Sadly there is. It's called accessory to a felony. Since you helped drive, and knew beforehand that it was going to happen and it sounds like you kept driving back for w to hit him more you technically helped with the crime and were an accessory. If you had merely witnessed it you'd be fine but since you drove, multiple times you can be charged as an accessory to it, and it sounds like the beating you gave him fell into the felony assault category therefore charging you with accessory to a felony before and after the fact, two different charges. Trust me same thing happened to me and i was charged with 2 felonies for accessory before and after the fact I'd garage your car for awhile and keep it off the road/ campus since it most likely is being looked for. If he knows your name have fun your gunna have a hard time denying it. Just invoke your rights if the police pick you up and get a good lawyer. DONT make any statements and you may walk away with nothing since it's really hard to prove it was your car specifically, and you were actually involved.
He claims it was one punch and he denies prior knowledge. How are you going to get a felony out of that?
CAm the fuck down police arent gonna do shit if they do, theyll leave a card or knock on your door and talk..they wont get a warrant based off of you being there and theres no grounds to search anything at your house FUCKING REMEMBER THIS IF EVER INVESTIGATEE FOR CRIME WEHTER CHARGES OR NOT..DONT SAY A THING..AT ALL..ASK FOR A LAWYER...DONNNNNNNNTTTTTTTT SPEAK...LOOK UP THE 5TH AMENDMENT..TALKING WILL KILL YOU DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT DONT TALK TO POLICE PLEAD THE 5TH TIL LAWYER AND COURT
Yeah....what he said. Lawyer up. Insist on not saying shit until your attorney gets there. Whatever you do, don't talk to the cops; not a fucking word. Or else they will fuck you over every time. That is what they do; they are cops. Get an attorney, refer the cops to your attorney, and they won't fuck with you anymore.
I got felony from this As soon as you have knowledge of a crime that is going to occur and help it happen it turns into accessory to the crime. Since he drove to and away from attempting to fight this kid multiple times and the kid refused, until he was kicked the person driving is a accessory. it turns a misdemeanor to a possible felony as soon as the kid refused the fight multiple times since you attacked a kid who wast fighting back. It moves from a consensual fight and simple battery which is a misdemeanor to aggravated assault and battery or felony battery depedning on where your from which moves from a misdemeanor to a felony. As soon as the kid kicked him with his shoes on it moved 100% to a felony charge. A kick with shoes on is automatically considered felony assault and battery with a deadly weapon. Your shoes are considered a deadly weapon in a fight and you will be charged with the felony if you kick someone with your shoes on especially in the head. Therefore the person driving can be charged with a felony if the police deem there is enough cause to support an accessory charge which in this case there definitely is.
Care to explain how thats all bullshit? Heres what an acessory is: Anyone who knowingly helps to commit or plan a crime, or cover a crime/ or person who committed a crime is the basic definition. Proof: Accessory - Criminal Law Lawyer Source Here is the definition of simple assualt in New Jersey which holds very similar laws to Massachusetts in terms of A&B. A person commits the crime of simple assault if he attempts to cause, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. A simple assault charge may be charged if a person negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Finally, a simple assault can be charged if a person attempts, by physical menace, to put another in fear of imminent bodily injury. A mutual fight or scuffle, where proportional force is used, may result in both combatants being charged with simple assault. What does this all mean? First, you can be charged with simple assault by simply threatening an individual with serious bodily harm. You don't have to touch someone to be charged. However, the threats that are made must be physical in nature, and the the accuser must reasonably believe that the threat is imminent, and that you are serious about your threat. The bodily harm threatened also must be serious bodily harm. The mental component in these types of assault cases typically leaves the door open for many viable defenses that may lead to a not guilty plea. Secondly, a simple assault can be charged if one attempts to purposely inflict bodily injury, or knowingly/ recklessly inflicts bodily injury. You may have noticed that this section does not use the term serious bodily injury. For example, a slap to the face would suffice, or swinging at bat at someone and missing. Aggravated Assault: N.J.S.A. 2C 12-1(b-f) Second degree aggravated assault may be charged if an individual attempts to cause or causes serious bodily injury to another. The person must act knowingly or recklessly. Recklessly means an extreme indifference for human life. Note the difference between 2nd degree assault and simple assault. The actor must attempt or actually inflict serious bodily injury. Thus, a slap to the face will not be charged as a 2nd degree. Something more serious is required. Assault under this sub section may be charged as a third degree crime if the actor attempts to inflict or inflicts significant bodily injury. Significant falls somewhere in between regular bodily injury and serious. Bodily Injury Cause By Deadly Weapon: Third or Fourth Degree Once again, the degree of offense charged under this subsection will most likely depend on the mental state of the actor, and the harm inflicted. The occupation of the alleged victim will also come into play. A person who