McCoy's nightclub fight and the ongoing investigation

[Doc]

My opinion. McCoy is going to be charged with felony aggravated assault. That is not to say that there won't be a plea deal for misdemeanor simple assault. But I'm confident from the accounts that I have read that an aggravated charge against McCoy and his crew is soon to follow.

 

There are two posts on this topic that are very illuminating. Go Kiko go #1397 and USABuffalofan #1504

 

The key issue for McCoy is how hurt are the off duty officers? The fight issue is indisputable; the injury issue and the effects need to be determined. You can bet that McCoy is praying for a rapid recoveryfor the pummeled cops.

 

I meant to say that I think he'll eventually get/plea down to a non-felony. They're obviously looking to charge him with aggravated assault.

 

And from what I just recently read, the guy on the ground who McCoy took some shots at, Butler, suffered broken ribs, a broken nose, and a sprained thumb. The 2nd cop, Jessie, who tried to break it up, received stitches over his left eye and possibly suffered a orbital fracture (likely in the area he received the stitches), which is potentially the most serious, from being hit by the bottle. If anything, I'd say the person who did that could be the one who eventually gets nailed with aggravated assault.

[FireChan]

 

Because the guy on the ground didn't fight at all, right? He just immediately got onto the ground as soon as the champagne bottle broke?

Where is the proof the cops were "fighting?'

 

All we have so far is the police complaint and statements by police spokesman or unnamed "police sources", the Philly police union (Fraternal Order of Police, FOP) president, and the Philly Mayor. Only one of these things constitutes evidence.

 

Do you expect any of these to place any responsibility on the police officer or describes any aggressive words or actions he took, at this point? Hint: it's all one side of the story to date.

 

We also have cell phone video. Cell phone videos are notorious for catching the end of a situation.

Even if McCoy says they started it, there's no hard proof. There is hard proof of the cops getting beaten on the floor.

[JohnC]

 

I meant to say that I think he'll eventually get/plea down to a non-felony. They're obviously looking to charge him with aggravated assault.

 

And from what I just recently read, the guy on the ground who McCoy took some shots at, Butler, suffered broken ribs, a broken nose, and a sprained thumb. The 2nd cop, Jessie, who tried to break it up, received stitches over his left eye and possibly suffered a orbital fracture (likely in the area he received the stitches), which is potentially the most serious, from being hit by the bottle. If anything, I'd say the person who did that could be the one who eventually gets nailed with aggravated assault.

My understanding of the law is that it doesn't matter who hit who in a specific sense. Being party to a brawl in a group sense results in all the participants being held accountable. Let me offer you an example. A team of criminals enter an establishment to rob it. If one member of the team shoots the person behind the counter then all the participants are held accountable for the killing. The legal logic is that as a group they created the situation that lead to the death.

[Doc]

Where is the proof the cops were "fighting?'

 

I can't say. Didn't interview the witnesses.

[FireChan]

 

I can't say. Didn't interview the witnesses.

So none, then. Speculate on.

[JohnC]

 

I can't say. Didn't interview the witnesses.

If you don't know then just make it up. It's acceptable here. Rules are very loose here.

[Doc]

My understanding of the law is that it doesn't matter who hit who in a specific sense. Being party to a brawl in a group sense results in all the participants being held accountable. Let me offer you an example. A team of criminals enter an establishment to rob it. If one member of the team shoots the person behind the counter then all the participants are held accountable for the killing. The legal logic is that as a group they created the situation that lead to the death.

 

Except in your example, they went to rob an establishment premeditatedly. There was no premeditation here. And that's the angle I'd suspect McCoy's lawyer will use.

So none, then. Speculate on.

If you don't know then just make it up. It's acceptable here. Rules are very loose here.

 

So the theory is the bottle broke and then Butler just assumed the fetal position on the floor? Okay. That's just as speculative. I'll admit I don't know what happened, but I wouldn't conveniently throw out the distinct possibility the cop fought as well.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Doc

[FireChan]

 

Except in your example, they went to rob an establishment premeditatedly. There was no premeditation here. And that's the angle I'd suspect McCoy's lawyer will use.

 

So the theory is the bottle broke and then Butler just assumed the fetal position on the floor? Okay. That's just as speculative,

Or we could say "we don't know the extent of the cops involvement, but we do know for sure they were beaten on the floor and McCoy was throwing punches." Less fun that way, though.

