but if his a tons justify a use of force, they justify an arrest. Why is physical violence the go-to?

I get what you're saying, but your statement just isn't true. Use of force can be as simple as using a come-along technique to move someone from one place to another or as violent as firing your gun and killing someone. Use of force does not always require an arrest nor does it indicate an arrest would've been appropriate.

However, I said basically the same thing in my original post on this video. In hindsight it would've been better just to handcuff him.

[MrAK]

I get what you're saying, but your statement just isn't true. Use of force can be as simple as using a come-along technique to move someone from one place to another or as violent as firing your gun and killing someone. Use of force does not always require an arrest nor does it indicate an arrest would've been appropriate.

However, I said basically the same thing in my original post on this video. In hindsight it would've been better just to handcuff him.

[Irving]

MrAK, are you a paid agitator? Because you're acting like one. Generally I can make sense of a discussion, but your posts are like you are having an entirely different conversation from everyone else.

[MrAK]

MrAK, are you a paid agitator? Because you're acting like one. Generally I can make sense of a discussion, but your posts are like you are having an entirely different conversation from everyone else.

Haha, I wish I was being paid for paying attention to what going on in the world around me, and for voicing my own opinions on the matter.

Maybe we would have more open conversation and exchange of ideas if this site hadn’t deleted a video of a cop expressing support for the Constitution and doing what’s right. Instead, we were told that having that video kept up could cost people their jobs (excuse me? For supporting and acknowledging the Constitution?) and that this site doesn’t need the bad optics.

I’m honestly chuckling at the hypocrisy.

[MOD: You obviously weren't paying attention and chose your own explanation for why that video was deleted. While such videos and the associated discussions here can negatively effect the employment of many members here just by association, it is WHY that is the case that made that video and the discussion inappropriate for this site. All of this was stated before but it doesn't meet with YOUR agenda. Happily, your agenda takes a back seat to those who don't have specific agendas to persue - other than keeping this site running smoothly. - Ginsue]

[Irving]

I think that was about the virus, which no one even seems to care about anymore anyway. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

[CS1983]

You can use any defense you want. Assault 1 and 2, which require SBI (which is obviously present here), have the element of intent. Intent is critical to proving an offense. I think you know that.

The DA doesn't just get to prove certain elements of an offense in a prosecution...he has to prove them all. And he has to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yup. There's your answer.

I believe this is a bit of a cop-out. If I shove an old man, and it results in his falling and a brain injury, I'm hosed. I'm probably also hosed in a civil suit. You know that, even if you want to hide behind the facade of justice and the lie that we have a competent system. As for intent, that shouldn't matter when something actually occurs in order for it to meet a criminal onus for X, assuming X does not factor intent. Otherwise we would have one murder charge and not murder 1, 2, manslaughter, etc. That sounds contradictory, potentially. Let me explain: we differentiate based on intent, such that certain crimes do not require intent for the subsequent result to color whether a crime occurred. Ergo, if I intend to murder someone, I intend murder. But if I commit manslaughter, my intention never being to kill still has me guilty of manslaughter.

Reversing the roles, what do you think the likely result would be if the old man shoved the cop, not intending to have him strike his head on the ground, but it resulted not only in that, but also blood pouring from his ear and being admitted to the hospital in serious condition?

Any way, NY State law doesn't require intent for Assault 2.

[Bailey Guns]

As for intent, that shouldn't matter when something actually occurs in order for it to meet a criminal onus for X, assuming X does not factor intent.

Well, if you don't think elements of the offense matter then there's really no reason to discuss further. That's exactly why there are differing levels of assault, sex assault, murder, etc. Intent matters a lot.

Reversing the roles, what do you think the likely result would be if the old man shoved the cop, not intending to have him strike his head on the ground, but it resulted not only in that, but also blood pouring from his ear and being admitted to the hospital in serious condition?

Well, he'd be in trouble. For good reason the penalty for assaulting public servants (not just cops) is greater than it is for ordinary citizens. Just like elderly and the very young have protected status. But let's not forget... That isn't what happened here. I'm not trying to defend the outcome here. I'm really not. I'm trying to look at this objectively. That really seems to be something a lot of people not only won't do, but can't do. There's a reason "totality of the circumstances" is important.

Any way, NY State law doesn't require intent for Assault 2.

DEFINING NY PENAL LAW 120.05(1)
You are guilty of Assault in the Second Degree, NY Penal Law 120.05(1), if you have the intent to cause serious physical injury to someone and actually cause serious physical to that person or another person.

https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/ass...other%20person.

[MrAK]

Lmao, might want to change this:


I feel as though it should read as:
The State First, citizens and undesirables a distant second