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
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.
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?
Ok, now you're the one making extraordinary claims. It's fairly obvious to anybody who stops to think about it that throwing liquids at others is not legal. That she's not getting charged is a case of partiality on the side of the AG, and is why I'm bringing it up as an injustice. I don't care if she's on my side, assault / violence should be a no-no.
I'm afraid you're the one who is making the claims. As I said, it might be legal. You're the one insisting it isn't. I'm not a lawyer. You seem to be one. Are you? In New York City? Otherwise maybe there's a legal reason she wasn't charged that neither you or I are aware of.
“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.
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.
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?
If you weren't such an impotent little incel you'd have known sexes didn't enter the discussion until you forced it. He'd be going to jail if she was a man, too.
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.
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.