[JohnC]

 

Except in your example, they went to rob an establishment premeditatedly. There was no premeditation here. And that's the angle I'd suspect McCoy's lawyer will use.

This is an assault case. I was only using the robbery case as an example for collective responsibility. In a brawl situation you don't have to prove specifically who hit who and who hurt who. There is a reckless nature to the behavior of the group in which they are collectively responsible for.

 

If there is a lawyer in the house I would appreciate some input to clarify this issue.

[reddogblitz]

 

And from what I just recently read, the guy on the ground who McCoy took some shots at, Butler, suffered broken ribs, a broken nose, and a sprained thumb. The 2nd cop, Jessie, who tried to break it up, received stitches over his left eye and possibly suffered a orbital fracture (likely in the area he received the stitches), which is potentially the most serious, from being hit by the bottle. If anything, I'd say the person who did that could be the one who eventually gets nailed with aggravated assault.

 

sounds like McCoy is going down. the good news is, Rex likes sucker punchers.

[Doc]

This is an assault case. I was only using the robbery case as an example for collective responsibility. In a brawl situation you don't have to prove specifically who hit who and who hurt who. There is a reckless nature to the behavior of the group in which they are collectively responsible for.

 

If there is a lawyer in the house I would appreciate some input to clarify this issue.

 

I'd like to see whether there has been a case similar to this and what was the verdict.

sounds like McCoy is going down. the good news is, Rex likes sucker punchers.

 

Not sure what you mean by "going down." I doubt he gets a felony, much less jail time. But I do expect a suspension.

[truth on hold]

 

Because the guy on the ground didn't fight at all, right? He just immediately got onto the ground as soon as the champagne bottle broke?

No matter what happened before the guy on the ground is defenseless, and then McCoy steps in and punmels him. That's a terrible set of facts for a defendant. Any other time McCoy avoids the pile and shakes and bakes to the sidelines, except in a video taped beatdown... %@!

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

That is true to this point in time. The suspects, still not charged with any offense to this point, have kept quiet. That is smart.

 

I've read police reports that state the officers followed every process and procedure to the letter and the suspect was clearly guilty. But when the statements were examined in light of the available physical evidence, available video of traffic stops or other sources, phone records, medical reports, and testimony from witnesses, the officers, and the suspects, etc., there were a large number of contradictions, omissions, and misstatements in the police report. Sometimes enough to get the charges dropped completely and much more often enough to get them significantly reduced.

 

That's what I expect here. A reduction in charges for the entering of a guilty plea to a lessor offense rather than a very public jury trial. While its nothing official, reality is a prosecutor can be more motivated to acquire a conviction or a guilty plea and less concerned about the severity of the sentence and punishment. They might deny this but they'd rather get a 'plus 1' for a conviction or reduced guilty plea than taking a chance on a verdict of innocent from a jury trial. Most defense attorney's will also advise their client to settle for a reduced sentence when weighed against the risk of a jury trial unless they are certain they can select a jury that will be sympathetic to the defendant and that's not going to be easy in most cases.

There is not enough plusses I can put on this. That's exactly how I see this playing out.

 

I don't care what they arraign him on, I highly doubt that there are zero irregularities in the official statement. A good lawyer should be able to cream the aggravated assault and assaulting a police officer charges. I've read up on the aggravated assault statute for PA, and the cop provision only applies if the officer is operating in a professional capacity. Unless someone puts a bottle in Shady's hand, there is no "deadly weapon".

 

Shady might beat the whole thing, but that means smearing cops and missing all of 2016. And then he has to deal with a suspension from the league. His contract is worth more in 2017 so missing time this year cost less than next.

 

Simple Assault in PA is a 2nd degree misdemeanor. For a first time offender I can see a fine, probation and/or suspended sentence for a fraction of the legal fees of a full trial. He'd get a suspension and come in with fresh legs.

[reddogblitz]

Not sure what you mean by "going down." I doubt he gets a felony, much less jail time. But I do expect a suspension.

 

I would absolutely consider a suspension as "going down."

 

But he's still cool with the Bills because Rex loves sucker punchers.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

My understanding of the law is that it doesn't matter who hit who in a specific sense. Being party to a brawl in a group sense results in all the participants being held accountable. Let me offer you an example. A team of criminals enter an establishment to rob it. If one member of the team shoots the person behind the counter then all the participants are held accountable for the killing. The legal logic is that as a group they created the situation that lead to the death.

