Mosque protesters assault... mosque protesters

[Skylon]

Was that guy wearing a Puerto Rican flag on his necklace or an American one? If the former, I doubt they realized the odds of someone of Puerto Rican decent being a Muslim are slim, or even what the fuck a Puerto Rican flag is. If the later....don't they love people with American flags?

[Phantasee]

I didn't watch the video very carefully but if the guy took a swing at him it could count as the tort of assault. Or, IIRC, if he felt that he was going to be hit, it could count as assault.

I think the most amusing part (to me) is that he is a carpenter...like Jesus.

[Elfdart]

Uh-oh.

Tea Baggers assault non-Muslim black carpenter who just happened to be on the site.

That was posted above and that's not assault.

Only because Blue Hat Fattie was physically restrained from attacking the man.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Uh-oh.

Tea Baggers assault non-Muslim black carpenter who just happened to be on the site.

That was posted above and that's not assault.

It is actually, assault is the credible threat of violence. Battery is an actual attack.

I think the most amusing part (to me) is that he is a carpenter...like Jesus.

Jesus did not build wooden objects. In old hebrew, the word for carpenter was an idiom for rabbi.

[General Zod]

It is actually, assault is the credible threat of violence. Battery is an actual attack.

Not according to New York state law.

S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

You could make an argument for Menacing charges, though.

[Ryushikaze]

It is actually, assault is the credible threat of violence. Battery is an actual attack.

Not according to New York state law.

S 120.00 Assault in the third degree.
A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when:
1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes
such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another
person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

NY Assault is called Battery elsewhere.
Menacing is called Assault. Especially in the federal statutes, IIRC, so most folks just default to that.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/7/111
You could make an argument for Menacing charges, though.

[General Zod]

NY Assault is called Battery elsewhere.
Menacing is called Assault. Especially in the federal statutes, IIRC, so most folks just default to that.

I tend to go by whatever a given state's laws say about it according to where it happened unless it's specifically a federal crime. Especially since assault isn't normally prosecuted at the federal level.

[Ryushikaze]

NY Assault is called Battery elsewhere.
Menacing is called Assault. Especially in the federal statutes, IIRC, so most folks just default to that.

I tend to go by whatever a given state's laws say about it according to where it happened unless it's specifically a federal crime. Especially since assault isn't normally prosecuted at the federal level.

Not suggesting it is, just pointing out that most folks are not so nitpicky outside of a courtroom setting and use the term that has the meaning they're trying to get across in most of the US.

[General Zod]

Not suggesting it is, just pointing out that most folks are not so nitpicky outside of a courtroom setting and use the term that has the meaning they're trying to get across in most of the US.

I don't see how using the correct terminology is being "nitpicky" when you're talking about what crimes someone could be charged with.

[Ryushikaze]

Not suggesting it is, just pointing out that most folks are not so nitpicky outside of a courtroom setting and use the term that has the meaning they're trying to get across in most of the US.

I don't see how using the correct terminology is being "nitpicky" when you're talking about what crimes someone could be charged with.

In a court of law, yes, it matters. Currently, in our armchair lawyering, not so much. While Assault means something different from menacing in NY, it means the same most other places, and a lot of people conflate the two, which is why I think Alerium's correction of Schatten, mistaken or not, is reasonable, since it's talking about the same crime under a name more people recognize.

It's like arguing over whether something's a skunk or a polecat. It's all the same thing in the end, and if you're being formal, sure, you should call it a skunk, but if it helps more people understand you without changing the meaning, does it matter?

[General Zod]

In a court of law, yes, it matters. Currently, in our armchair lawyering, not so much. While Assault means something different from menacing in NY, it means the same most other places, and a lot of people conflate the two, which is why I think Alerium's correction of Schatten, mistaken or not, is reasonable, since it's talking about the same crime under a name more people recognize.

It's like arguing over whether something's a skunk or a polecat. It's all the same thing in the end, and if you're being formal, sure, you should call it a skunk, but if it helps more people understand you without changing the meaning, does it matter?

It's most definitely not the same thing. The state I live uses the same definition for assault as New York. If you don't specify whose definitions you're using then frankly all you're doing is causing confusion, which is why I defer to the definitions of a state where something took place.

[Ryushikaze]

In a court of law, yes, it matters. Currently, in our armchair lawyering, not so much. While Assault means something different from menacing in NY, it means the same most other places, and a lot of people conflate the two, which is why I think Alerium's correction of Schatten, mistaken or not, is reasonable, since it's talking about the same crime under a name more people recognize.

It's like arguing over whether something's a skunk or a polecat. It's all the same thing in the end, and if you're being formal, sure, you should call it a skunk, but if it helps more people understand you without changing the meaning, does it matter?

It's most definitely not the same thing. The state I live uses the same definition for assault as New York. If you don't specify whose definitions you're using then frankly all you're doing is causing confusion, which is why I defer to the definitions of a state where something took place.

For that same reason, other people defer to the federal definition rather than bothering with a lot of very specific different state names for the same crime. My point is that Federal assault means the same as NY and your home's 'menacing' (I'm assuming. Is it a different name as well? Another point for defaulting to the federal name for a crime with the same meaning) so it makes sense to refer to it as 'assault' for the benefit of the people who aren't familiar with all the different names for the offense across the world, and that it means something different in NY.

