Has a crime been committed? (woman walks into a pole)

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 20:00
VIEWED: 2323
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:12 AM

How can not looking where you're walking be anything but your fault?

I grant you, the people in the car sound like pricks but still... you walk into a post, that's your own fault.

Sadly something I have personal experience of.

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Had it been the other way around, had those idiots in the car talked to the chick and then slowly driven off only to crash into another car (because they were still looking at her), would that be considered a crime perpetrated by the chick? After all, she was distracting them, right?

I see your point, but I don't think we are talking about simple distraction here.

If someone hides in a bush and jumps out and shouts "BOO!" and out of fear you misstep and hurt yourself - I think it's fair to blame the practical joker for your accident.

This woman could argue that she was sexually harrased and the guys in the car made her afraid. She had no idea if she was about to be raped or kidnapped. So, when the conversation turned malicious, she walked away as fast as she could, while at the same time keeping an eye on her possible attackers.

She didn't get distracted and walk into a pole. She was the victim of a mean, sexual practical joke and her accident happened out of fear and a need to escape.

The guys in the car basically shouted "BOO!" and therefore they are responsible.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:10 PM

Whether she walked into a pole or not, harassing someone (to the point where they fear violence) is a crime- a misdemeanor. It's called assault.

Quote:
Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, assault is used to refer to the actual violence, while in other jurisdictions (e.g. some in the United States, England and Wales), assault refers only to the threat of violence, while the actual violence is battery.

In my jurisdiction, we follow threat= assault. I know because I sat on a jury deciding a case in which both assault AND battery were committed.

But perhaps our resident legal expert (Hero) can correct me.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

THESOMNAMBULIST

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:20 PM

Heck yeah there's a crime!

Who left a bloody pole in the middle of the sidewalk?!

www.cirqus.com

HERO

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Or are they protected by FREE SPEECH?

They are always protected by free speech. The issue is whether their conduct is speech (yes), and if so was this particular conduct protected (maybe)? Or, is it more akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, which is universally not protected (probably)?

You asked (privately) for the legal perspective. I see four sides: two civil, two criminal.

Criminally they may have committed a crime such as disorderley conduct or reckless operation of a motor vehicle. There are numerous minor misdemeanors of similar construction and various names that could apply. The speech issue is a valid defense and may get you all the way to the Court of Appeals...but its a loser since this kind of conduct is generally not protected (I argued a case like this last year in the Court of Appeals, was a man giving the finger to his ex-wife as he drove by her protected speech or a violation of a Civil Protection Order and do such orders violate free speech by restricting a person's ability to...speak to the protected person? I argued that the conduct is not protected since its sole purpose was to harrass his ex-wife and that Protection Orders must be challanged when they are issued...not in a subsequent criminal action, ie no collateral attacks on prior judgements and orders. I won.)

As a Civil lawyer representing the victim, the conduct was reckless and caused harm to my client. Embarrassment is harm and that the conduct may have been speech is a far less consideration in a civil action because its the victim holding the conduct accountable, not the govt. (Although the question, though diminished, remains since the courts must be able to justify their intrusion into the the protected domain, still its a far smaller issue in a civil case then criminal).

Defending them, either in civil or criminal court is not easy, given that their conduct is outragous. I'd argue that as outragous as it is, it is not criminal. I'd challenge the measure or harm to the victim and argue "youthful indiscretion" to the judge (likely not a jury...although you never know). Surely the punishment should fit the crime. These boys are already being punished/are in counseling/etc. They had a bad childhood or they have parents who will keep a close watch from now on or these honor students and pillars of their schools have NEVER done anything wrong before and sending them to jail/burdening them with these spurrious plaintiff's injuries is too much of a burden for these remorsfull young men. They have learned from their mistake and I've known this family for years and I truly believe that they will never be back in court again....I think you get the point. Its like jelly on dry toast, the drier the toast the thicker you need to spread the jelly.

I'm a prosecutor, so I'd charge them with everything under the sun, offer them a deal to plea to the most serious charge in exchange for dismissal of the others and a sentence recomendation and if not then I'd go to trial and let the facts fall as they will. But if they want the trial I push for maximum sentence...thats my own rule and PirateNews can go suck it.

H

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2