Woman accused of running over George Floyd protester found not guilty of assault

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Good call.

[5GallonBucket]

Stand out in the road you get what you get.

[BS Wildcats]

Was there any burning, looting, or general lawlessness after this verdict?  If there was, I guess I missed it.

[BS Wildcats]

Just now, 5GallonBucket said:

Stand out in the road you get what you get.

Amen to that!!  Get your stupid ass out of the street!!!

[5GallonBucket]

Too bad it was just one.....

 

[LumRaiderFan]

From the article:

Video of the scene went viral last year and showed Watson’s black SUV driving through an intersection surrounded by protesters before Max Bailey, 22, is seen on the hood of her car. 

Bailey said he climbed on the hood of the car out of fear of being run over. 

"The reason I was in front of the car was to make sure everyone was safe and to get this lady to stop from running over protesters," Bailey told 9NEWS the day after the incident. "The reason I got on top of the car was because she accelerated into me and I’m not going to lie down and let somebody run over me." 
 

lol, nice try, punk.

[baddog]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

From the article:

Video of the scene went viral last year and showed Watson’s black SUV driving through an intersection surrounded by protesters before Max Bailey, 22, is seen on the hood of her car. 

Bailey said he climbed on the hood of the car out of fear of being run over. 

"The reason I was in front of the car was to make sure everyone was safe and to get this lady to stop from running over protesters," Bailey told 9NEWS the day after the incident. "The reason I got on top of the car was because she accelerated into me and I’m not going to lie down and let somebody run over me." 
 

lol, nice try, punk.

The video proves he’s lying. What a doofus. 

[EAGLEFOREVER]

Texas needs a similar law.

[tvc184]

She should have never been charged. The guy that claimed he was assaulted should have been charged with obstructing traffic and criminal mischief/ and vandalism. 

This was nothing but a witchhunt and an appeasement. 

[baddog]

34 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

She should have never been charged. The guy that claimed he was assaulted should have been charged with obstructing traffic and criminal mischief/ and vandalism. 

This was nothing but a witchhunt and an appeasement. 

Would it be possible to have him charged with a terroristic threat since he seemed to be part of a terror group? Hiw about a hate crime? Seriously, I like throwing the book at hoodlums like this to show them where they fail to see the difference between “peaceful protests” and criminal assault.

Is Kamala posting his bond?

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, baddog said:

Would it be possible to have him charged with a terroristic threat since he seemed to be part of a terror group? Hiw about a hate crime? Seriously, I like throwing the book at hoodlums like this to show them where they fail to see the difference between “peaceful protests” and criminal assault.

Is Kamala posting his bond?

It all depends on the law in that state. All criminal laws are made up of what are called elements. Each element has to be proven for something to be a crime. Included in those elements are the culpable mental state. Those mental states are intentional, knowingly, recklessly and with criminal negligence.

As examples, murder has two elements in Texas. You have to (1) intentionally or knowingly (2) take another person’s  life. Public intoxication is to (1) be in public, (2) be intoxicated on some substance and (3) be a danger to yourself or someone else due to that intoxication. So public intoxication has more elements than murder.

If any one element in a crime is not proven, the person is not guilty.

Terroristic threat under Texas law says that you (1) place a person in imminent fear of (2) to seriously injure or kill someone (there is also another terroristic threat like a bomb threat). So the threat against a person has to be of a serious injury or death. The threat has to be imminent meaning it is about to happen fairly soon. An example might be to call someone on the phone and say I’m on the way over to your house to kill you. That is a threat of death and it is imminent. The crime is merely the threat. If a person actually shows up at your house and makes the threat with a deadly weapon exposed, it becomes an aggravated assault. That is why the elements are so important. To walk up and make a threat of imminent  death or serious injury is one crime but to display a weapon becomes a for more serious crime with the exact same words. To display a firearm or a deadly weapon with no threat, goes back down to a far lesser crime, barely over a traffic citation. 

The problem between laws in all 50 states are the federal government is that they can be completely different and/or named differently or have different elements. What Texas calls criminal mischief, another state might call vandalism.  What some states call breaking and entering, Texas calls burglary.

