Will Smith walked up to Chris Rock at the Oscars and physically attacked
him in front of (literally) millions of witnesses. The LA Police acknowledged being aware of the attack but stated they would not arrest
Smith unless Rock filed a complaint (which he has so far chosen not to do).
I can understand the police not wanting to arrest someone in a case like
this if the victim chooses not to press charges and there are no
witnesses or there is ambiguity about what happened. But in this case,
it as clear as it can be that Smith committed an unprovoked (in the
legal sense) physical attack on a defenseless victim, and there are, as
I said, millions of witnesses. If ever a case was open-and-shut, this
would appear to be it. Clearly the law was violated, a crime was
committed, and it appears the assailant will escape with no charges.
Under what legal theory does this make sense?
I also have to ask - if the assailant were not famous celebrity Will
Smith, but suppose unknown random person John Smith gets through
security, wanders onto the stage and wallops Chris Rock in the same
manner, don't you think security would be all over the situation and
would grab John Smith and haul him off to jail?
Will Smith walked up to Chris Rock at the Oscars and physically attacked him in front of (literally) millions of witnesses. The LA Police acknowledged being aware of the attack but stated they would not arrest Smith unless Rock filed a complaint (which he has so far chosen not to do).
I can understand the police not wanting to arrest someone in a case like
this if the victim chooses not to press charges and there are no witnesses
or there is ambiguity about what happened. But in this case, it as clear as it can be that Smith committed an unprovoked (in the legal sense) physical attack on a defenseless victim, and there are, as I said, millions of witnesses. If ever a case was open-and-shut, this would appear to be it. Clearly the law was violated, a crime was committed, and it appears the assailant will escape with no charges. Under what legal theory does this
make sense?
I also have to ask - if the assailant were not famous celebrity Will Smith, but suppose unknown random person John Smith gets through security, wanders onto the stage and wallops Chris Rock in the same manner, don't you think security would be all over the situation and would grab John Smith and haul him off to jail?
On 3/28/2022 4:25 PM, Rick wrote:
Will Smith walked up to Chris Rock at the Oscars and physically attacked
him in front of (literally) millions of witnesses. The LA Police
acknowledged being aware of the attack but stated they would not arrest
Smith unless Rock filed a complaint (which he has so far chosen not to
do).
I can understand the police not wanting to arrest someone in a case like
this if the victim chooses not to press charges and there are no
witnesses or there is ambiguity about what happened. But in this case,
it as clear as it can be that Smith committed an unprovoked (in the legal
sense) physical attack on a defenseless victim, and there are, as I said,
millions of witnesses. If ever a case was open-and-shut, this would
appear to be it. Clearly the law was violated, a crime was committed, and
it appears the assailant will escape with no charges. Under what legal
theory does this make sense?
I also have to ask - if the assailant were not famous celebrity Will
Smith, but suppose unknown random person John Smith gets through
security, wanders onto the stage and wallops Chris Rock in the same
manner, don't you think security would be all over the situation and
would grab John Smith and haul him off to jail?
Assault and Battery is a misdemeanor. The most likely sentence is 6 months, >suspended, probation. The police may not want to bother with that if Rock >doesn't want to cooperate. (Getting a conviction with an uncooperative >witness is a tough job.)
If John Smith did it, the chances are that Rock would want to press
charges. And the venue might want to press charges for trespassing as well. >(What if one of the glitterati in the audience does it? Probably still >depends on whether Rock and/or the venue wants to press charges.)
In most cases, I would agree with your statement that "Getting a
conviction with an uncooperative witness is a tough job". That's
because in most cases there aren't cameras around and it's usually
difficult to prove a case if the victim won't talk. But in this case
there are literally millions if not tens of millions of witnesses to the crime, not to mention pretty clear-cut and unambiguous camera coverage.
They literally don't need the victim's testimony to prove anything, so
why would it even be needed?
--
In most cases, I would agree with your statement that "Getting a
conviction with an uncooperative witness is a tough job". That's
because in most cases there aren't cameras around and it's usually
difficult to prove a case if the victim won't talk. But in this
case there are literally millions if not tens of millions of
witnesses to the crime, not to mention pretty clear-cut and
unambiguous camera coverage. They literally don't need the
victim's testimony to prove anything, so why would it even be
needed?
