McCoy's nightclub fight and the ongoing investigation

[Mr. WEO]

i like Steve Smith's reaction

@89stevesmith

I hope he has Same enthusiasm if another cop kills one more of our unarmed youth. Just saying!!!

 

you can feel however you want about it, as I do. But let's not pick and choice how we will spend our energy.

 

I don't agree with shady actions. But there has been bigger problems going on that need our attention not a bar fight.

 

 

We already covered the hiring of Rob Ryan...

[reddogblitz]

Only thing that can save McCoy is someone else says the other 3 men caused the damage or they settle out of court.

 

This was my thought initially. Surely McCoy has followed Chris Carter's advice and had one of the guys in his crew as the designated fall guy.

[Harryhood280]

I think aggravated assault is really a stretch here. It was a drunken fight in a club. it wasn't some random beating for the hell of it. I'm in no way condoning what he did, but if the other parties weren't cops this would not be nearly as consequential - and the fact that they were cops should be completely irrelevant as they were not only off duty but consuming alcohol in a club at 3am.

 

I guess we'll see what actually is charged, and if those charges stick. Hopefully the DAs are impartial and don't let the fact that the involved parties are cops (they weren't that night) and a famous NFL player who isn't exactly beloved in their city sway their actions.

[USABuffaloFan]

Presumed innocence is for the court system, not public opinion.

 

Or the NFL Integrity rule

[Peter]

 

If you are kicking and stomping a person on the ground (several of you), you can reasonably assume that that beating could result in extreme harm to human life.

 

That is what Rodney King and many others thought.

 

This is just an observation. Of course, in that instance, it was the police who were doing the beating.

 

I have no idea whether one side was entirely at fault or both were at fault etc. I do find it interesting that the off duty policy officers waited so long . . . . It will be interesting to learn more about what happened and the people involved.

[USABuffaloFan]

I think aggravated assault is really a stretch here. It was a drunken fight in a club. it wasn't some random beating for the hell of it. I'm in no way condoning what he did, but if the other parties weren't cops this would not be nearly as consequential - and the fact that they were cops should be completely irrelevant as they were not only off duty but consuming alcohol in a club at 3am.

 

I guess we'll see what actually is charged, and if those charges stick. Hopefully the DAs are impartial and don't let the fact that the involved parties are cops (they weren't that night) and a famous NFL player who isn't exactly beloved in their city sway their actions.

 

This was not a fight, 4 men pummeled 1 man before other 2 off duty policemen got involved.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

We already covered the hiring of Rob Ryan...

[USABuffaloFan]

 

That is what Rodney King and many others thought.

 

This is just an observation. Of course, in that instance, it was the police who were doing the beating.

 

I have no idea whether one side was entirely at fault or both were at fault etc. I do find it interesting that the off duty policy officers waited so long . . . . It will be interesting to learn more about what happened and the people involved.

The off duty officers were in a private club late at night. I am sure they didn't want their own names dragged through the papers because of McCoy. Now they are needing to explain why they were out late to their employer. People go out all the time and hope they don't run into issues that would create explanations. McCoy made 16 million last year, him and his buddies didn't need someone else's bottle of wine. McCoy will have his say in court or will settle by paying off this man he beat 6 plus figures for what he did. He will still do 6 games once arrested, or if settled before will do 1-5 games for being involved and a video showing he was.

[Go Kiko go]

 

Given the victims were off duty, I don't see an argument for aggravated assault unless the DA is going to assert that Shady 'showed extreme indifference to the value of human life' which is not what the videos seem to show.

 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. So if we put the whole police officer thing to the side (which I think we must, because they weren't on duty), the other way to get from simple assault to aggravated assault is the provision you mentioned. It reads in full:

 

"A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1)).

 

We have to unpack that a bit. To be guilty, you have to either (a) attempt (intend) to cause serious bodily injury and fail, or (b) actually cause serious bodily injury, either (i) intentionally, (ii) knowingly, or (iii) recklessly under circumstances manifesting "extreme indifference to the value of human life."

 

The first important takeway is that the requirement of "extreme indifference to the value of human life" only applies if you can't prove that the person was acting intentionally (in other words, that phrase only modifies "recklessly", not the entire sentence). You can think of them as alternative ways to prove someone guilty. Either you prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury (and either did so or attempted and failed), or, if you can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury, you can instead prove that they caused serious bodily harm while acting with extreme difference to the value of human life.

 

So let's start with the first possibility. Could they prove that Shady and co. intended to cause serious bodily injury? "Serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2301).

 

One Pennsylvania court has said, "repeated blows to a portion of the body as vital as the head exhibited an intent to inflict serious bodily injury." By contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that a single punch to the head, without more, is not sufficient.The court said that some factors to consider include whether the perpetrator "was disproportionately larger or stronger than the victim," or if the perpetrator indicated an intent to inflict further injury upon the victim after the initial attack.

 

From what we know, it seems within the realm of possibility that they could establish that Shady and co. intended to inflict serious bodily harm. It's hard to say for sure, because we don't know exactly how this "fight" transpired.