Going only by the laws in Texas as an example, did the guy on the hood make a threat of serious  bodily injury or death that was about to happen? If it could be proven, sure he could be charged. If they had proof that when the guy jumped up there he made some kind of statement like, I will get this gun out of my pocket and kill you, under Texas law that would be terroristic threat. Merely  feeling threatened because somebody does something like jump on the hood of a car however is not likely a crime anywhere.  It is not the perception of the claimed victim that is ever a crime but the intent of the person doing it. So if the woman in the car said, I felt threatened, that is not a crime. The question is, did he actually make a threat, not what she perceived? I am guessing that even if he did, they will not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt without a recording. In the what if game, what if she had a dash cam with audio and he made some similar Threat? Not only could he be charged, he probably should be charged. If that were true, I think it will be prosecutorial misconduct for them to charge her in a crime and not him. In fact that threat alone if it could be proven, would more than likely negate any charges against her. It would prove her need for self-defense, in my opinion. 

[tvc184]

…. and speaking of proving elements. I remember at a trial, I was testifying on an aggravated assault or an aggravated robbery (I can’t remember)  with a person that was threatened  with a knife. The prosecutor asked me, officer in your experience could this knife caused a serious injury or death? My answer was some thing like, yes I have worked a couple of murders and several serious injuries where a knife was used. The defense attorney did not ask me any follow-up questions about the knife. In fact he would probably be stupid if he did.  But…. Why the question from the prosecutor? Wouldn’t the jury know by their life experiences that a knife could cause death or serious injury? Sure they would. In court however, each element must be proven and to prove that a knife is a deadly weapon, the prosecutor must present some kind of evidence. That evidence was my testimony. Nothing is assumed in court.

Could the defense attorney have argued that my testimony alone was not enough? Sure, but like I said, I think the defense attorney would be stupid. Then I would have started testifying how I saw a guy with his throat cut as he was dead in his front yard, etc. I don’t think that is what a defense attorney would want me discussing in front of a jury.

That is just an example though that each element must be proven.

[baddog]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

…. and speaking of proving elements. I remember at a trial, I was testifying on an aggravated assault or an aggravated robbery (I can’t remember)  with a person that was threatened  with a knife. The prosecutor asked me, officer in your experience could this knife caused a serious injury or death? My answer was some thing like, yes I have worked a couple of murders and several serious injuries where a knife was used. The defense attorney did not ask me any follow-up questions about the knife. In fact he would probably be stupid if he did.  But…. Why the question from the prosecutor? Wouldn’t the jury know by their life experiences that a knife could cause death or serious injury? Sure they would. In court however, each element must be proven and to prove that a knife is a deadly weapon, the prosecutor must present some kind of evidence. That evidence was my testimony. Nothing is assumed in court.

Could the defense attorney have argued that my testimony alone was not enough? Sure, but like I said, I think the defense attorney would be stupid. Then I would have started testifying how I saw a guy with his throat cut as he was dead in his front yard, etc. I don’t think that is what a defense attorney would want me discussing in front of a jury.

That is just an example though that each element must be proven.

Thanks. I find stuff like this very interesting. I asked about the terrorist threat, which would fall under your #1, because she was stopped by the mob and she could have possibly feared for her life, and this guy being one of them…..and the mob was wreaking terror all around. Thanks for clearing that up.

[tvc184]

15 hours ago, baddog said:

Thanks. I find stuff like this very interesting. I asked about the terrorist threat, which would fall under your #1, because she was stopped by the mob and she could have possibly feared for her life, and this guy being one of them…..and the mob was wreaking terror all around. Thanks for clearing that up.

it was a very good question. 

I think that is one of the misconceptions in the law. The feelings of the other person are basically irrelevant. It goes by the intent of the person committing the crime, not how it was received. Like if I walked up to you in a stern voice and say, “hey we need to talk” while pointing a finger at you. That is not a threat. A person might say it is threatening in their opinion but that is not a crime. If you walked up and said the same thing to me, should I be able to place you in jail and the answer is no. Well, “I felt threatened” does not make it a crime.

