Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Philly Cop Acquitted

38 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Video shows a dude throwing beer/liquid on the cops and the woman is coming from a direction generally the same as the fella retreated. Cop probably thought she was the one that did it and went to smack the beer/drink from her hand and "inadvertantly" hit her in the face. My honest opinion is that in a quick anger moment he wanted to smack the drink out and away from her face and if he happened to hit her...so be it. It is simple assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1361990626' post='2146514']
My honest opinion is that in a quick anger moment he wanted to smack the drink out and away from her face and if he happened to hit her...so be it. It is simple assault.
[/quote]

No that is the point. To prove guilt in a simple assault case you have to prove he did it willfully and with intent.

If he hit her by accident it is not simple assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I know...I'm just saying he intended to "inadvertantely" smack the crap out of her...and knock a drink out of her hand in the process.

But hard to prove intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not really arguing here (I think he's guilty either way) but isn't hitting her hand to knock away a drink/beer hitting her? I mean it's clear from the video he hit her on purpose. I suppose it's debatable what his true intent was (whether to knock something from her hand or flat out hit her), but imo it's assault either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='nc_biscuit' timestamp='1361991159' post='2146531']
Not really arguing here (I think he's guilty either way) but isn't hitting her hand to knock away a drink/beer hitting her? I mean it's clear from the video he hit her on purpose. I suppose it's debatable what his true intent was (whether to knock something from her hand or flat out hit her), but imo it's assault either way.
[/quote]

If he intended to hit the cup and hit her by accident it is not assault under the legal definition. It's up to the plaintiff to prove that there was intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Should have been convicted since he recklessly caused injury, right?

CHAPTER 27
ASSAULT

Sec.
2701. Simple assault.
2702. Aggravated assault.
2703. Assault by prisoner.
2703.1. Aggravated harassment by prisoner.
2704. Assault by life prisoner.
2705. Recklessly endangering another person.
2706. Terroristic threats.
2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto
a roadway.
2707.1. Discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure.
2707.2. Paintball guns and paintball markers.
2708. Use of tear or noxious gas in labor disputes.
2709. Harassment.
2709.1. Stalking.
2710. Ethnic intimidation.
2711. Probable cause arrests in domestic violence cases.
2712. Assault on sports official.
2713. Neglect of care-dependent person.
2714. Unauthorized administration of intoxicant.
2715. Threat to use weapons of mass destruction.
2716. Weapons of mass destruction.
2717. Terrorism.

Enactment. Chapter 27 was added December 6, 1972, P.L.1482,
No.334, effective in six months.
Cross References. Chapter 27 is referred to in section
5985.1 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
§ 2701. Simple assault.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of assault if he:
(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a
deadly weapon;
(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear
of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(4) conceals or attempts to conceal a hypodermic needle
on his person and intentionally or knowingly penetrates a law
enforcement officer or an officer or an employee of a
correctional institution, county jail or prison, detention
facility or mental hospital during the course of an arrest or
any search of the person.
(B) Grading.--Simple assault is a misdemeanor of the second
degree unless committed:
(1) in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual
consent, in which case it is a misdemeanor of the third
degree; or
(2) against a child under 12 years of age by an adult 21
years of age or older, in which case it is a misdemeanor of
the first degree.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I got charged with assault inflicting serious bodily injury, once. The other kid started the fight, it's not my fault he sucked at fighting. Anyhow, he got caught lying on the stand and my case was dropped to simple assault, with no fines or anything - just court cost.

Random, but felt like sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Mr. Belding' timestamp='1361997844' post='2146631']
Should have been convicted since he recklessly caused injury, right?

[/quote]

We are getting into the minutiae of the law but I think if you intend something reasonable it is not reckless under the law. So driving 120 miles per hour and hurting someone is reckless. Or doing something else completely stupid and hurting someone.

Assuming his intention was to knock away a cup that would probably not be considered reckless. As long as you consider that in and of itself a reasonable action then no he still wouldn't be charged.

Here is what wiki defines as reckless:

[quote] "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk,"[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Floppin' timestamp='1361998617' post='2146647']
I got charged with assault inflicting serious bodily injury, once. The other kid started the fight, it's not my fault he sucked at fighting. Anyhow, he got caught lying on the stand and my case was dropped to simple assault, with no fines or anything - just court cost.

Random, but felt like sharing.
[/quote]

Damn floppin you have had your share of legal entanglements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Happy Panther' timestamp='1362000387' post='2146670']
Damn floppin you have had your share of legal entanglements
[/quote]

You have no idea. Go to one of those websites for background checks and type in my name "Aaron Wallace Geer" for North Carolina. You won't be able to see the results unless you pay, but it'll give you the total number of "hits".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Happy Panther' timestamp='1362000343' post='2146669']


We are getting into the minutiae of the law but I think if you intend something reasonable it is not reckless under the law. So driving 120 miles per hour and hurting someone is reckless. Or doing something else completely stupid and hurting someone.

Assuming his intention was to knock away a cup that would probably not be considered reckless. As long as you consider that in and of itself a reasonable action then no he still wouldn't be charged.

Here is what wiki defines as reckless:
[/quote]

I might be guilty of getting too far into detail like you said. However, I do not see how it is reasonable to attempt to dislodge a cup of coffee using force sufficient enough to knock an adult to the ground. It's a coffee cup.

Also keep in mind the law does not go by wiki definitions. I can't find a legal definition for reckless under PA law. I should note that reckless driving somewhat defines it as (paraphrasing; closed the page) willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others.
In this case, I could see an accidental strike to the woman's face if she were sipping from the cup at the time. Yet, that is both willful and wanton disregard for her safety. If she were carrying the cup at waist level, as most people do, then he missed his mark by several feet. I'd be willing to call BS on his claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Mr. Belding' timestamp='1362006656' post='2146734']
I might be guilty of getting too far into detail like you said. However, I do not see how it is reasonable to attempt to dislodge a cup of coffee using force sufficient enough to knock an adult to the ground. It's a coffee cup.
[/quote]

I think a cop can if it is in his normal duties. They also get to shoot people sometimes legally.

The lady should not have been throwing anything at the police and the cop was within his job description to go disarm the lady. It wasn't within his duties to assault the lady but if he intended to smack her drink away it may have been.

I admit he may have also intended to smack a bitch but the video doesn't support it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites