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

you guys realize that this is the hypothetical rape thread guy, right?

 

Be quiet you


He clearly knows what he's talking about:

Spoiler

 

It's going to be on the jury to decide how much intent is worth in sentencing, even if the court doesn't call it out as a factor. I think the psychology of it dictates that a jury will punish someone more harshly if the intent is clearly there.

I'm not defending the idea that the head injury will be ignored from a criminal point of view as merely "accidental."

 

Don't worry:

Spoiler

 

Your argument is "you're wrong because my research couldn't find it." Out of curiousity, did you actually have any idea how he'd be punished before you did your research?

 

this thread doesn't deserve to die, lets keep it going gentlemen.

 

nope!

 

nope - my argument is that your claim that degree of intent plays a factor is flat out wrong.

i ask for a 3rd time, if you have anything to back up your claims please post it for the rest of us. educate us waterston!

 

Nope.

 

the concrete pillar is irrelevant - the intent of the attackers was clearly to cause bodily injury - they intended to cause physical contact and they intended to hit him in the face. and according to A1 - it doesnt have to be strictly "intentional" - if they "recklessly" cause bodily injury it is assault and based on the video i think it is easy to argue that the 3 attackers acted not only "knowingly", but "recklessly" too.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm

 

and it doesnt help their case that after the cadet was on the ground near the pillar one of those bodyguards was standing over him in a threatening, aggressive manner.

 

i believe i've found the answer...

Spoiler

 

I'm quite satisfied letting you wallow in your ignorance, to be honest. If you think the internet research you presented is better than my advice, go ahead, make my day.

Now this is actually compelling evidence.

However, 6.02d clearly designates recklessness as of a lower degree than malicious intent.

Therefore,

is wrong.

 

BTW, I am wrong about

JuanValdez was right with saying they would still be criminally liable. However, they will be punished to a lesser degree than if they intended it.

 

A jury looking at that video will probably come to the conclusion that they did intended to.

 

i do indeed think its better - i actually have proof and facts and texas state law to back up my assertions while you have nothing.

the intent of the attackers was to physically attack him, which they did. hitting his head on the concrete pillar was a direct result of their 1)intentional, 2) knowing 3) reckless and 4)criminally negligent beating on his face (assault).

nope.

 

if you mean they will be punished to a lesser degree than if they had put him in a headlock and rammed his head into the pillar, than yes...otherwise, nope.

i just watched the video again and it appears that the 3 attackers intentionally punched/pushed him into the pillar. he should have fallen backwards, but instead the 3 body him up into the pillar. infact, you can see that the fat guy in black appears to pick him up and throw him into the pillar.

you lose "counselor"!

 

I'm gonna stop here. I just realized I'm arguing with an idiot.