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
In most cases, I would agree with your statement that "Getting a
conviction with an uncooperative witness is a tough job". That's
because in most cases there aren't cameras around and it's usually
difficult to prove a case if the victim won't talk. But in this
case there are literally millions if not tens of millions of
witnesses to the crime, not to mention pretty clear-cut and
unambiguous camera coverage. They literally don't need the
victim's testimony to prove anything, so why would it even be
needed?
A physical attack isn't always a crime. Boxing, football and other
sports involve intentionally hitting another person, and those aren't
crimes. Why? Consent. If the person who is attacked has consented to
it in one way or another, an attack isn't a crime or even a tort.
In this case if the "victim" doesn't testify, how can prosecutors
convince a jury that, beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no consent?
On 3/29/2022 6:29 AM, Rick wrote:
In most cases, I would agree with your statement that "Getting a
conviction with an uncooperative witness is a tough job". That's
because in most cases there aren't cameras around and it's usually
difficult to prove a case if the victim won't talk. But in this case
there are literally millions if not tens of millions of witnesses to the
crime, not to mention pretty clear-cut and unambiguous camera coverage.
They literally don't need the victim's testimony to prove anything, so
why would it even be needed?
--
The victim's testimony may not be needed to establish what happened but the >defense is going to call the victim and ask "why didn't you file a >complaint?"
If I were a juror that answer is going to weigh heavily on mine decision.
If the victim didn't think it was a crime then why was it prosecuted?
I can understand the police not wanting to arrest someone in a case like
this if the victim chooses not to press charges and there are no witnesses
or there is ambiguity about what happened. But in this case, it as clear as it can be that Smith committed an unprovoked (in the legal sense) physical attack on a defenseless victim, and there are, as I said, millions of witnesses. If ever a case was open-and-shut, this would appear to be it. Clearly the law was violated, a crime was committed, and it appears the assailant will escape with no charges. Under what legal theory does this
make sense?
On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:25:30 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
I can understand the police not wanting to arrest someone in a case like
this if the victim chooses not to press charges and there are no
witnesses
or there is ambiguity about what happened. But in this case, it as clear
as
it can be that Smith committed an unprovoked (in the legal sense)
physical
attack on a defenseless victim, and there are, as I said, millions of
witnesses. If ever a case was open-and-shut, this would appear to be it.
Clearly the law was violated, a crime was committed, and it appears the
assailant will escape with no charges. Under what legal theory does this
make sense?
I think at work here is the legal theory of judicial efficiency. The police >and district attorneys are so underfunded, and the courts are so backed
up, that not everything gets prosecuted. This is perhaps especially so
when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. And perhaps especially
so when the alleged victim has savagely derided the attacker's wife,
invaded the couple's privacy, provoked an angry response, and so on.
So a defense attorney might argue as mitigating circumstances,
anyway.
I think at work here is the legal theory of judicial efficiency. The police >and district attorneys are so underfunded, and the courts are so backed
up, that not everything gets prosecuted. This is perhaps especially so
when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. And perhaps especially
so when the alleged victim has savagely derided the attacker's wife, >invaded the couple's privacy, provoked an angry response, and so on.
So a defense attorney might argue as mitigating circumstances,
anyway.
I think the invasion of privacy argument might not fly given that both the attacker and his wife are well-known A-list celebrities and that the wife
has been very public about her condition. If Jada were just Jane Smith, private individual, and she had been keeping her condition private, then
yes, it's a major invasion. But it's really a stretch for a major
Hollywood star like Jada Pinkett Smith to complain her privacy was invaded when a comedian made an off-handed joke about a medical condition she has talked about so openly.
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 4:08:22 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
Elle wrote:
I think at work here is the legal theory of judicial efficiency. The police >> >and district attorneys are so underfunded, and the courts are so backedI think the invasion of privacy argument might not fly given that both the >> attacker and his wife are well-known A-list celebrities and that the wife
up, that not everything gets prosecuted. This is perhaps especially so
when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. And perhaps especially
so when the alleged victim has savagely derided the attacker's wife,
invaded the couple's privacy, provoked an angry response, and so on.
So a defense attorney might argue as mitigating circumstances,
anyway.
has been very public about her condition. If Jada were just Jane Smith,
private individual, and she had been keeping her condition private, then
yes, it's a major invasion. But it's really a stretch for a major
Hollywood star like Jada Pinkett Smith to complain her privacy was invaded >> when a comedian made an off-handed joke about a medical condition she has
talked about so openly.
