37 replies to this topic

[mmmbeans]

Dude got fired... that is much more punishment than what he would have gotten for an assault charge.

Pretty sure if i assaulted someone on the job id get fired and charged with assault...

[Happy Panther]

Pretty sure if i assaulted someone on the job id get fired and charged with assault...

If you the plaintiff can't prove intent then you would not get charged with anything which is what happened in this case. It's is a simple legal argument.

[mmmbeans]

If you the plaintiff can't prove intent then you would not get charged with anything which is what happened in this case. It's is a simple legal argument.

my understanding is that's only true in "attempted battery" cases. This wasn't attempted (he connected) and it wasn't involuntary (he intended to swing at her.) The fact that he didn't connect where he said he wanted to is incidental.

If i throw a brick at a bird and hit someone in the face... I'm still going up. The only reason we're even discussing the intricacies of this law is that it was a cop... if these were two private civies... there would be absolutely no discussion.

[Mr. Belding]

If you the plaintiff can't prove intent then you would not get charged with anything which is what happened in this case. It's is a simple legal argument.

The Pennsylvania definition of simple assault that I posted previously disagrees with this. You do not need to prove intent with reckless behavior. You can watch the video and prove intent. It's not like the gas pedal on his fist got stuck.

[Happy Panther]

The Pennsylvania definition of simple assault that I posted previously disagrees with this. You do not need to prove intent with reckless behavior. You can watch the video and prove intent. It's not like the gas pedal on his fist got stuck.

It wasn't reckless under the legal definition. I don't think the video proves intent beyond a reasonable doubt and can see why the judge made the decision he did.

If the judge were smart he would have convicted him and given him 10 hours of community service and a $100 fine.

[Happy Panther]

my understanding is that's only true in "attempted battery" cases. This wasn't attempted (he connected) and it wasn't involuntary (he intended to swing at her.) The fact that he didn't connect where he said he wanted to is incidental.

Nah read the law. You have to intend to hit them in the face. He says he was trying to hit a drink and the state couldn't prove otherwise.

You can disagree with the judge and it seems like most do.

[Mr. Belding]

Nah read the law. You have to intend to hit them in the face. He says he was trying to hit a drink and the state couldn't prove otherwise.

You can disagree with the judge and it seems like most do.

I posted the law. You do not need to prove intent with reckless behavior.

[Mr. Belding]

It wasn't reckless under the legal definition. I don't think the video proves intent beyond a reasonable doubt and can see why the judge made the decision he did.

If the judge were smart he would have convicted him and given him 10 hours of community service and a $100 fine.

That sentence would have sufficed.
The last thing we need is giving the precedence to cops that they can do any damn thing they please.