[General Zod]

For that same reason, other people defer to the federal definition rather than bothering with a lot of very specific different state names for the same crime. My point is that Federal assault means the same as NY and your home's 'menacing' (I'm assuming. Is it a different name as well? Another point for defaulting to the federal name for a crime with the same meaning) so it makes sense to refer to it as 'assault' for the benefit of the people who aren't familiar with all the different names for the offense across the world, and that it means something different in NY.

Or you can use the legal definition in the state it occurred instead of making unfounded assumptions and muddying the matter. Frankly if I see a video that someone describes as assault and no physical contact is happening I'm going to say you're full of shit, because the concept of assault without that contact is bizarre to me.

[Phantasee]

Or you can pull that stick out of your ass. It's assault under tort law, which isn't defined by criminal statutes which vary state by state.

[Ryushikaze]

Or you can use the legal definition in the state it occurred instead of making unfounded assumptions and muddying the matter. Frankly if I see a video that someone describes as assault and no physical contact is happening I'm going to say you're full of shit, because the concept of assault without that contact is bizarre to me.

Wait how does using the nationwide standard name for this definition muddy things? Insisting on regional names for the same thing seems more likely to confuse things, given both the federal statute and the tort law usage.

So, can we go back to discussing the protestors nearly attacking a guy and not what we should call the incident?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Wait how does using the nationwide standard name for this definition muddy things? Insisting on regional names for the same thing seems more likely to confuse things, given both the federal statute and the tort law usage.

So, can we go back to discussing the protestors nearly attacking a guy and not what we should call the incident?

Because by claiming it's an assault you make the assertion that he's actually committed a crime and can be charged with it. He hasn't and he can't be.

[Ryushikaze]

Because by claiming it's an assault you make the assertion that he's actually committed a crime and can be charged with it. He hasn't and he can't be.

Calling it 'menacing' though, as in the NY name of the charge, has the same implication.

But as to whether this constitutes tortious assault is a good question and I think it could be, given the rather confrontational tone and posture of the man in the blue helmet
Remember, all you need for tortious assault is to prove that a threatening and credible threat happened, and to claim to be put in fear of your safety by it.

Should the blue hat man be charged? Pro ably not, but the case could be made.

[Elfdart]

This would count as assault:

A city cab driver is in the hospital after being stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked if he was Muslim, police tell NY1.

Investigators with the New York City Police Department say it all began Monday night when a 21-year-old man hailed a cab at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan.

Police say the passenger asked the driver, "Are you Muslim?" When the driver said yes the passenger pulled a knife and slashed him in the throat, arm and lip.

The 43-year-old driver was able to lock the passenger in the back of the cab and call 911.

Both the driver and the passenger were taken to Bellevue Hospital.

As of late Tuesday, no charges had been filed.

Nice.

[Serafina]

Okay, i can get the crazy people.
But no charges were filed? What the fuck? PLEASE tell me that they won't let something like that drop off the table.

[Temujin]

It's not unusual to see them hold off on charging people in a case where it might not be entirely clear exactly what's going on. Also, I believe charges are often delayed when a possible suspect is in the hospital.

[Serafina]

It's not unusual to see them hold off on charging people in a case where it might not be entirely clear exactly what's going on. Also, I believe charges are often delayed when a possible suspect is in the hospital.

Ah, good then. So the fact that no charges have been filed is standard procedure, and not blatant racism.
Of course, it's already sad that the latter would not surprise me.

[General Zod]

He's being charged with attempted murder. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... tacked/?hp

Updated, 1:56 p.m. | A cabdriver was attacked Tuesday by a knife-wielding passenger who made anti-Muslim remarks, the police said.

The passenger, Michael Enright, 21, of Brewster, N.Y., hailed the cab at Second Avenue and East 24th Street around 6 p.m. Tuesday, the police said. Twenty blocks north, they said, he slashed and stabbed the 43-year-old driver in his throat, face and arm.

The driver, identified by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a drivers’ group, as Ahmed H. Sharif, 43, stopped the cab and approached a police officer on Third Avenue near 42nd Street. Mr. Enright was arrested at the scene.

According to the taxi workers’ alliance, Mr. Sharif’s fare started the ride asking him in a friendly way if he was Muslim, whether he was observing Ramadan, and how long he had been in the United States.

After falling silent for a few minutes, the passenger began cursing and screaming, and then yelled, “Assalamu alaikum — consider this a checkpoint!” and slashed Mr. Sharif across the neck, and then on the face from his nose to his upper lip, the alliance said. (“Assalamu alaikum” — “peace be with you” — is a traditional Muslim greeting.)

Both men were taken to Bellevue Hospital Center. The driver was in stable condition. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said Mr. Enright was “very drunk” at the time of the attack.

“I feel very sad,” Mr. Sharif said in a statement released by the taxi workers’ alliance. “I have been here more than 25 years. I have been driving a taxi more than 15 years. All my four kids were born here. I never feel this hopeless and insecure before.”

He added that “right now, the public sentiment is very serious” because of tensions over Park51, the proposed Islamic center that some critics call the “ground zero mosque.”

The police charged Mr. Enright with attempted murder as a hate crime, assault, aggravated harassment and criminal possession of a weapon. He was awaiting arraignment on Wednesday.

[Elfdart]

It's not unusual to see them hold off on charging people in a case where it might not be entirely clear exactly what's going on. Also, I believe charges are often delayed when a possible suspect is in the hospital.

Ah, good then. So the fact that no charges have been filed is standard procedure, and not blatant racism.
Of course, it's already sad that the latter would not surprise me.

Also keep in mind that Bellvue is NY's main loony bin, and where suspected nutcases arrested by the police are taken.