“Person who assaulted, charged with assault”
Why is this news?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