 

Things get trickier if they can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury. Then, we have to turn to option (b) above, which would require them to show two things (1) they actually caused serious bodily injury, and (2) they were acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

From the injuries that have been reported, it sounds a little questionable that any of the police officers sustained "serious bodily injuries." Now, they had initially mentioned a skull fracture, which would probably be enough, but if that isn't true, the other injuries they mentioned (a broken nose, broken ribs, a sprained thumb, a laceration to the eye, a cut over the eye) might not meet the definition of "serious bodily injury." Remember, under the statute, a serious bodily injury is one that "creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

 

But, just to keep this hypothetical moving, let's assume that at least one of the officers suffered a serious bodily injury. Now, we have to ask question two: did Shady and co. act with "extreme indifference to the value of human life"?

 

If you are kicking and stomping a person on the ground (several of you), you can reasonably assume that that beating could result in extreme harm to human life.

 

Perhaps. The phrase "extreme indifference to the value of human life" is a legal term of art with a well settled meaning. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, to meet this definition, the conduct must "be such that life threatening injury is essentially certain to occur."

 

In Pennsylvania, here are some things that have been found to show extreme indifference to the value of human life:

 

 

 

Michael Gaynor engaged in a gunfight with co-defendant Ike Johnson in which one child was killed and two were injured. The victims, along with other children, were in a small variety store when Gaynor and Johnson entered and began to shoot at each other. The children were in an unprotected area of the store between Gaynor at the front door and Johnson, who hid behind a video machine. The fatal bullet was fired by Johnson. One of the two wounds suffered by another child may have been caused by the single shot fired by Gaynor.

 

During the early morning hours of Christmas Eve 2002, the victim, James Miller, and the two Defendants, all found themselves at Tom's Diner in the Dormont Borough section of Allegheny County. Mr. Miller was there with his nephew and a friend, Rebecca Brown, to have something to eat after having a few drinks at work. The Defendants were also there to have something to eat after having consumed several alcoholic beverages while watching the Steelers game on television. Mr. Miller went to the men's bathroom, where he encountered the Defendants. An argument ensued between Mr. Miller and the Defendant. [Mr.] Miller was thrown against the bathroom wall by Defendant–Garger. He slid down to the ground where the Defendant kicked him several times. The evidence at trial established that Defendant caused serious bodily injury to the victim by repeatedly striking his head off of the restroom toilet. Carol Bradley, a patron at Tom's Diner on the evening in question, testified that she heard “a lot of scuffling” and “commotion” in the men's restroom and what sounded “like someone was taking somebody's head and bashing it on the toilet” several times.

 

On June 8, 1991, Ronald Harter and Mark Larson went to appellant's house to retrieve debris that had fallen onto appellant's property from their truck. After the debris was removed, a fight ensued between appellant and Harter, which ceased when Larson intervened. Appellant returned to his house while Harter and Larson searched for their eyeglasses lost during the scuffle. Appellant reappeared with a baseball bat and ordered both men off his property; Larson said they would leave as soon as they found their glasses. In response, appellant said “you'll get your glasses,” took the bat and struck Larson in the jaw near the bottom of his left ear. Harter and Larson fled, while appellant threw bricks at their departing vehicle. Harter suffered a broken nose, a broken ear drum and facial cuts. Larson's jaw was broken and was wired shut for six weeks, during which he was forced to eat through a straw.

 

 

 

Now, by contrast, here are some things that are not enough:

 

 

 

On May 17, 1982, Sharpsburg Borough Police Officers Rudzki and Lang responded to a reported domestic disturbance at 920 Penn Street in Sharpsburg. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers confronted Anthony Magnelli, Jr., [the defendant's] brother, as he exited from the residence. Anthony swore at the officers, challenged them to fight him, and swung his fist at Officer Rudzki, who ducked. Anthony then ran across the street in front of the residence; as he ran, his father came up the street and, in an attempt to restrain his son, forced him to the ground adjacent to concrete steps that led to a nearby residence. While Anthony's father sat on Anthony's legs, the officers kneeled on either side of Anthony and attempted to handcuff him. A scuffle ensued during which Anthony gained control of Officer Rudzki's nightstick and began to flail it at the officers. As the officers crouched over Anthony, [the defendant] came up from behind Officer Rudzki, grabbed the officer by his shirt and pants, picked him up, and threw him forward and into the nearby concrete steps. The officer struck the steps with his right collar bone. As a result of the incident, Officer Rudzki suffered a fractured collar bone which required surgery and the insertion of a pin in order to properly set the fracture.The officer underwent physical therapy for approximately 5 weeks and missed work for approximately 4 months. From the time of the injury until treatment was completed, he was substantially unable to use his right arm.

 

Christian Frenz, the complainant, and his friend Daniel Judge entered Brownie's, a bar located at Second and Market Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on August 7, 1999, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. The men remained in the bar drinking alcoholic beverages until they got up to leave approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 8, 1999. As Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge were about to leave the bar, [the defendant] asked Mr. Frenz if he wanted to arm wrestle. [The defendant] was twice as large and appeared much stronger than Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz declined the offer and headed toward the exit, whereupon [the Defendant] shoved Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz was about to say something in response but Mr. Judge advised him against it. Immediately after the shoving incident Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge left Brownie's and walked along the alleyway toward their car. After they were about three hundred feet away from the bar, Mr. Judge turned around and saw [the Defendant] and another male exit Brownie's and proceed to follow them down the alleyway. [The Defendant] caught up to the men and asked the complainant “Are you a tough guy?” When Mr. Frenz turned around [the Defendant], without provocation, delivered a closed fist blow to the victim's left eye. Mr. Frenz fell to the ground unconscious[.] When Mr. Frenz's head struck the concrete he sustained a scalp laceration which began to bleed profusely. Fortunately, a police car drove by at that moment and Mr. Roche and his companion turned and ran away. Mr. Frenz tried to get up, lost his balance and fell back down. An ambulance subsequently arrived and he was transported to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Doctors determined that he suffered an orbital blowout, frontal rim and sinus fractures. During his five day hospitalization, surgery was performed to attach a plate on the bottom eyelid. Mr. Frenz also received eight staples to close the wound to the back of his head. At the time of trial, some six (6) months later, Mr. Frenz still suffered from straight upward double vision gaze.