 

Well, my familiarity with Penn. law is limited to the offerings of my good buddy Google.

 

But is there really a legal term "being a party to a brawl" or "group sense"?

 

It seems to me that there are factors affecting your example which might differ from the present situation. For example, a "team of criminals entering an establishment to commit an armed robbery" might have decided on a common purpose ahead of time - to commit an armed robbery - and acted as a group to commit the robbery. If one dude then shoots someone, the court might hold that it was a probable consequence of threatening someone with a weapon to rob that the weapon might get used. To my understanding the legal doctrine of common purpose or joint criminal enterprise derives from English common law, and state by state seems to differ in how/whether it is applied in the USA.

 

In the Recess incident, it seems unlikely that Shady and his friends entered the premises with any common purpose other than drinking and maybe hooking up. So do the courts in Pennsylvania really see all four as responsible, without any prior common purpose of committing assault, if one of them grabs a bottle and clocks someone during a brawl that breaks out? I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't necessarily seem to follow from the example you give.

[JohnC]

 

Well, my familiarity with Penn. law is limited to the offerings of my good buddy Google.

 

But is there really a legal term "being a party to a brawl" or "group sense"?

 

It seems to me that there are factors affecting your example which might differ from the present situation. For example, a "team of criminals entering an establishment to commit an armed robbery" might have decided on a common purpose ahead of time - to commit an armed robbery - and acted as a group to commit the robbery. If one dude then shoots someone, the court might hold that it was a probable consequence of threatening someone with a weapon to rob that the weapon might get used. To my understanding the legal doctrine of common purpose or joint criminal enterprise derives from English common law, and state by state seems to differ in how/whether it is applied in the USA.

 

In the Recess incident, it seems unlikely that Shady and his friends entered the premises with any common purpose other than drinking and maybe hooking up. So do the courts in Pennsylvania really see all four as responsible, without any prior common purpose of committing assault, if one of them grabs a bottle and clocks someone during a brawl that breaks out? I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't necessarily seem to follow from the example you give.

On this issue I am confused. I don't know for sure. That is why I asked for someone who is better schooled in the law.

 

We should get a better sense of what the law and collective culpability issue is when/if the charges are brought. The issue that I am not referring to is premeditation. There was none. The example I cited wasn't necessarily a good example because there was premeditation in that scenario in which all were part of. The point I was making dealt with the point that the act of one (in certain situations) can result in responsibility for the other participants.

 

In a brawl situation it is very difficult to determine who hurt who in a specific sense. It seems to me that in this situation that everyone in the aggressive group were participating in the fight.

 

Again, I'm not making a declarative statement on this issue. But my inclination is that all in the McCoy party will be charged with aggravated assault. That is speculation on my part.

[Mr. WEO]

Everyone who lost to Mike Tyson in the first round didn't fight either.

 

Do you believe what you're saying or just trying to win an argument?

 

A fight can last two seconds or two hours. 4 on one ? Where did the other cops go ?

 

 

I'm just reading the quotes from the police report:

 

"Police said "pushing and shoving" over the bottle led to one of the off-duty officers being knocked to the ground, and while he was on the ground, he was "punched, kicked and stomped about his body and head multiple times by all four suspects."

 

[Maury Ballstein]

Title of thread should be speculation

 

Hilarious takes from both sides.

I'm just reading the quotes from the police report:

 

Pushing and shoving starts fights from what I've seen in the past. Edited February 16, 2016 by Ryan L Billz

[Go Kiko go]

This is an assault case. I was only using the robbery case as an example for collective responsibility. In a brawl situation you don't have to prove specifically who hit who and who hurt who. There is a reckless nature to the behavior of the group in which they are collectively responsible for.

 

If there is a lawyer in the house I would appreciate some input to clarify this issue.

 

 

Well, my familiarity with Penn. law is limited to the offerings of my good buddy Google.

 

But is there really a legal term "being a party to a brawl" or "group sense"?

 

It seems to me that there are factors affecting your example which might differ from the present situation. For example, a "team of criminals entering an establishment to commit an armed robbery" might have decided on a common purpose ahead of time . . .

 

It's a bit more complicated than JohnC's suggestion, and a bit simpler than Hopeful's. But let me preface this, again, with the fact that criminal law is not my speciality.