knowingly causes bodily injury (not serious bodily injury) with a deadly weapon if guilty of a third degree crime. However, if the harm inflicted was done so recklessly, then a person is guilty of a fourth degree crime. Take note of the differences. Only bodily injury, not serious injury is required. Additionally, the state will have to prove that you either acted knowingly or recklessly. Here is the proof that a shoe is considered a deadly weapon: "What is Assault with a Dangerous Weapon? A dangerous weapon can be considered anything from a gun, a knife, a moving car or other vehicle, down to a baby bottle, or even a shod foot!" From- Massachusetts Assault and Battery w Dangerous Weapon Laws - MA A & B Criminal Defense Lawyer and any other website you can google. Even in California some types of shoes are considered a deadly weapon: In California, under the penal code, section 245(a)(1) is charged under one of two ways, with force likely to produce great bodily injury, or use of a deadly weapon, not a firearm. There are two sections to this law. One is assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. This offense focuses on the kind of force used and its probable result, and there is no limit on the means used to inflict the force. (A pillow is not a deadly weapon, but holding one over somebody's face would be a felonious assault.) The other is assault with a deadly weapon, which focuses on the weapon, no matter what actual force was used. (Merely touching somebody with a knife could be a feloneous assault.) In this second context, the parts of the human body can NEVER be a weapon, martial arts training or no. (Remember, though, that one with martial arts training may be more able to use a bodily extremity to inflict force likely to cause great bodily injury.) The California Supreme Court has intimated, but not directly held, that some types of foot-covering, such as hob-nailed or steel-toed boots, could be deadly weapons(People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023.) So therefore it is a felony assault for the kicking and the driver could be charged with accessory to a felony for driving the kid who kicked him to the victim multiple times knowing he was going to eventually assault him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next time you wanna say somethings bullshit do your homework and dont argue with someone who's 2 years into a criminal justice program and internshiped with the attorney generals office, and a defense law firm, and been arrested for A&B With a deadly weapon(for his shoes) If you wanna keep arguing this feel free i can provide way more proof.
^layin' the books on em . hahahaha but seriously park that shit in the garage and flush that fucking key ... or 1. Huge ass decal?anything outrageous to the way your car looks 2. Total that bitch 3. Swallow a knife
It appears you have constructed an argument that does not fit the facts. You have added in the word "knowingly" and all that it implies. Now, the OP denies prior knowledge and I have no reason not to believe him. You have taken your education, mixed it up with your own case and your experience, spiced it up with a few facts not in evidence to fill in the blanks and pop! out comes a nice shiny one-size-fits-all answer for assault cases. You can't do that with law cases. Its like driving a square peg into a round hole. Every case is different and you need to be able to read and to pick out the relevant fact pattern. Basically, you can't just make shit up to fit the laws you think you know. You have to take the facts as they are. Since you went to the trouble of fleshing out the case with your own conclusions then, of course, you can eventually arrive at a felony case. No doubt about it. You demonstrate a typical "cop" understanding of the law. Typically, cops know a lot about very narrow areas of the law with which they come into contact everyday. But a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. This is part of the reason why so many cases are either wrongly charged, or over-charged at the time of filing by the police. Your analysis is correct in that a typical cop would probably see it like you do and try to make a felony case out of it. A smart cop probably wouldn't because the facts do not support a felony conviction. I have seen charge reductions in every kind of case from parking tickets to murder because the cop charged it wrongly. Stay in school because I do not doubt your enthusiasm nor your sincerity. But when you approach your studies in Criminal Justice and your work for the Attorney General's office just remember that you are only seeing a snapshot of the larger picture. There is a whole other legal world out there called "criminal defense." Other than that, you do good work. Keep it up.
i laughed so hard by the 2nd sentence dude. these other ni**as so-so, they open of my mojo, spanish mami with a half a kilo strapped by her cho-cho
Heres what you missed in the first post The bolded sections are the parts where he admitted he knew what was happening and what was going to happen when he stopped the car again. Now heres where im confused i bolded the part where i was confused I have two issues with that statement. First, this is what i said, go back and read my first post. I said a cop would try to charge him with that and most likely would not that i would. And did you not say this to my other post? You seem like your scrambling now because someone actually proved you wrong, and posted relevant information even relating to your own state, and proved you completely wrong. First you accuse me of making up bullshit and then i prove you wrong and now your admitting that im right???? And as for you saying You clearly must have missed that interned in a criminal defense firm and want to be a criminal defense lawyer, in my other post. Any other points you wish to raise?