 

 

 

It's somewhat safe to say that unless Shady and co. were essentially stomping on the officers' heads as they lay on the ground, they probably didn't act with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

To recap, to prove him guilty of aggravated assault, they'll either have to establish that he intended to cause serious bodily harm, or they'll have to establish both that an officer suffered serious bodily harm and that he was acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Go Kiko go

[hondo in seattle]

 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. So if we put the whole police officer thing to the side (which I think we must, because they weren't on duty), the other way to get from simple assault to aggravated assault is the provision you mentioned. It reads in full:

 

"A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1).

 

We have to unpack that a bit. To be guilty, you have to either (a) attempt (intend) to cause serious bodily injury and fail, or (b) actually cause serious bodily injury, either (i) intentionally, (ii) knowingly, or (iii) recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."

 

The first important takeway is that the requirement of "extreme indifference to the value of human life" only applies if you can't prove that the person was acting intentionally (in other words, that phrase only modifies "recklessly", not the entire sentence). You can think of them as alternative ways to prove someone guilty. Either you prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury (and either did so or attempted and failed), or, if you can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury, you can instead prove that they caused serious bodily harm while acting with extreme difference to the value of human life.

 

So let's start with the first possibility. Could they prove that Shady and co. intended to cause serious bodily injury? "Serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2301).

 

One Pennsylvania court has said, "repeated blows to a portion of the body as vital as the head exhibited an intent to inflict serious bodily injury." By contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that a single punch to the head, without more, is not sufficient.The court said that some factors to consider include whether the perpetrator "was disproportionately larger or stronger than the victim," or if the perpetrator indicated an intent to inflict further injury upon the victim after the initial attack.

 

From what we know, it seems within the realm of possibility that they could establish that Shady and co. intended to inflict serious bodily harm. It's hard to say for sure, because we don't know exactly how this "fight" transpired.

 

Things get trickier if they can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury. Then, we have to turn to option (b) above, which would require them to show two things (1) they actually caused serious bodily injury, and (2) they were acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

From the injuries that have been reported, it sounds a little questionable that any of the police officers sustained "serious bodily injuries." Now, they had initially mentioned a skull fracture, which would probably be enough, but if that isn't true, the other injuries they mentioned (a broken nose, broken ribs, a sprained thumb, a laceration to the eye, a cut over the eye) might not meet the definition of "serious bodily injury." Remember, under the statute, a serious bodily injury is one that "creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

 

But, just to keep this hypothetical moving, let's assume that at least one of the officers suffered a serious bodily injury. Now, we have to ask question two: did Shady and co. act with "extreme indifference to the value of human life"?

 

 

Perhaps. The phrase "extreme indifference to the value of human life" is a legal term of art with a well settled meaning. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, to meet this definition, the conduct must "be such that life threatening injury is essentially certain to occur."

 

In Pennsylvania, here are some things that have been found to show extreme indifference to the value of human life:

 

 

 

Michael Gaynor engaged in a gunfight with co-defendant Ike Johnson in which one child was killed and two were injured. The victims, along with other children, were in a small variety store when Gaynor and Johnson entered and began to shoot at each other. The children were in an unprotected area of the store between Gaynor at the front door and Johnson, who hid behind a video machine. The fatal bullet was fired by Johnson. One of the two wounds suffered by another child may have been caused by the single shot fired by Gaynor.

 

During the early morning hours of Christmas Eve 2002, the victim, James Miller, and the two Defendants, all found themselves at Tom's Diner in the Dormont Borough section of Allegheny County. Mr. Miller was there with his nephew and a friend, Rebecca Brown, to have something to eat after having a few drinks at work. The Defendants were also there to have something to eat after having consumed several alcoholic beverages while watching the Steelers game on television. Mr. Miller went to the men's bathroom, where he encountered the Defendants. An argument ensued between Mr. Miller and the Defendant. [Mr.] Miller was thrown against the bathroom wall by Defendant–Garger. He slid down to the ground where the Defendant kicked him several times. The evidence at trial established that Defendant caused serious bodily injury to the victim by repeatedly striking his head off of the restroom toilet. Carol Bradley, a patron at Tom's Diner on the evening in question, testified that she heard “a lot of scuffling” and “commotion” in the men's restroom and what sounded “like someone was taking somebody's head and bashing it on the toilet” several times.

