3 ms·
Here's the prosecutor's office's response to the release of the man who threw coffee at a toddler (from the article you linked in fact). ---------------- In e
by Bjartr 6y ago
Here's the prosecutor's office's response to the release of the man who threw coffee at a toddler (from the article you linked in fact).
----------------
In evaluating whether there is sufficient evidence to support a felony charge, we are ethically bound to apply the facts of a particular case to the law as established by the legislature. This is regardless of the history of a particular defendant or the outrageousness of the conduct.
In order to elevate an assault against a child from a gross misdemeanor to a felony, there must be some level of bodily harm to the victim. The details of this law are specified here: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.140 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.140
Throwing coffee on a child is horrible and abusive behavior. Due to the Seattle Police Department (SPD) patrol’s response we were able to answer the questions we needed to determine the appropriate charges in this case. We learned from the police report that the child, thankfully, did not appear to have been injured in any way and we were told that the child received no medical treatment. In other words, the facts of this particular case didn’t support this being a felony. That said, we were able to refer the case to Seattle Municipal Court to ensure the offender was kept in custody.
----------------
According to the laws in place, no matter how many police there were or how well funded they were, the man, by law, should have been released in that particular circumstance. If that's unacceptable, then the laws should change, but as it stands this event was the justice system working as designed.
- monocasa 6y agoThe prosecutor is wrong, and you can tell that they know they're wrong because they linked to the wrong statute. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.130 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.130 You can upgrade to second degree for "or (ii) causing the child physical pain or agony that is equivalent to that produced by torture." I think you can make the argument that pouring near boiling water on a toddler counts as that.
- Bjartr 6y agoPlaying devil's advocate: You could also make the argument in the other direction, so this isn't as cut and dry a case of the prosecution being clearly at fault. Additionally, this is a legal document, and there could be a strict definition of "torture" or for how one determines "pain or agony equivalent to" that doesn't make intuitive sense, but applies in the legal context (as I understand things as a non-lawyer, it's not that uncommon for words to mean surprising things in legal documents, which is a big part of why lawyers are valuable, they know how to currently interpret words that would mean something very different in conversational English) Do you have more information on this that would eliminate that ambiguity?
- monocasa 6y agoI mean, he only cited the weakest part of the statute. > and there could be a strict definition of "torture" or for how one determines "pain or agony equivalent to" that doesn't make intuitive sense, but applies in the legal context (as I understand things as a non-lawyer Those are called "matters of fact" (in contrast to matters of law) which is what you need a jury for. The question of "did he cause pain or agony" would be the core question the jury would be answering.
- Bjartr 6y agoThe are good points. Thanks for taking the time to explain.