Now swap the scenario to the opposite direction. Let’s say I try to scare you and call you on the phone and say I’m on the way over with my shotgun, I will be there in five minutes and I’m going to kill you. Would that be a crime? In my opinion, yes. It could be harassment (often called telephone harassment or making a threat on the phone)  or terroristic threat. I made a threat to kill you in fairly short order with intent to scare you. That is a crime.

But what if….

Let’s say you answer on the phone, good, I have my gun and if you come at me  I am going kill you. I’m not afraid of you.

Legally your feelings do not matter. Just because you are not afraid, did I still commit a crime and the answer is yes. The crime was my intent to make you scared. Whether you were or not is irrelevant. That’s why, the feeling of the victim does not really matter under the law. It is the type of a mental state of the person who commits the crime that matters. 

If you get in a legal discussion and really want to impress your friends, tell them that it is the “mens rea” or Latin for the “guilty mind”.

Also…

Some crimes do not specifically mention a culpable mental state. I think public intoxication is one of those crimes where it just says that you’re in public and you’re intoxicated and you’re a danger to someone, it is a crime. It does not specifically mention your mental state. One is still required however.

The law in Texas says that if no mental state is specifically mentioned in the crime, then the prosecutor must prove that you were reckless. To put an easier, if not noted, the minimum of recklessness is a requirement to be proven. The only a mental state lower is criminal negligence. So if a crime does not mention what your mental state was , then the prosecutor has to at the very least prove you were reckless.

The difference between recklessness and criminal negligence in itself is interesting. In both of them you did not intend for the consequences. What happened was really an accident. But what is the difference? Criminal negligence is a complete accident but you should have known better. Maybe you ran a four way stop sign and caused an injury. What if you never saw the stop sign because you’re not paying attention as it required by law? In my opinion that is criminal negligence. You had your head up your butt. Now let’s say you ran the same stop sign but you did so intentionally. You sure did not want to get in a wreck and damage your own car so it was an accident. The act of running the stop sign however, was intentional. In both situations running a stop sign was the initial act or crime and the result in both was an accident causing injury. With one you intended to run the stop sign and the other one you negligently ran a stop sign. I call recklessness as an intentional accident. The act was intentional but the results were an accident. 

Another example might be let’s say you were in the woods target practicing and shooting at a tin can on top of a hill. You did not check out the area and your bullet goes over the hill and hits somebody on the other side. There was certainly no intent to cause that injury but in my opinion you’re darn sure reckless. You were reckless because you intended to fire the shot but did not intend the results. It was an intentional accident. Now let’s say you were walking through the woods with your gun off safety and your finger on the trigger. You trip and fall and your gun goes off accidentally and you hit the same person on the other side of the hill. In my opinion that is criminal negligence because you should have known better than to have your gun off safety with your finger on the trigger walking through the woods. You sure did not intend to fire the shot however your head up your butt caused someone to get shot.

In fact in Texas law the only difference between murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide is a culpable mental state.

Clear as mud?

Again, great question. 

 

[thetragichippy]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

In fact in Texas law the only difference between murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide is a culpable mental state.

Clear as mud?

Again, great question. 

I really enjoy the answers you provide. Interesting stuff!

[tvc184]

Just a follow up as my example, these are quotes from the Texas Penal Code. Murder carries a maximum of 99 years, Manslaughter has a maximum of 20 years and CNH has a maximum of 2 years. So you can go from 2 or 99 years maximum based solely on what you were thinking or your mens rea. Notice that the wording is practically identical except for the mental state. 

Murder:  A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual.

Manslaughter: A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

Criminally Negligent Homicide: A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

[bullets13]

I’m surprised more of these folks haven’t been shot.  If I was driving through a city and protestors surrounded my vehicle, started screaming, banging on the vehicle, etc., I don’t think it would be unreasonable to fear for my life in that situation.  If my wife and kids were with me, I’d be very quick to get out of the situation, no matter what it took. 

[BS Wildcats]

32 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I’m surprised more of these folks haven’t been shot.  If I was driving through a city and protestors surrounded my vehicle, started screaming, banging on the vehicle, etc., I don’t think it would be unreasonable to fear for my life in that situation.  If my wife and kids were with me, I’d be very quick to get out of the situation, no matter what it took. 

More of this takes place and maybe the hoodlums think twice.