New NYC “Karen” incident

Post Reply New Topic

She's a 22 yr old adult and she rugby tacked a 14 yr old boy. I don't think she cared if she injured him.

I asked where you specifically stated prior to that post that the charge of "Endangering the welfare of a child" was applicable, given it was supposedly so "self-evident" to you. I also specifically indicated that just mentioning his age with regards to the alleged assault was only an "aggravating factor" with regards to the alleged assault and provided no indication of a belief that a specific charge of "child endangerment" was warranted.

A simple reading of my posts would show that I have acknowledged from the beginning that the 14 year old victim was indeed a child (and so, I don't think it is my eyes that need checking). What I asked was that you show where you had mentioned prior to my post that the "self-evident" charge of "Endangering the welfare of a child" should be made, as opposed to simply mentioning the fact that an adult allegedly assaulted a child, as the 2 charges are very different.

It would be disappointing to think that the claim regarding the specific charge being "self-evident" to you was a fiction, with no evidential basis to support it...

Sorry I assumed child endangerment is synonymous with assault. Clearly it's not
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/r ... erment.htm

The case is against Ponsetto not the boy's father so I am not sure why endangerment was mentioned as the father is not on trial.

Based on the statute:

Source: https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_260.10

It is likely they are interpretting her attempt to gain possesion of the mobile telephone as being targetted at the child rather than the mobile telephone. If this were the case then "she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old". The likely defence would be that she was trying to take hold of the telephone and could not have forseen (nor did she intend) for the child (and herself) to fall as they appear to have done. [As a side note, this statute seems exceedingly broad (and subjective), and I could imagine it could be easily abused, based on the way it is worded.]

How this would play out in court would be interesting to see, but I would guess that this case ends with a plea deal rather than a trial. Should that be the case, I would not be surprised if this charge was dropped at that time, as it seems less likely to be applicable than the attempted assault. Similarly, the Attempted Robbery seems possible it may be be part of the plea deal, with the Attempted Grand Larceny charge also being dropped, but both these do have possible defences based on her asking to "see" or to "look at" the mobile telephone, and she would likely claim that she wanted to see it and had no intention of removing it from the child's possesion, being content if the child simply showed her the screen.

One other thing which just registered while typing the above - They are (at least at this point in time) not charging her with an actual assault, indicating that whatever occurred did not reach the level of:

Source: https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_120.00

As such, it would appear that there was no "physical injury" suffered by the child, which may in fact (although unlikely) result in her fighting all the charges given the prosecution would need to prove intent, in which case the more likely charge she would be found guilty of in court may be "Endangering the welfare of a child" as it does not require intent to injury, nor for injury to have occurred.

Looked at objectively, I can understand the reason beind the specific charges selected, and can also see potential defences to them, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out, either in court, or via plea deal.

I think she was merely intent on him not leaving.

I daresay that if anything was "disappointing", it would be if someone was more bothered by which exact legal term was used to describe an assault, than they were by the actual act of assault. That's a bit like defending someone by saying "well, yes, my client stole from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was home at the time, so it's BURGLARY, not ROBBERY." Yes, technically correct - but not actually helpful.

So Soho Karen committed assault, not endangerment. Well, I guess you got us there I don't see how either of them are ok, so other than being pedantic and pretentious, I don't see the point in splitting hairs over whether people invoke the right legal statute when talking about a violent act committed against a minor.

High horse, low bar.

If you watch the Gale King interview she was told by the hotel management that they would check with guests and that her phone could have been picked up by any of the guests.

Instead of leaving the matter with the hotel (which is what a normal person would do) she decided to follow the Harolds to the door and harassed them for no good reason. I think everybody knows she racially profiled the boy as the prime candidate for stealing the phone as there no evidence she followed anyone else in the hotel lobby and there was no evidence anyone else complied with her demands that everyone emptying their bags.

One thing that makes this incident of critical importance legally is that it will set a precedent of the illegality/criminality of physically assaulting, WHATEVER THE REASON OR INTENT, another person’s child.
This was not a mother, grandmother, babysitter or guardian slapping or spanking a misbehaving little boy who was under her care.
This was physical assault of a child whose father was standing RIGHT THERE.
She really thought it was her phone?
You tell the FATHER ‘I want to see that phone, please’

I gotta agree with the man in a YouTube video someone showed that showing her this isn't her phone would have avoided the whole thing.

Too many people can't be bothered to prove something is their property to avoid conflict. Is it too much to ask?

The 14 year old was gonna show her but his dad stopped him so he complied. Of course because he is a child so he listened to his authority. That's what kids do.

But for all I know, the dad might have thought the woman may take his phone and he didn't know the person. If she comes off as crazy, he would not let his kid take chances. Someone being all hysteric.

I think that if she simply asked, instead of becoming hysterical, this issue wouldn't even be in the news.

"Ask" assumes some agency on the part of the person being asked to also refuse. If someone comes up to me in a hotel lobby and accuses me of theft, I am not sure I am going to take that kindly. A 14 year old kid might not feel good about that either.

The implicit bias show in this thread against the black child that was supposed unquestioningly obey the demands of others is a bit disturbing. I am sure if someone asked if the phone I had was mine and I simply replied it was, I doubt there would have been increasing demands on me to "prove" it.

Of course, agreed. She shouldn't just expect an answer, and shrieking at the kid is guaranteeing a bad situation.
Yes, there is an implicit "all he had to do was answer" about this which unfairly shifts the blame onto the kid. His father defended him, saying that he doesn't need to answer her, and he's right - having some random person scream accusations and demanding answers is the issue. Seeing someone with another iPhone (and god knows there are thousands of them around) is no justification for accusing someone of theft.

Um this applies to anyone when I said if he had showed the phone. I say that about everyone. But lot of people are territorial I say. They can't be bothered to prove it's theirs.

And I will say it again, the dad didn't know the woman so she could have taken his son's phone for all he knew but he didn't know that. Especially if she was being all hysterical.

As I said before, if you have something to say to or ask a child, whose parent is standing right there, you ASK THE PARENT.
When a child of any age, even a teen, wants to pet my dog, and the parent is there, I always ASK THE PARENT.
You acknowledge who is in charge, and it is an example to the child that the parent IS in charge.
She has a known history of unstable, agitated/hysterical behavior.
Now she has been physical.
She needs professional evaluation and intervention.
Without it, she WILL hurt someone.

A few weeks ago, a couple of teenagers (?) blocked my driveway with their car while they argued inside.  They did not see me walk up and start taking pictures of their car until I had already taken several.  The driver put the car into gear and drove away.

Later, the mom of one of the kids pounded on my door and demanded to know why I was harassing her kid.  After I told her why, she demanded that if it ever happened again, I should come directly to her first and not photograph her kid without her permission.  I pointed out that as long as someone was in a public place (or blocking my driveway), they should expect to be photographed, with or without permission.

Then I pointed to the video camera aimed at my front door, and said, "... and their voices recorded too."

She was speechless until she reached the end of my driveway, where she shouted words to the effect that my parents had never been married.

She had no right to demand the Harolds show their phones, its an invasion of privacy.

In the Gale King interview she erroneously claimed Harold Snr physically assaulted her but watching the video he was trying to protect his son and ended up getting scratched so he too might be sating in court that he was assaulted by her.