 

On June 8, 1991, Ronald Harter and Mark Larson went to appellant's house to retrieve debris that had fallen onto appellant's property from their truck. After the debris was removed, a fight ensued between appellant and Harter, which ceased when Larson intervened. Appellant returned to his house while Harter and Larson searched for their eyeglasses lost during the scuffle. Appellant reappeared with a baseball bat and ordered both men off his property; Larson said they would leave as soon as they found their glasses. In response, appellant said “you'll get your glasses,” took the bat and struck Larson in the jaw near the bottom of his left ear. Harter and Larson fled, while appellant threw bricks at their departing vehicle. Harter suffered a broken nose, a broken ear drum and facial cuts. Larson's jaw was broken and was wired shut for six weeks, during which he was forced to eat through a straw.

 

 

 

Now, by contrast, here are some things that are not enough:

 

 

 

On May 17, 1982, Sharpsburg Borough Police Officers Rudzki and Lang responded to a reported domestic disturbance at 920 Penn Street in Sharpsburg. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers confronted Anthony Magnelli, Jr., [the defendant's] brother, as he exited from the residence. Anthony swore at the officers, challenged them to fight him, and swung his fist at Officer Rudzki, who ducked. Anthony then ran across the street in front of the residence; as he ran, his father came up the street and, in an attempt to restrain his son, forced him to the ground adjacent to concrete steps that led to a nearby residence. While Anthony's father sat on Anthony's legs, the officers kneeled on either side of Anthony and attempted to handcuff him. A scuffle ensued during which Anthony gained control of Officer Rudzki's nightstick and began to flail it at the officers. As the officers crouched over Anthony, [the defendant] came up from behind Officer Rudzki, grabbed the officer by his shirt and pants, picked him up, and threw him forward and into the nearby concrete steps. The officer struck the steps with his right collar bone. As a result of the incident, Officer Rudzki suffered a fractured collar bone which required surgery and the insertion of a pin in order to properly set the fracture.The officer underwent physical therapy for approximately 5 weeks and missed work for approximately 4 months. From the time of the injury until treatment was completed, he was substantially unable to use his right arm.

 

Christian Frenz, the complainant, and his friend Daniel Judge entered Brownie's, a bar located at Second and Market Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on August 7, 1999, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. The men remained in the bar drinking alcoholic beverages until they got up to leave approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 8, 1999. As Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge were about to leave the bar, [the defendant] asked Mr. Frenz if he wanted to arm wrestle. [The defendant] was twice as large and appeared much stronger than Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz declined the offer and headed toward the exit, whereupon [the Defendant] shoved Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz was about to say something in response but Mr. Judge advised him against it. Immediately after the shoving incident Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge left Brownie's and walked along the alleyway toward their car. After they were about three hundred feet away from the bar, Mr. Judge turned around and saw [the Defendant] and another male exit Brownie's and proceed to follow them down the alleyway. [The Defendant] caught up to the men and asked the complainant “Are you a tough guy?” When Mr. Frenz turned around [the Defendant], without provocation, delivered a closed fist blow to the victim's left eye. Mr. Frenz fell to the ground unconscious[.] When Mr. Frenz's head struck the concrete he sustained a scalp laceration which began to bleed profusely. Fortunately, a police car drove by at that moment and Mr. Roche and his companion turned and ran away. Mr. Frenz tried to get up, lost his balance and fell back down. An ambulance subsequently arrived and he was transported to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Doctors determined that he suffered an orbital blowout, frontal rim and sinus fractures. During his five day hospitalization, surgery was performed to attach a plate on the bottom eyelid. Mr. Frenz also received eight staples to close the wound to the back of his head. At the time of trial, some six (6) months later, Mr. Frenz still suffered from straight upward double vision gaze.

 

 

 

It's somewhat safe to say that unless Shady and co. were essentially stomping on the officers' heads as they lay on the ground, they probably didn't act with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

To recap, to prove him guilty of aggravated assault, they'll either have to establish that he intended to cause serious bodily harm, or they'll have to establish both that an officer suffered serious bodily harm and that he was acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

 

GKG, a bit wordy but good analysis.

[Ontario51]

Cut him.

[Doc]

Was "serious bodily harm" even committed? I think that's going to be the key and probably what the holdup is in issuing an arrest warrant. They weren't there as cops that night, so that's out.

[jimmy10]

Unless he was there, how can he speak to their behavior?

Notice I said "opinion" and "suggests." Words that couch his statment basically as "listen, I don't know sh*t about sh*t with these guys, but being in the profession myself, the circumstances we know about sure seem weird."

 

Note the words opinion and suggests.

Lol, there's my man E with the reading comprehension.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. So if we put the whole police officer thing to the side (which I think we must, because they weren't on duty), the other way to get from simple assault to aggravated assault is the provision you mentioned. It reads in full:

 

"A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1).

 

We have to unpack that a bit. To be guilty, you have to either (a) attempt (intend) to cause serious bodily injury and fail, or (b) actually cause serious bodily injury, either (i) intentionally, (ii) knowingly, or (iii) recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."

 

The first important takeway is that the requirement of "extreme indifference to the value of human life" only applies if you can't prove that the person was acting intentionally (in other words, that phrase only modifies "recklessly", not the entire sentence). You can think of them as alternative ways to prove someone guilty. Either you prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury (and either did so or attempted and failed), or, if you can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury, you can instead prove that they caused serious bodily harm while acting with extreme difference to the value of human life.

 

So let's start with the first possibility. Could they prove that Shady and co. intended to cause serious bodily injury? "Serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2301).