 

Taking JohnC's first, you need a little more than just being part of "the group" for criminal liability to attach. Generally speaking, to be punished for the acts of another, you must both (1) assist in some way, which could include just mere encouragement, and (2) have the intent to assist the perpetrator in engaging in the criminal conduct. Put another way, you generally need to be acting with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense.

 

[Your example about a "team of criminals enter[ing] an establishment to rob it" where "one member of the team shoots the person behind the counter" isn't quite applicable here, because that involves the felony murder doctrine, which imposes--in states that still adhere to it--strict liability for any death that results during the commission of a felony]

 

We can spin out a few hypotheticals. If Shady and co. were throwing some punches (the assumption being that that's not, alone, aggravated assault), and then one guy starts stomping on an officer on the ground and Shady and co. encourage it or egg him on (or keep attacking the officer themselves), that's probably sufficient evidence to find that each of them intended to promote an aggravated assault and encouraged it, even though only one of them did the stomping.

 

But, if Shady and co. were throwing some punches, and then one guy decides to go rogue, grab a champagne bottle, and crack it over one of the officer's heads to the surprise of the rest of them, it would be more difficult to show that Shady had the purpose of promoting aggravated assault. Or, if the group had thrown a few punches and then started to back off, and one of the group then re-engaged an starting kicking at an officer on the ground, again, it would be more difficult to establish that each member of the group had the intent to promote an aggravated assault.

 

Now, the reason I said it's a little simpler than Hopeful's suggestion is that you don't need to show premeditation--that is, you don't need to show that Shady and co. had come to the bar with any common purpose to commit aggravated assault. To punish someone for complicity, you just need to show that, at some time, they had the intent to promote the commission of the offense, even if they only formed that intent in the heat of the moment.

 

These are all just general principles, and I haven't bothered to see if Pennsylvania law has any quirks on this subject.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Go Kiko go

[JohnC]

 

 

It's a bit more complicated than JohnC's suggestion, and a bit simpler than Hopeful's. But let me preface this, again, with the fact that criminal law is not my speciality.

 

Taking JohnC's first, you need a little more than just being part of "the group" for criminal liability to attach. Generally speaking, to be punished for the acts of another, you must both (1) assist in some way, which could include just mere encouragement, and (2) have the intent to assist the perpetrator in engaging in the criminal conduct. Put another way, you generally need to be acting with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense.

 

[Your example about a "team of criminals enter[ing] an establishment to rob it" where "one member of the team shoots the person behind the counter" isn't quite applicable here, because that involves the felony murder doctrine, which imposes--in states that still adhere to it--strict liability for any death that results during the commission of a felony]

 

We can spin out a few hypotheticals. If Shady and co. were throwing some punches (the assumption being that that's not, alone, aggravated assault), and then one guy starts stomping on an officer on the ground and Shady and co. encourage it or egg him on (or keep attacking the officer themselves), that's probably sufficient evidence to find that each of them intended to promote an aggravated assault and encouraged it, even though only one of them did the stomping.

 

But, if Shady and co. were throwing some punches, and then one guy decides to go rogue, grab a champagne bottle, and crack it over one of the officer's heads to the surprise of the rest of them, it would be more difficult to show that Shady had the purpose of promoting aggravated assault. Or, if the group had thrown a few punches and then started to back off, and one of the group then re-engaged an starting kicking at an officer on the ground, again, it would be more difficult to establish that each member of the group had the intent to promote an aggravated assault.

 

Now, the reason I said it's a little simpler than Hopeful's suggestion is that you don't need to show premeditation--that is, you don't need to show that Shady and co. had come to the bar with any common purpose to commit aggravated assault. To punish someone for complicity, you just need to show that, at some time, they had the intent to promote the commission of the offense, even if they only formed that intent in the heat of the moment.

 

These are all just general principles, and I haven't bothered to see if Pennsylvania law has any quirks on this subject.

Thanks for the response. It was informative.

 

But let me go to a situation that may or not have happened in this case. If everyone in the aggressive group is participating in the pummeling of the victims but it can't be determined who did what when a victim was hurt to an aggravated assault level then isn't this a collective action type of event and a collective responsibility situation.

 

My example that I gave was not a good example. The primary point that I wanted to make (and did it poorly) is that there are situations where the action of one person of a participating group can fall to the others who didn't want the situation to escalate to that extent.

Edited February 16, 2016 by JohnC