NetQuarterLatte t1_jafysz2 wrote
> A bill set to be introduced in the Legislature as early as this week by state Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton (D-Staten Island) and Assemblyman Manny De Los Santos (D-Inwood) would make it a felony to commit even minor assaults against retail workers.
A good step towards protecting those who are simply doing their job and honestly working for their livelihoods.
Edit: An assault can result in medical bills, time off, psychological trauma and even losing a job—specially in retail. They all imply loss of income. It’s far from being a harmless crime and can impact a whole family. I’m glad there’s finally a bill that takes it more seriously.
Edit 2: NY law doesn't have battery. And the definition of assault in NY is different than in many other states. See https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00 for what a misdemeanor assault requires: no one can commit it accidentally. They need to be intentional, acting recklessly or with criminal negligence. And it needs to cause injury, otherwise it's not assault.
kiklion t1_jah7u97 wrote
It’s odd to me that any assault isn’t a felony. Almost like it’s a remnant of an older time of ‘boys will be boys’ and to not punish that behavior.
it’s not like people can reasonably say ‘Sorry sir, I didn’t know I couldn’t punch her.’
Or ‘Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.’
sumgye t1_jaha366 wrote
There are lots of ways to assault someone other than punching. Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jahvcwp wrote
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
You must be thinking of a different state other than NY.
Under NY Law, assault requires physical injury. If someone was merely touched, the prosecution will have a really hard time proving beyond all reasonable doubt there was injury caused by it.
Edit: for clarity, if this bill idea was enacted into law, merely touching a retail workers would hardly constitute assault because it requires physical injury, and this bill would make no difference in practice.
ShadownetZero t1_jajeidh wrote
Copying my response to your other reply:
>While they are not labeled "assault", there are various different offenses that fall under that same article you listed that don't require injury.
>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajf56u wrote
I'll copy my reply here too:
>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.
It's not pedantic.
It's actually quite relevant to this news, because they are proposing changes to assault when committed against retail works.
They are not proposing changes to offenses that are not assault under NY Law.
Methuga t1_jahbvfh wrote
Battery. Battery is the physical act
Edit: leaving this because I just learned something new: In New York, it’s all umbrellaed under assault. My b
NetQuarterLatte t1_jahtdes wrote
>Or ‘Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.’
That would probably not be assault under NY law.
But if the defendant was for example a tiktok prankster running after people while a carrying chainsaw (but without the intent of actually hurting anyone), and fell over and injured someone with it, that could be considered a misdemeanor assault because of the recklessness.
ShadownetZero t1_jajeaqs wrote
While they are not labeled "assault", there are various different offenses that fall under that same article you listed that don't require injury.
Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajf08a wrote
>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.
It's not pedantic.
It's actually quite relevant to this news, because they are proposing changes to assault when committed against retail works.
They are not proposing changes to offenses that are not assault under NY Law.
ShadownetZero t1_jajfrit wrote
>It's not pedantic.
The slogan of the pedant.
The umbrella of "assault" covers several different offenses. While you are correct that the specific offense being referred to by the proposal requires serious injury, the comment you originally replied to was:
>It’s odd to me that any assault isn’t a felony.
To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajjb7j wrote
>To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.
You're correct that comment I replied referred to "any assault".
However, that's not the point I was replying to (and indeed it's not what I quoted in my reply).
My reply was aimed at the bad examples of "assault" that were provided. Those bad examples would be misleading and missinformative to the reader.
They would be misleading because these are not automatically assault under NY Law, and thus such conducts would not be impacted in any way by the bill proposal from the news.
>Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.
​
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
ShadownetZero t1_jajluuu wrote
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
This is 100% correct, and your response of "serious injury is needed!" is pedantic and not relevant to the point.
Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajuo5f wrote
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.
In your argument, "can" is doing a lot of lifting here. Sure it's 100% correct in a logician's pedantic sense, after all "can" doesn't imply it "must". It's not hard to conceive scenarios of intentional physical touch that must be considered assault which would validate the "can" assertion.
But that's not a gotcha, because that doesn't contradict with anything I wrote. I didn't claim the statement was incorrect. I called it a "bad example" and added more context to it because on its own that statement is misleading in this context.
My clarification that in NY they are "not automatically assault" is still 100% correct and adds relevant context.
So your point is not only pedantic itself, it tries to be obtuse and redirect away from the stink that those those examples are misleading.