 

One Pennsylvania court has said, "repeated blows to a portion of the body as vital as the head exhibited an intent to inflict serious bodily injury." By contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that a single punch to the head, without more, is not sufficient.The court said that some factors to consider include whether the perpetrator "was disproportionately larger or stronger than the victim," or if the perpetrator indicated an intent to inflict further injury upon the victim after the initial attack.

 

From what we know, it seems within the realm of possibility that they could establish that Shady and co. intended to inflict serious bodily harm. It's hard to say for sure, because we don't know exactly how this "fight" transpired.

 

Things get trickier if they can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury. Then, we have to turn to option (b) above, which would require them to show two things (1) they actually caused serious bodily injury, and (2) they were acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

From the injuries that have been reported, it sounds a little questionable that any of the police officers sustained "serious bodily injuries." Now, they had initially mentioned a skull fracture, which would probably be enough, but if that isn't true, the other injuries they mentioned (a broken nose, broken ribs, a sprained thumb, a laceration to the eye, a cut over the eye) might not meet the definition of "serious bodily injury." Remember, under the statute, a serious bodily injury is one that "creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

 

But, just to keep this hypothetical moving, let's assume that at least one of the officers suffered a serious bodily injury. Now, we have to ask question two: did Shady and co. act with "extreme indifference to the value of human life"?

 

 

Perhaps. The phrase "extreme indifference to the value of human life" is a legal term of art with a well settled meaning. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, to meet this definition, the conduct must "be such that life threatening injury is essentially certain to occur."

 

In Pennsylvania, here are some things that have been found to show extreme indifference to the value of human life:

 

 

 

Michael Gaynor engaged in a gunfight with co-defendant Ike Johnson in which one child was killed and two were injured. The victims, along with other children, were in a small variety store when Gaynor and Johnson entered and began to shoot at each other. The children were in an unprotected area of the store between Gaynor at the front door and Johnson, who hid behind a video machine. The fatal bullet was fired by Johnson. One of the two wounds suffered by another child may have been caused by the single shot fired by Gaynor.

 

During the early morning hours of Christmas Eve 2002, the victim, James Miller, and the two Defendants, all found themselves at Tom's Diner in the Dormont Borough section of Allegheny County. Mr. Miller was there with his nephew and a friend, Rebecca Brown, to have something to eat after having a few drinks at work. The Defendants were also there to have something to eat after having consumed several alcoholic beverages while watching the Steelers game on television. Mr. Miller went to the men's bathroom, where he encountered the Defendants. An argument ensued between Mr. Miller and the Defendant. [Mr.] Miller was thrown against the bathroom wall by Defendant–Garger. He slid down to the ground where the Defendant kicked him several times. The evidence at trial established that Defendant caused serious bodily injury to the victim by repeatedly striking his head off of the restroom toilet. Carol Bradley, a patron at Tom's Diner on the evening in question, testified that she heard “a lot of scuffling” and “commotion” in the men's restroom and what sounded “like someone was taking somebody's head and bashing it on the toilet” several times.

 

On June 8, 1991, Ronald Harter and Mark Larson went to appellant's house to retrieve debris that had fallen onto appellant's property from their truck. After the debris was removed, a fight ensued between appellant and Harter, which ceased when Larson intervened. Appellant returned to his house while Harter and Larson searched for their eyeglasses lost during the scuffle. Appellant reappeared with a baseball bat and ordered both men off his property; Larson said they would leave as soon as they found their glasses. In response, appellant said “you'll get your glasses,” took the bat and struck Larson in the jaw near the bottom of his left ear. Harter and Larson fled, while appellant threw bricks at their departing vehicle. Harter suffered a broken nose, a broken ear drum and facial cuts. Larson's jaw was broken and was wired shut for six weeks, during which he was forced to eat through a straw.

 

 

 

Now, by contrast, here are some things that are not enough:

 

 

 

On May 17, 1982, Sharpsburg Borough Police Officers Rudzki and Lang responded to a reported domestic disturbance at 920 Penn Street in Sharpsburg. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers confronted Anthony Magnelli, Jr., [the defendant's] brother, as he exited from the residence. Anthony swore at the officers, challenged them to fight him, and swung his fist at Officer Rudzki, who ducked. Anthony then ran across the street in front of the residence; as he ran, his father came up the street and, in an attempt to restrain his son, forced him to the ground adjacent to concrete steps that led to a nearby residence. While Anthony's father sat on Anthony's legs, the officers kneeled on either side of Anthony and attempted to handcuff him. A scuffle ensued during which Anthony gained control of Officer Rudzki's nightstick and began to flail it at the officers. As the officers crouched over Anthony, [the defendant] came up from behind Officer Rudzki, grabbed the officer by his shirt and pants, picked him up, and threw him forward and into the nearby concrete steps. The officer struck the steps with his right collar bone. As a result of the incident, Officer Rudzki suffered a fractured collar bone which required surgery and the insertion of a pin in order to properly set the fracture.The officer underwent physical therapy for approximately 5 weeks and missed work for approximately 4 months. From the time of the injury until treatment was completed, he was substantially unable to use his right arm.

