Comments
anObscurity t1_jah8k9h wrote
Yeah the laws aren’t lacking. It’s the backbone to crack down, which current DAs don’t have. But I guess this wouldn’t hurt
oreosfly t1_jaibfje wrote
NYC: we don’t enforce our laws but we will solve it by writing more laws!
[deleted] t1_jajxb08 wrote
[removed]
Rottimer t1_jahmgrn wrote
The volume of incidents have markedly increased. So have the arrests according to the NYPD.
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jahpanb wrote
What about the procecutions.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jai48y7 wrote
The rate of case dismissal before any trial or plea deal could happen skyrocketed after the NY discovery law reform was enacted.
TonysCatchersMit t1_jaijmox wrote
Yeah people point to bail reform but it’s really the new discovery rules that are the issue.
The way prosecutors played games with the speedy trial clock was fucked up but what we have now clearly isn’t working either.
moobycow t1_jalvxck wrote
We play a lot of different tricks at all levels to try and get around the fact that our system is woefully underfunded.
We don't pay social services, so we need more criminal services, but we also don't pay for enough staffing for judges, lawyers, prosecutors, so we wind up with a patchwork of suck at every level.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jamyv32 wrote
The system is not just underfunded, but also very wasteful.
A tiny quantity of individuals being repeatedly arrested and released are consuming a disproportionate amount of resources in the police, DA, public defense, courts.
Rottimer t1_jai42lw wrote
Good question.
HelpMeDoTheThing t1_jahzxw8 wrote
If you were criminally inclined, would you not act on it more often if you knew you wouldn’t be prosecuted?
Rottimer t1_jai4hql wrote
You’ll have to explain exactly what you mean by “criminally inclined.” People are definitely being prosecuted for retail theft. How often and to what degree I don’t readily have that information at my fingertips. If you do, please share it.
[deleted] t1_jakhd6r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jajxix3 wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_jai50qm wrote
The laws have changed in those 5 years.
This opinion article from the NY Post explains it in vivid language, but the underlying facts are undeniable: https://nypost.com/2023/01/19/new-yorks-discovery-laws-are-designed-to-let-criminals-go-free/
>The study points out that in New York City in 2019, before discovery reform, 49% of misdemeanor cases resulted in dismissals. In 2021, that number soared to 82%. In 2022, it was 74%. Defendants are, unsurprisingly, playing out the clock.
LOVE2FUKWITHPP t1_jaksqbq wrote
No if u do your called a raysist cause there seems to be a pattern with the perpeetrator
EWC_2015 t1_jakizls wrote
5 yrs ago there wasn’t discovery reform that buried prosecutors in paperwork and attached speedy trial dismissal as the one and only remedy (practically speaking that’s how it played out despite what the statute says) for their failure to keep up with 10x their normal work load.
I anticipate many of the arrests under this new felony will be downgraded except for the most serious ones, much like what happens to many felony arrests.
[deleted] t1_jahp1vc wrote
[deleted]
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.
smugbox t1_jafzvyq wrote
As a retail worker I am very okay with this
stork38 t1_jag4tps wrote
This is unnecessary.
Using force while stealing property is already a serious violent crime (robbery) but "certain" DAs like to knock those down to misdemeanor petit larceny (shoplifting) instead of inconveniencing some scum violent thief with jail time.
If we had a legitimate media, they'd question how often DA's knock down these statutory felony assaults (assaults against EMS, cops, hospital workers and such) in the early stages of the case and instead just process as standard misdemeanor assaults.
NYY657545 OP t1_jah1qjx wrote
Those articles are still stuck in the /r/nyc mod filter
Rottimer t1_jahnic1 wrote
Because at that point there is no reason for the accused to not go to trial to see if they can do better with a jury. And because of our fucked up system, that would pretty quickly bring the criminal courts to a halt.
[deleted] t1_jah1k7r wrote
[deleted]
fakeyc t1_jag2mfb wrote
Can't wait until angry Karens get caught up in this law and become felons because a retail clerk refuses to check the back for a sweater! 😄
More seriously, this seems okay. Why isn't every assault against any person a felony?
AceContinuum t1_jag5dru wrote
How many "angry Karens" have physically assaulted store clerks and gotten away with it? Usually the "angry Karens" are loud, rude and obnoxious, but they don't tend to start throwing punches. And in the exceptions where they got physically violent, they were arrested and charged (correctly so).
RyuNoKami t1_jagox9v wrote
being loud and obnoxious was fine...having things being thrown at you is not. FUCK YOU LADY. THATS NOT EVEN OUR RECEIPT!
NetQuarterLatte t1_jag49l8 wrote
I think the stereotypical example is two drunks getting into a bar fight that escalated into them assaulting each other, and that putting them behind bars for 7 years would be excessive.
Edit: There's a lot of confusion about what's assault in NY law.
Two drunks just yelling and threatening each other, or even punching each other won't necessarily be enough to qualify as assault under NY Law. But if they both pull out a knife and stab each other leading to bleeding and hospitalization (intentionally causing physical injury), then that could be a misdemeanor assault.
It will only become a felony assault if the injury is serious, like with a permanent loss of an organ or limb. For example, if one them gets stabbed in the eye and loses vision, then that could qualify as felony assault.
LearnProgramming7 t1_jagbpqb wrote
The felony charge could be limited to: (1) premeditated and intentional assault against retail employees; and/or (2) aggravated assault (i.e., assault beyond pushing, non-harmful touching, etc.) committed in furtherance of theft.
That would probably give a good middle ground to avoid disproportional sentences while also still addressing the issue the bill seeks to address.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jagsge3 wrote
That’s not really needed.
For example, people who are just stealing food to feed their family aren’t going to be assaulting anyone.
In fact, I believe if they just ask nicely or be nice about it, most retail employees would find a way to give them some food or look the other way.
Redemptionxi t1_jaq4o7j wrote
Anytime you use a dangerous weapon/instrument and cause any physical injury, it's an automatic Assault 2, doesn't have to be serious physical injury. Serious physical injury only applies by striking someone, etc.
You can't stab someone and get a DAT with assault 3 lol. But yes, as to your two drunks example, you could punch someone and only get charged with harassment.
RevWaldo t1_jah8a0d wrote
One reason, the court's definition of assault is pretty open.
Ok-Strain-9847 t1_jahkf99 wrote
Don't need yet another bill. Need arrest, charges, prosecution and Jail time.
RedOrca-15483 t1_jag3hwh wrote
Anyone think the lunatic ultra-left will still find a way to bitch and moan about this? or is it just me?
mamiyaRZ67 t1_jah0n4n wrote
“These laws disproportionately harm queer trans women of color. Do better!”
NetQuarterLatte t1_jag7g1u wrote
They will be fear-mongering about the fascist regime the retail store security guards will impose on society.
Edit to add:
They will be trying to spread misinformation about what "assault" actually means in NY, to give the false impression that anyone can commit misdemeanor assault by doing something really minor like touching someone or slapping someone.
[deleted] t1_jah8a94 wrote
[deleted]
CoxHazardsModel t1_jahb0bp wrote
This is stupid, just apply the laws that already exist.
PyramidClub t1_jahcytw wrote
> his assailant, who was caught on camera clobbering him from behind on Aug. 8, was apparently never arrested
So the law will do absolutely nothing. Okay.
Rottimer t1_jaho21b wrote
It’s the NYPD that does the arresting.
pyspark2020 t1_jah5jel wrote
Is not already a crime attacking someone?
ZebraLunch t1_jahgx11 wrote
How about a bill that just protects all people like cops and firefighters?
shit_knife t1_jake44i wrote
About damn time.