Public debate doesn't benefit much from out-of-context statements that are misleading, even if those out-of-context statements are 100% correct in a pedantic sense.
ShadownetZero t1_jajuw01 wrote
Christ, imagine writing so much and saying litterally nothing.
RepresentativeAge444 t1_jaixfk3 wrote
I agree. I believe that punishment for violent crimes should be harsh given the impact on victims, their loved ones and the overall impact to society. It makes my blood boil when people get no jail time for violent assaults and then go on to wreak more havoc. Rehabilitation for non violent crime where applicable, stiff penalties for violent crime and greater investment in society to help prevent crime in the first place.
[deleted] t1_jahnsem wrote
[deleted]
Rottimer t1_jahmytl wrote
If you get into an argument and someone spits on you, that’s aggravated harassment. You lose your temper and slap the person in the face. That’s Assault.
Do you think you should be in prison for more than a year because of that action?
NetQuarterLatte t1_jai18cy wrote
>You lose your temper and slap the person in the face. That’s Assault.
The "slap" needs to result into an injury, otherwise it's not assault.
Like if the victim is slapped near the subway platform edge, then fall over as a result, and fractures a leg during the fall, then that could be potentially considered a misdemeanor assault.
Rottimer t1_jai59sz wrote
Physical Injury is defined by the state as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” A slap to the face meets the criteria if you say it caused you substantial pain.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jai8q8g wrote
>A slap to the face meets the criteria if you say it caused you substantial pain.
Not in the NY case law. People v. Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 (2007):
>"petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like delivered out of hostility, meanness and similar motives" constitute only harassment and not assault
There needs to be a clear intent on the defendant to inflict significant pain, otherwise it won't be an assault ("Motive is relevant because an offender more interested in displaying hostility than in inflicting pain will often not inflict much of it.")
So say, if a victim is retrained physically (can't run away), while the attacker slaps the victim repeatedly with the intent of causing pain, sure, that could probably be a misdemeanor assault.
For simple slaps to rise to the level of assault, I don't see that merely happening in the heat of a moment. Anyone who actually intents to cause pain could just as easily close a fist and throw a punch instead of a slap.
Maybe borderline, a "double ear clap" could arguably be assault, but that's not a regular slap.
Rottimer t1_jaibrm3 wrote
Except we have examples of people being charged by the DA’s office with felony assault for shoves.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/17/us/new-york-anti-asian-attack/index.html
How that shakes out in court might be different. But clearly a shove with intent has cause a charge of assault.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jaifmvj wrote
That will probably depend on the specifics on the case. If the woman was injured when she was pushed to the ground (and for example could not perform her work properly for a week), that can be a problem for the defendant and be a misdemeanor assault.
>pushed a 56-year-old woman to the ground on New Year’s Eve in Manhattan
But if we are being realistic here, they are only prosecuting this because of the hate crime component.
Pool_Shark t1_jaht9qy wrote
So maybe we should have the definition of assault first
LoneStarTallBoi t1_jah9gyr wrote
I mean, they do though, all the time, and get away with it plenty.
SakanaToDoubutsu t1_jahqa1m wrote
>it’s not like people can reasonably say ‘Sorry sir, I didn’t know I couldn’t punch her.’
>Or ‘Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.’
Technically under common law that's battery, not assault. Assault is the crime of making someone reasonably believe that they are at risk of harm, so for example throwing a rock at someone is still assault even if it doesn't actually hit them. The reason assault is charged more often than battery is simply because it's easier to prove.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jahsnso wrote
NY law doesn't have battery. This is the definition of the least severe assault (which is not a felony):
- With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
- He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
- With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jai2i00 wrote
If two drunks get into an escalated bar fight and they end up assaulting each other (let's say they attack each other with broken bottles, both get cuts and stabs, and are sent to the hospital for stiches and blood loss without any serious permanent injuries), that could be misdemeanor assault under NY Law. That's ugly and probably regrettable, but not enough to send them to prison for a drunk night "mistake".
That's still very different than a violent person injuring someone who is just working on a retail store, resulting them into being sent to a hospital.
I think this bill idea strikes a very timid and cautious approach in making that distinction clearer, which is not too bad if they are trying to avoid a draconian law or something.
In my opinion, it should be extended to other workers, and it should be extended to people commuting to/from work or school, and people going to/from medical appointments. I hope in a future bill.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments