Patti LaBelle's bodyguards beat up a West Point cadet at IAH, HPD poses for pictures

Sue gravity, right?

 

The bodyguards will still be punished - just not as badly than if they intentionally sought to inflict that level of damage. As far as I can see, if that pillar and elevated piece of concrete weren't there and he landed on flat concrete, he wouldn't have suffered that type of damage. The degree of malicious intent is a factor in the sentence.

 

Perhaps I'm thinking about this wrong. Say I hit someone with a metal bat and it messes them up pretty bad. Do I have the right to say it's not my fault the bat was as strong as it was, I only wanted to hit him, it's the bat's fault that it's made of metal? Or I push someone into a fire, should I only be punished for pushing him? I mean after all, i didn't put the fire there.

 

Nope.

 

Those aren't comparable scenarios. You know the bat is strong and you have an idea of the amount of damage you can inflict. Likewise, if you push someone into a fire knowing there's a fire there, you are pushing him to inflict burn wounds.

With this case, the prosecution would have to prove that the bodyguards did intend to crack the guy's skull on the elevated concrete. Else, the defense could argue that all the bodyguards wanted to do was to punch the guy to the ground, with the intended level of damage being much less.

 

Intended level of damage?? What is this, Street Fighter 2 with specific damage done by specific moves??

You hit someone, you are responsible for their injuries whether they fall on concrete, elevated concrete, a stack of pillows or into Yao Ming's knee causing him to need season ending surgery.

What a dopey argument.

Good call, bro. I'll teach my kid it's okay to hit someone as long as you only intend a certain amount of harm. And, if they stumble as a result of that hit and impale themselves on a pike, just say "my bad, that wasn't my intended level of damage, here a buck-fitty, buy yourself a mountain dew."

How about - DON'T HIT PEOPLE. How about - THREE PEOPLE, DON'T HIT ONE PERSON WITH ONE HAND UP TO HIS EAR ON THE CELL PHONE.

And certainly don't do it and then try to tell me... uhh, sorry officer... I didn't know I couldn't do that.

 

<object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/9wK12BNyQc0GYohI4WJuHg"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/9wK12BNyQc0GYohI4WJuHg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="288" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

 

So you're saying I would know the bat is strong and fire is hot (I do) But that the guys beating on the kid didn't know that concrete is hard and unforgiving?

 

You're right. The seriousness of the injuries and the degree of malice would both be considered. I think the malice was limited to just roughing him up a bit. Unfortunately, the injury was more severe, so their punishment should be more harsh, but not quite as harsh as it would be if that was their intent.

Just like murder with premeditation is punished more severely than murder with intent, which is harsher than murder without intent.

 

I could see that point if like for instance, they push the guy and he falls into a street and gets hit by a car or something of that nature. But they did know there was a concrete pillar and that he certainly wasn't going to bounce off the ground. Their intent from my point of view was to hurt him within the confines of the area (which includes everything in the vicinity) and they did just that.

 

Sure, so I think they bear responsibility for the severity of the injury even if they didn't intend it. When you commit a crime, the state holds you responsible for the negative externalities that result because of the risks you created. But, obviously the situation is volatile and out of control; they were hitting without regard for the consequences, which is risky and should be punished extra; but they didn't have enough control to actively guide his head into the concrete. So, you tack on more for cracking his skull, but not more again on top of that for intending to crack his skull.

If one of them had put him in a headlock and ran him into the pillar, I'd say assault + severity + extreme malice. (In fact, I'd probably skip that and move on to attempted murder.) This situation falls a little short of that scenario.

 

Do you think they knew he was going to fall into the elevated concrete?

This has to be proven in court. Chances are the defense attorney will, like I said, argue that the damage was accidental - they weren't aware that level of injury could be inflicted by any part of the environment.

Unless I'm wrong, the severity of the injury doesn't have sway on the punishment unless the victim actually died which would lead to a different crime - involuntary manslaughter - but, here, just battery. The degree of malicious intent, the level of injury intentionally inflicted is the deciding factor in the punishment - unless, of course, again, if the bodyguards were proven to actually have wanted to kill the cadet - it's already attempted murder. Any injury caused accidentally is a simple tort and, normally, will just be paid off.

 

Nope!

 

They punched him and pushed him down, did they think a magical pillow was going to come out of nowhere and save his fall? The defense is "your highness, these people were unaware that after beating on this guy that falling on something like concrete would hurt him" You can not be serious my friend.

 

nope.

 

Lol, what?

He certainly wasnt falling onto a foam mattress. Doesnt matter if the concrete was elevated or not...that should have zero bearing on any decision made.

 

Shouldn't and I'd bet a pretty penny the defense doesn't even try the "it was the grounds fault he got hurt" defense.

 

Of course they sought to hurt him. That's why they'll be charged with battery. However, the degree of malicious intent, the damage they sought to inflict will be the element determining the sentence - the length of time they'll be serving in prison or the community - not the actual damage the cadet received. The accidental damage will just be paid off.

 

Their intent it looks like is to mess the kid up pretty bad which is what happened as a result of them beating on him which caused him to fall. I'm no lawyer, but they have to be responsible for the direct results of their beating.

 

Yes it does. Higher elevation can give a person less time to crumple and absorb the impact.

Yes, they will be but only in a civil, not criminal, level. It's similar to a tort. There was no malicious intent to cause that level of harm, even if the injury was a result of another malicious intent to cause a lesser level of harm. You can't punish it by jail or community service - those are reserved for cases with malicious intent. They'll just be paying that injury off.