[deleted] t1_jamcqn2 wrote
Problem is those felonies getting downgraded and the criminal is let go to make stats look nice. Bill is worthless without enforcement.
thecrgm t1_jajdlhe wrote
People always talk about how they want more small businesses to survive but don’t protect them. Shoplifting is so much more harmful to these delis & small businesses than the big chains. Should be protecting them
AutoModerator t1_jafv06i wrote
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_jahcqos wrote
[removed]
thebruns t1_jai3v1x wrote
As a reminder, state law already allows retailers to physically detain shoplifters
smallint t1_jahnbmb wrote
Is it cheaper to protect retail workers than to put people in jail? 🤔
PyramidClub t1_jahowh7 wrote
Complete aside - that particular bodega is dirty as hell. I wouldn't eat anything from there. (And I eat at some sketchy bodegas.)
Green__Bananas t1_jag3xg7 wrote
Great legislation
astoriaboundagain t1_jahgv8a wrote
It's worthless.
Full disclosure that I say this without an alternate solution, but in context, for years it's been a felony on paper to assault a healthcare worker. But good luck getting NYPD to take a report (they want to see broken bones to even consider it) and even if they do, the DA's office never charges people. In my Manhattan facilities alone, there's at least one assault a day, frequently resulting in injury. But nobody is ever charged.
[deleted] t1_jag70tu wrote
[deleted]
Misommar1246 t1_jagczl0 wrote
Why is everything a slippery slope to you guys? Why do we have to make laws based on some fringe incident? Some guy somewhere acts excessive so we should ignore the 99% of cases this doesn’t happen and instead make sure this one thing never ever happens again?
AceContinuum t1_jago714 wrote
>Why is everything a slippery slope to you guys? Why do we have to make laws based on some fringe incident? Some guy somewhere acts excessive so we should ignore the 99% of cases this doesn’t happen and instead make sure this one thing never ever happens again?
Are you trying to argue against the new bill on the grounds that you think it isn't necessary... because the vast majority of "repeat shoplifters" don't go around beating up retail workers?
Honest_Ice_7239 t1_jah5h50 wrote
Retail workers have zero protection..no unions.
MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_jah6g17 wrote
Are we sure this is that big a problem because…
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html
Grass8989 t1_jahrew4 wrote
Yes, because one business claiming this is not representative of all businesses and they also didn’t do a breakdown of NYC specifically. Also, large corporations are able to eat shoplifting costs, unlike small mom and pop businesses.
[deleted] t1_jag5mtw wrote
In 2040 when running from the killbot drone and robot dog, we will be asking how we got there.
happybarfday t1_jai4ybd wrote
As opposed to the 2040 where due to crime there are no more stores left in your neighborhood except for one 10 blocks away where you have to show ID, they only let one person in at a time, the cashier is behind bullet proof glass, and every single item is locked up and requires a staff member to open it...
[deleted] t1_jaimopg wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jag4yxf wrote
[deleted]
NetQuarterLatte t1_jag5ovm wrote
I think your fear is overblown, because employees already have a big incentive to not react physically: that would violate company policy and they would just get fired.
This bill won’t fundamentally change that.
And companies implement those policies because otherwise they can be sued, say, if their guard causes or sustain injuries, making the company liable.
Edit: well, the commenter (AceContinuum) complained that people were downvoting without explaining. I provided a different viewpoint and got blocked as a result. Not the best example of open mindedness, but a representative example of ideological blindness in my opinion.
[deleted] t1_jag622v wrote
[deleted]
NetQuarterLatte t1_jag6loh wrote
Security guards don’t do shit to be honest.
Even when they hire off duty cops, they just stand playing on their phone. It’s just for show.
Again, it appears such fear is overblown and not grounded in solid evidence.
Edit: anecdote of a single store doesn’t constitute solid evidence. The store in that anecdote you provided can be sued for damages and they will stop that real quick, if they haven’t already.
[deleted] t1_jag6sax wrote
[deleted]
meteoraln t1_jag8d3v wrote
I feel like the previous laws of 5 years ago worked just fine when they were enforced.