Originally Posted by SevenString honestly heres what happened. we were driving. we see this kid who punched w's girlfriend. the kid doesnt know who w is. w get outs and tried to get him to stand up to punch him. s is just sitting in the back seat. i tell w to get back in. OP clearly displays signs of objection towards the act of becoming a witness or accessory to the crime that "W" is about to commit. we drive way and come back. same thing happens. As operator of the vehicle, OP remains innocent and does not display any intention or motive that could be demonstrated as hostile or provocative. he gets back in and we leave. we drive once more. w gets out. As operator of the vehicle, OP remains innocent and does not display any intention or motive that could be demonstrated as hostile or instigative. "W"says like 1 word which i didnt hear. Comparable negligence has now been incorporated into the situation on behalf of OP. OP is simply the operator of the vehicle, expecting the same results from the last time they drove pass the scene of the incident. w kicks kid in the head HARD. he then jumped in my car and i sped off. then dropped w off at his house. If this same testimony is documented in a court setting, the only charges applicable and reasonable would be for Speeding. OP had no prior knowledge of what actions "W" would take upon the victim the third time OP, "W" and "S" returned to the scene. Stating otherwise would deem "S" a potential suspect as well. Clearly, OP and "S" display no motives for becoming the witnesses to such aforementioned crime, or assault in the second degree, which was carried out on "W's" behalf.
This is what a good defense attorney would say, and would most likely either win or at least get the charges reduced/ dismissed after probation. I admit my argument was towards the prosecution but that was only because people started calling bullshit on my posts, in which i stated a cop would attempt to charge him with accessory to the crime, which is completely possible with the evidence i presented, but there are always two sides and a good defense attorney would argue the above post and most likely either win or have the charges reduced/dismissed with probation or fines.
The real question is, how did he kick him and where in the head? Temple? Back of the head? Forehead? Square in the face? Ear? Jaw? WHAT? Did he use the front of his shoe? Did he properly kick him? Also, from what I can tell from your second scenario, you drove W to the guy 3 separate times, and on the third time he kicked him? I'm no lawyer, but you may be seen as an accessory. Dunno man. Don't be a fucking git next time. Violence isn't the answer, tell W to file a police report if his girl got punched and don't aid him in getting someone's ass whooped. Use your head OP...
haha hey law and order's what started my love for studying the law, and being a teenanger with a couple run in's with douchebag/crooked police made me want to become a defense attorney. Yea thats why i said he'd probably be charged as an accessory. But with a good lawyer like mr squishy pointed out it can be made into reasonable doubt, and a plea bargain given.
So you want to go to law school; that should be interesting for you. A real eye-opener. Of course, that dosen't help your knowledge base at the moment. I notice that you claimed to have proven this and that but I can't see where you have actually proven anything. Very lawyer-like of you. Please notice that later on in the thread, when I was one-on-one with the OP, he claims all he did was drive the car. Maybe the debate arises out of the difference in opinion over the prior knowledge issue. I can see that you want very badly to "win" or prove yourself right in this case. That is, and is not, a good thing for a lawyer. Its like running a foot race and tripping over your own two feet: you want to watch where you're going. Remember that this is not about me, it is supposed to be about helping the OP. As a criminal defense attorney, you won't "win" many cases unless all you do is easy cases. You will eventually learn that "winning" is never your first goal. Your goal should be to "produce the best outcome for the client". "The best outcome" is as good as it gets. The best outcome in this case for the client or OP would be a "walk." And yet you have him as good as convicted already. Put your defense hat on and re-read the thread and maybe you will see it the way I do. If not, we can agree to disagree. Good luck in law school, you'll enjoy it.
all we need now is someone with real life experience as a judge or a group of people who act as the jury.. any volunteers???
Again you didnt read what i said.......... I have said 3 times that i was posting on behalf of the prosecution and what the police most likely would have charged him of because you called bullshit on me and said i made up everything posted. I then provided solid evidence which you are now trying to ignore and instead change the topic over to me not helping the op with his case and instead finding him guilty which was what i was originally attempting to do to prove a point when you said i made everything up. Learning to read will get you far in this world. I never made anything up, he would be charged with accessory to a felony assault if this actually happened and the police had all the facts. Saying i made facts up to get the charges is absurd seeing as how the law clearly defines everything i have pointed out and he would be charged accordingly. Yes it is the point of the defense to beat those charges i understand that but he would be charged and they would have to figure out how he wasnt an accomplice, not how the crime didnt happen.