Also, why the rush to arrest Hernandez and charge him with murder only to significantly downgrade the charges like 12 hours later?

I understand upgrading/downgrading charges are a routine part of the justice system. I have no issue with that.

But arresting the guy less than 24 hours after the stabbing and then charging him with murder only to change it to assault the next day makes it clear the D.A.'s Office didn't have close to all the facts when they moved on him originally.

Why was there such an urgency to arrest this guy right away and charge him with the most serious charge possible?

The guy has a clean record and isn't a flight risk or a danger to the community. Why did the D.A.'s Office not do their due diligence before perp-walking him as an accused murderer?

Because otherwise it's "discrimination"!

Because he should be charged. Self-defence should be determined by the jury, not the DA.

This is across the board btw. This is why people got angry when those people chased down the jogger because he ran from people with guns. He fought and died yet the released the shooters and accomplices because they claimed they were stopping a crime.

Let the jury do it's job.

I posted this article because although I know the post is very trashy and sensational, this article is beyond comprehension, and I fear indicative of a major systemic shift in our perception of morality, safety, protection, cause and effect in our city.

If I understood correct; one of the brothers attempted to steal shrimp from a local fishery. The workers reacted aggressively by chasing the robber out and used some force to protect the property. The robber then went and got back up and came back with the intention of retaliating to his attempted robbery that went wrong. In other words, a person went to rob a business (morally and criminally wrong), didn't succeed and felt the need to go get revenge because he met resistance.

The workers were left with little recourse as this robber came back with back-up and had to react. Now, I understand the workers should've called the cops, but we know that robberies under $1000 arent really being taken seriously anymore by cops and DA's. So this small business is now more or less on its own to prevent theft.

Did the worker need to stab this guy? IDK, but the workers clearly felt scared at this point since this person escalated things by coming back to retaliate. I understand self-defense laws in our city mean that you have to reasonably make all efforts to flee, but does that apply to protection of property as well?

At this point what is the reasonable expectation of self-defense and property protection. For example, if I'm walking down the street, and some person comes up to me with a knife in their hands and demands my money, do I have to ask if they intend to use the knife to stab me if I don't handover the money before I make a decision to defend myself equitably (meaning do I flee, or if their hitting me do I hit back instead of using a knife myself if I have one?) because it seems like there is this weird interpretation of the law in this case and the bodega one where it wasn't clear if the robbers intended mortal harm as opposed to just a fight? but then is it realistic to expect someone to ask if the would be assailant intends to kill them or just punch them a few times and move on? this is where this is getting weird and really concerning to the average person.

These are split second decisions that may have very real legal consequences. Sure, charges get dropped but this worker has to come up with legal fees, which could wreck the worker for years. So moving forward what is the expectation for the average New Yorker? idk if any lawyers are on the sub but would love to know more.

[deleted]