 

Christian Frenz, the complainant, and his friend Daniel Judge entered Brownie's, a bar located at Second and Market Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on August 7, 1999, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. The men remained in the bar drinking alcoholic beverages until they got up to leave approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 8, 1999. As Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge were about to leave the bar, [the defendant] asked Mr. Frenz if he wanted to arm wrestle. [The defendant] was twice as large and appeared much stronger than Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz declined the offer and headed toward the exit, whereupon [the Defendant] shoved Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz was about to say something in response but Mr. Judge advised him against it. Immediately after the shoving incident Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge left Brownie's and walked along the alleyway toward their car. After they were about three hundred feet away from the bar, Mr. Judge turned around and saw [the Defendant] and another male exit Brownie's and proceed to follow them down the alleyway. [The Defendant] caught up to the men and asked the complainant “Are you a tough guy?” When Mr. Frenz turned around [the Defendant], without provocation, delivered a closed fist blow to the victim's left eye. Mr. Frenz fell to the ground unconscious[.] When Mr. Frenz's head struck the concrete he sustained a scalp laceration which began to bleed profusely. Fortunately, a police car drove by at that moment and Mr. Roche and his companion turned and ran away. Mr. Frenz tried to get up, lost his balance and fell back down. An ambulance subsequently arrived and he was transported to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Doctors determined that he suffered an orbital blowout, frontal rim and sinus fractures. During his five day hospitalization, surgery was performed to attach a plate on the bottom eyelid. Mr. Frenz also received eight staples to close the wound to the back of his head. At the time of trial, some six (6) months later, Mr. Frenz still suffered from straight upward double vision gaze.

 

 

 

It's somewhat safe to say that unless Shady and co. were essentially stomping on the officers' heads as they lay on the ground, they probably didn't act with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

To recap, to prove him guilty of aggravated assault, they'll either have to establish that he intended to cause serious bodily harm, or they'll have to establish both that an officer suffered serious bodily harm and that he was acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

 

Was "serious bodily harm" even committed? I think that's going to be the key and probably what the holdup is in issuing an arrest warrant. They weren't there as cops that night, so that's out.

 

 

Blows to the head resulting in orbital fractures, as well as rib fractures are serious bodily harm. When a guy is kicking another man's head while that man is on the ground, he is intending to do serious bodily harm--especially if he is kicking with others. It is knowingly, recklessly intending to do bodily harm.

[Go Kiko go]

 

GKG, a bit wordy but good analysis.

 

The achilles heel of lawyers everywhere.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

The way it appears to work in Pennsylvania (me not being an expert in PA criminal law), is that harming a police officer is going to move your offense from "simple assault" to "aggravated assault." But, there's a catch. Check out the provisions:

 

Simple assault occurs when a person "causes bodily injury to another." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701)

 

Aggravated assault occurs when a person causes bodily injury to, among other people, police officers "while in the performance of duty." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(3)).

 

Given that it's unlikely that hanging out at "Recess" and ordering bottles of champagne was part of the officers' duties, Shady and co. wouldn't be facing the potentially higher punishment that would accompany harming an on-duty police officer.

 

So, if an off duty police officer starts to act as an officer of the law, he is then considered to be "in the performance of duty" and an assault against him is considered an aggregated assault. If an off-duty officer sees a robbery or assault in progress and identifies himself "Police! Drop your knife, put your hands up!", that's a slam-dunk he's acting as an officer of the law.

 

If an officer drinking in a bar says "that's my champagne, get your hands off of it" or the like, is he then acting?

 

If he's been drinking, is he supposed to be acting?

 

 

The way it appears to work in Pennsylvania (me not being an expert in PA criminal law), is that harming a police officer is going to move your offense from "simple assault" to "aggravated assault." But, there's a catch. Check out the provisions:

 

Simple assault occurs when a person "causes bodily injury to another." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701)

 

Aggravated assault occurs when a person causes bodily injury to, among other people, police officers "while in the performance of duty." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(3)).

 

Given that it's unlikely that hanging out at "Recess" and ordering bottles of champagne was part of the officers' duties, Shady and co. wouldn't be facing the potentially higher punishment that would accompany harming an on-duty police officer.

 

Well, that, and credit to Bandit for turning this up in an earlier part of Threadzilla here:

 

D. In situations where an officer is using intoxicants

or taking medications that have impaired his/her

physical and mental abilities, the officer will not

take action, other than calling 9-1-1 to report the

incident.

E. An officer will not be considered acting within the

scope of his/her employment if he/she takes police

action while using intoxicants or taking

medications that have impaired his/her physical and

mental abilities.

 

The police (and maybe the DA) would probably like to see an aggravated assault charge, based upon the fact that these were police officers and could be considered as "acting within the scope".

 

3 bottles of champagne between 3 guys would kind of argue "using intoxicants" and "will not be considered acting"

 

So then the question do the actions otherwise constitute aggravated assault?

[Buffalo Barbarian]

let me know when we they charge him

 

So, if an off duty police officer starts to act as an officer of the law, he is then considered to be "in the performance of duty" and an assault against him is considered an aggregated assault. If an off-duty officer sees a robbery or assault in progress and identifies himself "Police! Drop your knife, put your hands up!", that's a slam-dunk he's acting as an officer of the law.

 

If an officer drinking in a bar says "that's my champagne, get your hands off of it" or the like, is he then acting?

 

If he's been drinking, is he supposed to be acting?