I agree that a lawsuit alleging the tort of invasion of privacy is unlikely to be
successful, and for the reasons you give. But I think the notion could be >invoked as a mitigating circumstance, particularly if somehow expanded
on to be, for one, interfering with marital relations.
I'm just saying that (1) Will Smith's defense counsel would pull out all
the best, strategic stops; and (2) money buys justice. As I watch various >district attorneys, U S attorneys, and attorney generals try to "get"
Trump, I suspect one reason they are possibly not be giving this their full >effort is for judicial efficiency reasons. In other words, they're broke. >Trump's not.
I'm in the camp that sees the Academy as hypocritical, given all the
violence its movies promote.
Perhaps strangely, what Smith did does not bother me meaningfully.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:32:37 -0700 (PDT), Elle N ><honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 4:08:22 PM UTC-5, Rick wrote:
Elle wrote:
I think at work here is the legal theory of judicial efficiency. TheI think the invasion of privacy argument might not fly given that both
police
and district attorneys are so underfunded, and the courts are so backed >>> >up, that not everything gets prosecuted. This is perhaps especially so
when the alleged victim refuses to press charges. And perhaps
especially
so when the alleged victim has savagely derided the attacker's wife,
invaded the couple's privacy, provoked an angry response, and so on.
So a defense attorney might argue as mitigating circumstances,
anyway.
the
attacker and his wife are well-known A-list celebrities and that the
wife
has been very public about her condition. If Jada were just Jane Smith,
private individual, and she had been keeping her condition private, then >>> yes, it's a major invasion. But it's really a stretch for a major
Hollywood star like Jada Pinkett Smith to complain her privacy was
invaded
when a comedian made an off-handed joke about a medical condition she
has
talked about so openly.
I'm late to this thread, but I've read the whole thing and no one has
made my exact point.
(I hope people see this since it's so high up on the list of posts)
I agree that a lawsuit alleging the tort of invasion of privacy is
unlikely to be
successful, and for the reasons you give. But I think the notion could be >>invoked as a mitigating circumstance, particularly if somehow expanded
on to be, for one, interfering with marital relations.
In my entire life, outside of a sports match, I've never seen two people >fight, and in school, no one even teased anyone else, even in grades 1-6
the girl who stuttered or the two girls who never knew the answer, no
one ever even snickered. We just waited patiently, quietly, until the
teacher went on to something else.
And I have never hit anyone except one guy, and I only slapped him, and
he deserved it. And he took it without responding, and we stayed
friends for 15 more years (until he did something else verrry obnoxious
and we argued without end.)
So it's surprising to me that I would take the macho point of view here.
And that is, that Rock deserved it. And he knew it, so while he didn't >consent in advance, he realized it when he got hit and consented >retroactively. Not that the police or a jury would really be worried
about such fine points, just that he deserved it and this is how two men >settle some issues. After all, Smith only hit him once and afaik he
didn't break anything. It sounded loud but there was a microphone right >there which made it sound louder.
I'm just saying that (1) Will Smith's defense counsel would pull out all >>the best, strategic stops; and (2) money buys justice. As I watch various >>district attorneys, U S attorneys, and attorney generals try to "get" >>Trump, I suspect one reason they are possibly not be giving this their
full
effort is for judicial efficiency reasons. In other words, they're broke. >>Trump's not.
I'm in the camp that sees the Academy as hypocritical, given all the >>violence its movies promote.
I hadn't even considered the violent movies, and without considering
theme, I thought, and think, that banning Chris for N years was way over
the top, as if they were some tea-drinking, little-finger sticking out, >afternoon social club where everything must be proper, don't you know.
It's not like Smith is going to start a trend, and Rock could learn from >Michael Richards and IMO Jerry Seinfeld that comedians have no sense of >what's funny and what's in bad taste.
Perhaps strangely, what Smith did does not bother me meaningfully.
Exactly.
FTR I discussed this with my ex-girlfriend and she says everything I
just said is wrong.
......
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 340 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 24:54:24 |
| Calls: | 7,509 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,713 |
| Messages: | 5,641,560 |
| Posted today: | 2 |