New NYC “Karen” incident

Post Reply New Topic

You mean something such as:

Source: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/hate_crimes.htm

The problem that you run into is:


So, there needs to be something other than the race of the people involved for it to meet this (as I believe I have mentioned several times, having people of different races (or the victim being a specific race) is not enough). If she has (as reported) approached others, prior to the arrival of the child and his father, then it is highly unlikley there was any "Hate crime" committed (or, at a minimum, evidence of one being committed).

While looking up the previous "hate crime" statute, I came across the following, which it would seeem at first glance may have been approriate charge in addition to the others:

Source: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.20

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00

How does this compare to Australian law?

Depends on your state...Victoria is:

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s31.html

It's one I had to know very well in a previous job...Not sure what other states have, but they would likely be similar.

Hey if you wanna get all super pedantic technical, sure, by New York law she did not actually commit "assault". But she did likely commit Menacing, and Harassment, and possibly Attempted Assault. New York laws are a little slippery, so it's easy to miss things. Or ignore things. Or cherry pick things.

Menacing is defined in the New York Penal Code as a crime that involves conduct or words that place another individual in fear of immediate bodily harm. Actual physical contact or injury is not required for a person to be charged with menacing

A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when he or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses another person by following such person in or about a public place or places or by engaging in a course of conduct or by repeatedly committing acts which places such person in reasonable fear of physical injury.

The apologetics for this wing-nut lady are equally hilarious and saddening.

It would be a shame if you bothered to read what had been posted before making wild claims regarding the content of the thread you were posting in or the supposed opinions\views of those participating in the discussion...

I have also heard that here, in Australia, even pointing a finger at a person may be considered an assault.
Is this an urban myth?

She's also charged with attempted robbery---a felony.

Pointing a finger certainly is not assault in New York.

What an odd statement.
Brictoria is considering how the court may interpret the situation.
Courts *have to be pedantic*.



Are you calling Brictoria an apologist?
If so, you miss the point of the exercise which is to determine the situation in a rational and objective manner, taking in all available information.

Perhaps you prefer to skip the investigative hard yakka and take the person directly to the gallows?
I rarely use sarcasm, btw.

Are you one of the people who embrace the concept of: "Morality is more important than the facts"?
To me, it seems as though you are focusing on a narrative rather than considering what actually was the case.

Labelling someone an apologist, a denier, etc, is a psychological attack through sanctimonious intimidation.

You are one of the more rational people here.
Yes, I understand the implication of my statement.

The woman has major problems, there is no denying that.

I notice that major news outlets are referring to Ponsetto's "incident" as an alleged assault and not as an "attempted assault".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miya-ponse ... lack-teen/

For legal purposes it seem ok to say she is alleged to have assaulted Harrold Jnr.

Isn't this the usual jargon?

Well Brictoria emphasised the need for WP members to use "attempted" otherwise we open Alex for legal action. I was pointing out that if CNN is saying "alleged" then that should be ok for all of us to use "alleged".

As I surmised the hotel management are also implicated in this incident and will also be facing legal action



The Harrold's (Snr and Jnr) have been in their hotel rooms while Ponsetto is going bezerk at the hotel staff about her phone being stolen.

They (the Harrolds) exit the elevator (having not been in the lobby) to get brunch and Ponsetto makes a beeline to them as they leave the elevator accusing the boy (whom she had not seen before) of stealing her phone. What was also not filmed was the hotel manager asking the 14 yr old boy (Keyon Jr) to show him the phone.

The rest was caught on video by the father leading to the altercation.

So what we didn't know before but can now confirm is
1. The Harrold's were paid guests of the hotel
2. Harold Snr is a grammy award winning musician and his wife works with Beyonce
3. Ponsetto was not a guest of the hotel
4. The hotel manager took Ponsetto's side (despite her not being a hotel guest) and demanded they show her their phones (despite the fact there was no evidence they were in the lobby at the time of the theft and despite the manager probably knowing Harrold Snr was a celebrity guest). An egregious error of judgement by the hotel manager.
5. During the altercation the hotel staff made no attempt to protect their guests thus breaching their duty of care
6. Finally it confirms what we suspected that Ponsetto made no attempt to question or make demands to guests actually in the lobby but directed her rage at a 14 year old boy who was not in the lobby when her alleged theft occurred.

The harrold's laywer Benjamin Crump is a high profile civil rights lawyer and is confident that racial profiling was involved and will be making the case not just against Ponsetto but now also the hotel staff.

Not sure about laws in other states, but if you made contact with the person (or their clothing) when pointing at them and were depending on what you were saying\doing at the time, it would theoretically be possible in Victoria, as it would involve:
* direct application of force by a person to the body of, or to clothing or equipment worn by, another person
* without lawful excuse (This portion would be the easiest to use for defence - Did you have a lawful reason for making contact)
* with intent to inflict or being reckless as to the infliction of discomfort, insult

A zealous prosecutor has quite a bit of leeway under the laws here...The police, similarly, can use it as a pretext to arrest someone even if they decide later not to proceed with charges.

I actually like the laws from New York (the format\presentation, not necessarily the content), as they seem much tighter and objective, as opposed to the broad, subjective language used in ours (under theirs, you know what you can do, and what you can't. Under ours, different people may understand the law based on its wording in different ways). That is the one part I didn't like about the "Endangerment of a child" statute in this particular case - It appears too subjective, although considering what it is designed to cover that is potentially unavoidable.

Actually, the Terms Of Use for Wrong Planet state: "As a registered member, you are held solely and personally responsible for any libelous, defamatory, or slanderous remarks about a person or company made in your posts."

Although, having pointed that out, I'd hazard a guess that most, if not all of what's been said here and elsewhere would be allowable as "free comment" or "opinion".
But I am not a lawyer and, AFAIK, neither is Brictoria.