- Should an assault that does not injure its target count as non-violent? New York’s version of bail reform encounters strong pushback amid rash of street attacks [Israel Salas-Rodriguez, Khristina Narizhnaya and Laura Italiano, New York Post; Lauren Krisai, Jason Pye, and Norman Reimer, Slate; Rafael Mangual (New Jersey’s reform compare favorably); Scott Greenfield]
- “I think if they pay a small [amount of] money to us on the island, it would be better”: Vanuatu indigenous group says bungee jumping has roots in traditional land-diving ceremony [Prianka Srinivasan, ABC (Australian)]
- Thread on AirBnB liability for crime [Kate Klonick on Twitter]
-
Federalist Society podcast with Andrew Grossman commenting on outcome in New York v. ExxonMobil [earlier and generally]
- “The New York Times and the sheriff do not understand the ‘stand your ground’ defense. Or they are purposefully misinterpreting it.” [Jacob Sullum, Reason; earlier on SYG]
- Claim: businesses have incentive to stop marketing and selling to perennially discontented persons, and law should restrain them from doing that [Yonathan Arbel and Roy Shapira, Vanderbilt Law Review forthcoming]
Filed under: bail bonds, Exxon, hotels, New Jersey, New York Times, stand your ground
6 Comments
SYG and Drejka–interesting case. The thing is, it seems to me, from a legal standpoint is that what led up to the shove on the ground really should have been excluded from the jury’s consideration. What legal relevance does the dispute between Drejka and the wife have? Drejka’s upbraiding of the woman doesn’t justify the shove.
That said, people who are carrying firearms should not be engaging with other members of the public in such a fashion.
The real issue–which no one really seems to get–if I am armed, and someone attacks me, they have access to my gun, just like I do.
SPO wrote–
> The thing is, it seems to me, from a legal standpoint is that what led up to the shove on the ground really should have been excluded from the jury’s consideration. What legal relevance does the dispute between Drejka and the wife have? Drejka’s upbraiding of the woman doesn’t justify the shove.
I respectfully disagree. The jury needs to be able to draw distinctions between a sociopath who shoves someone for no reason, and a husband defending his wife from a bully. Juries are likely to consider shooting the first a case of good riddance, and shooting the second to deserve serious charges. If a jury kept ignorant of the circumstances had acquitted this killer, the town would have deserved the Ferguson MO treatment.
SPO wrote–
>The real issue–which no one really seems to get–if I am armed, and someone attacks me, they have access to my gun, just like I do.
True in an open-carry situation, but not necessarily in a concealed carry situation. This is one reason I prefer concealed-carry to open carry. (The other reason is that open-carry is more likely to freak people out.)
The idea that bungee jumpers should pay a “small fee” to the native islanders who invented the practice is a great example of cultural appropriation gone wild. If one can “patent” cultural ideas, do we owe the Greeks for every Olympic event? Do we owe China for every silk item produced? Germany for every book (Gutenberg’s press)? Should we not allow white or asian people to play jazz? How about chinese playing classical in China? There is no end to this and it is nonsense. Copying good ideas is what humans do. Tech patents (and medical) are the exceptions.
Just to add to cc’s list, Northern Mexican Música Norteña was adapted directly from the German polka and waltz forms.
“Should an assault that does not injure its target count as non-violent? ”
No.
Where would that stop? What kind of assault results in no injury? A swing and a miss? No bruises? A bullet that misses? An assault that results in only a minor injury? Then what Is a minor injury? One that results in medical costs of $500 or less? An injury that does not result in permanent disfigurement or impairment?
Seems to me assault is inherently violent, regardless of outcome. I think more serious consequences for more serious outcomes of assault makes sense; but it’s senseless to reduce or drop consequences for “non-violent” violence.
Whaic all means, I suppose, Bill DeBlasio will soon recommend downgrading the penalty for assault that results in no injury.
According to the article, “The legislation requires arraignment judges to set free suspects in any non-sexual assault that doesn’t actually cause a physical injury”.
A bullet that misses would presumably be charged as attempted murder, not assault.
And just a reminder: this is about bail, not the sentencing. As Scott Greenfield points out in his article, the purpose of bail is NOT to be a “penalty” or “consequences”. It’s to ensure the defendant shows up for the trial. There’s still a presumption of innocence. Unaffordable bails mean that the sentence is often finished before the trial – how many cases end up with “time served” as the sentence because they’re already been in jail longer than the sentence for the crime?