 

 

Well, that, and credit to Bandit for turning this up in an earlier part of Threadzilla here:

 

D. In situations where an officer is using intoxicants
or taking medications that have impaired his/her
physical and mental abilities, the officer will not
take action, other than calling 9-1-1 to report the
incident.
E. An officer will not be considered acting within the
scope of his/her employment if he/she takes police
action while using intoxicants or taking
medications that have impaired his/her physical and
mental abilities.

 

The police (and maybe the DA) would probably like to see an aggravated assault charge, based upon the fact that these were police officers and could be considered as "acting within the scope".

 

3 bottles of champagne between 3 guys would kind of argue "using intoxicants" and "will not be considered acting"

 

So then the question do the actions otherwise constitute aggravated assault?

 

yes

[Peter]

The off duty officers were in a private club late at night. I am sure they didn't want their own names dragged through the papers because of McCoy. Now they are needing to explain why they were out late to their employer. People go out all the time and hope they don't run into issues that would create explanations. McCoy made 16 million last year, him and his buddies didn't need someone else's bottle of wine. McCoy will have his say in court or will settle by paying off this man he beat 6 plus figures for what he did. He will still do 6 games once arrested, or if settled before will do 1-5 games for being involved and a video showing he was.

 

You may be 100% correct.

 

On the other hand, I presume that they are not going to mind having their names in the paper when they bring a civil lawsuit.

[Go Kiko go]

Was "serious bodily harm" even committed? I think that's going to be the key and probably what the holdup is in issuing an arrest warrant. They weren't there as cops that night, so that's out.

Blows to the head resulting in orbital fractures, as well as rib fractures are serious bodily harm.

 

WEO's two examples probably are, but it's a close call. Pennsylvania courts have found the following to be "serious bodily injuries":

 

- Skull fractures and a concussion with memory loss

- Facial fractures, multiple cracked ribs, a brain hemorrhage, and a punctured lung

 

But these are not:

 

- Broken nose, two black eyes, and facial lacerations

- A person who, while lying prone on the floor, was "punched and kicked all over the face and body," resulting in "bruising of his ribs, face, back and legs, cuts on his eyelid and lip, and swelling, lumps and cuts on his head"

- Striking someone's head on a door, but the person remained conscious

- "bump on the head"

- Broken nose and minor facial lacerations

 

Remember, a "serious bodily injury" is only one that "creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

Edited February 12, 2016 by Go Kiko go

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. So if we put the whole police officer thing to the side (which I think we must, because they weren't on duty), the other way to get from simple assault to aggravated assault is the provision you mentioned. It reads in full:

 

"A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2702(a)(1)).

 

We have to unpack that a bit. To be guilty, you have to either (a) attempt (intend) to cause serious bodily injury and fail, or (b) actually cause serious bodily injury, either (i) intentionally, (ii) knowingly, or (iii) recklessly under circumstances manifesting "extreme indifference to the value of human life."

 

The first important takeway is that the requirement of "extreme indifference to the value of human life" only applies if you can't prove that the person was acting intentionally (in other words, that phrase only modifies "recklessly", not the entire sentence). You can think of them as alternative ways to prove someone guilty. Either you prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury (and either did so or attempted and failed), or, if you can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury, you can instead prove that they caused serious bodily harm while acting with extreme difference to the value of human life.

 

So let's start with the first possibility. Could they prove that Shady and co. intended to cause serious bodily injury? "Serious bodily injury" means "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2301).

 

One Pennsylvania court has said, "repeated blows to a portion of the body as vital as the head exhibited an intent to inflict serious bodily injury." By contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that a single punch to the head, without more, is not sufficient.The court said that some factors to consider include whether the perpetrator "was disproportionately larger or stronger than the victim," or if the perpetrator indicated an intent to inflict further injury upon the victim after the initial attack.

 

From what we know, it seems within the realm of possibility that they could establish that Shady and co. intended to inflict serious bodily harm. It's hard to say for sure, because we don't know exactly how this "fight" transpired.

 

Things get trickier if they can't prove that they intended to cause serious bodily injury. Then, we have to turn to option (b) above, which would require them to show two things (1) they actually caused serious bodily injury, and (2) they were acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

From the injuries that have been reported, it sounds a little questionable that any of the police officers sustained "serious bodily injuries." Now, they had initially mentioned a skull fracture, which would probably be enough, but if that isn't true, the other injuries they mentioned (a broken nose, broken ribs, a sprained thumb, a laceration to the eye, a cut over the eye) might not meet the definition of "serious bodily injury." Remember, under the statute, a serious bodily injury is one that "creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

 

But, just to keep this hypothetical moving, let's assume that at least one of the officers suffered a serious bodily injury. Now, we have to ask question two: did Shady and co. act with "extreme indifference to the value of human life"?

 

 

Perhaps. The phrase "extreme indifference to the value of human life" is a legal term of art with a well settled meaning. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, to meet this definition, the conduct must "be such that life threatening injury is essentially certain to occur."

 

In Pennsylvania, here are some things that have been found to show extreme indifference to the value of human life:

 

 

 

Michael Gaynor engaged in a gunfight with co-defendant Ike Johnson in which one child was killed and two were injured. The victims, along with other children, were in a small variety store when Gaynor and Johnson entered and began to shoot at each other. The children were in an unprotected area of the store between Gaynor at the front door and Johnson, who hid behind a video machine. The fatal bullet was fired by Johnson. One of the two wounds suffered by another child may have been caused by the single shot fired by Gaynor.

 

During the early morning hours of Christmas Eve 2002, the victim, James Miller, and the two Defendants, all found themselves at Tom's Diner in the Dormont Borough section of Allegheny County. Mr. Miller was there with his nephew and a friend, Rebecca Brown, to have something to eat after having a few drinks at work. The Defendants were also there to have something to eat after having consumed several alcoholic beverages while watching the Steelers game on television. Mr. Miller went to the men's bathroom, where he encountered the Defendants. An argument ensued between Mr. Miller and the Defendant. [Mr.] Miller was thrown against the bathroom wall by Defendant–Garger. He slid down to the ground where the Defendant kicked him several times. The evidence at trial established that Defendant caused serious bodily injury to the victim by repeatedly striking his head off of the restroom toilet. Carol Bradley, a patron at Tom's Diner on the evening in question, testified that she heard “a lot of scuffling” and “commotion” in the men's restroom and what sounded “like someone was taking somebody's head and bashing it on the toilet” several times.

 

On June 8, 1991, Ronald Harter and Mark Larson went to appellant's house to retrieve debris that had fallen onto appellant's property from their truck. After the debris was removed, a fight ensued between appellant and Harter, which ceased when Larson intervened. Appellant returned to his house while Harter and Larson searched for their eyeglasses lost during the scuffle. Appellant reappeared with a baseball bat and ordered both men off his property; Larson said they would leave as soon as they found their glasses. In response, appellant said “you'll get your glasses,” took the bat and struck Larson in the jaw near the bottom of his left ear. Harter and Larson fled, while appellant threw bricks at their departing vehicle. Harter suffered a broken nose, a broken ear drum and facial cuts. Larson's jaw was broken and was wired shut for six weeks, during which he was forced to eat through a straw.

 

 

 

Now, by contrast, here are some things that are not enough:

 

 

 

On May 17, 1982, Sharpsburg Borough Police Officers Rudzki and Lang responded to a reported domestic disturbance at 920 Penn Street in Sharpsburg. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers confronted Anthony Magnelli, Jr., [the defendant's] brother, as he exited from the residence. Anthony swore at the officers, challenged them to fight him, and swung his fist at Officer Rudzki, who ducked. Anthony then ran across the street in front of the residence; as he ran, his father came up the street and, in an attempt to restrain his son, forced him to the ground adjacent to concrete steps that led to a nearby residence. While Anthony's father sat on Anthony's legs, the officers kneeled on either side of Anthony and attempted to handcuff him. A scuffle ensued during which Anthony gained control of Officer Rudzki's nightstick and began to flail it at the officers. As the officers crouched over Anthony, [the defendant] came up from behind Officer Rudzki, grabbed the officer by his shirt and pants, picked him up, and threw him forward and into the nearby concrete steps. The officer struck the steps with his right collar bone. As a result of the incident, Officer Rudzki suffered a fractured collar bone which required surgery and the insertion of a pin in order to properly set the fracture.The officer underwent physical therapy for approximately 5 weeks and missed work for approximately 4 months. From the time of the injury until treatment was completed, he was substantially unable to use his right arm.

 

Christian Frenz, the complainant, and his friend Daniel Judge entered Brownie's, a bar located at Second and Market Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on August 7, 1999, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. The men remained in the bar drinking alcoholic beverages until they got up to leave approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 8, 1999. As Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge were about to leave the bar, [the defendant] asked Mr. Frenz if he wanted to arm wrestle. [The defendant] was twice as large and appeared much stronger than Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz declined the offer and headed toward the exit, whereupon [the Defendant] shoved Mr. Frenz. Mr. Frenz was about to say something in response but Mr. Judge advised him against it. Immediately after the shoving incident Mr. Frenz and Mr. Judge left Brownie's and walked along the alleyway toward their car. After they were about three hundred feet away from the bar, Mr. Judge turned around and saw [the Defendant] and another male exit Brownie's and proceed to follow them down the alleyway. [The Defendant] caught up to the men and asked the complainant “Are you a tough guy?” When Mr. Frenz turned around [the Defendant], without provocation, delivered a closed fist blow to the victim's left eye. Mr. Frenz fell to the ground unconscious[.] When Mr. Frenz's head struck the concrete he sustained a scalp laceration which began to bleed profusely. Fortunately, a police car drove by at that moment and Mr. Roche and his companion turned and ran away. Mr. Frenz tried to get up, lost his balance and fell back down. An ambulance subsequently arrived and he was transported to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Doctors determined that he suffered an orbital blowout, frontal rim and sinus fractures. During his five day hospitalization, surgery was performed to attach a plate on the bottom eyelid. Mr. Frenz also received eight staples to close the wound to the back of his head. At the time of trial, some six (6) months later, Mr. Frenz still suffered from straight upward double vision gaze.

 

 

 

It's somewhat safe to say that unless Shady and co. were essentially stomping on the officers' heads as they lay on the ground, they probably didn't act with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

To recap, to prove him guilty of aggravated assault, they'll either have to establish that he intended to cause serious bodily harm, or they'll have to establish both that an officer suffered serious bodily harm and that he was acting with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 

Thank you - very informative!