ummm… that seems to be “criminal posession of a weapon”, the charge, formally. Still, picking up that fryer cleaning rod doesn’t seem to satisfy the “criminal possession” charge of that indictment…
perhaps there’s case law that defines things better, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in the statute (see post #190) tat rules out the charge. The weapon could be almost anything, and where it came from or how conveniently located it is doesn’t seem to be an element But, it seems as if the charge does require intent to use the weapon unlawfully. I think that might be the key for a defense, should it come to trial.
What bugs me is that there were no assault or battery charges placed against the woman who hit him.
I think your earlier “unlawyerly assumption” must be correct.
This cannot reasonably be extended to include picking up any object to ward off an attack in progress. This would effectively criminalize old ladies who hit purse snatchers with their canes.
I agree with you, but it seems the assumption on the part of the prosecutors is that he picked up the thing with the intention of giving them a beat down. Or perhaps intent can change during possession – even if he picked it up with intent to defend, when he “crossed the line” his intent became criminal and his possession of the rod/weapon became criminal.
That is so last millennium. “You deserve a beat-down today” is more 2012-ish.
The statement released by the franchise owner:
I think McDonald’s needs a new slogan: “We welcome our slap-happy customer overlords!”
Well, there is also that quite delineated front of the shop, by limiting countertop. It is a quite distinct social and physical delineation. You encroach my “counterspace as a public employee” and there is an automatic threat, unless invited. This is any Clark’s nightmare.
Think Mr Kent might not have been too worried 
Grand Jury dropped the case. No charges filed 
This guy dodged a bullet with his prison record. Hope he finds another job and stays out of trouble.
As others said back in Oct. the guy was defending himself from two very belligerent customers. He did use excessive force, but under the circumstances I can see why charges were dropped.
That is amazing (and a little bit surprising). Glad to see that justice was served and the system worked.
I just noticed this part. The two women are facing charges too. Which is more than fair. The guy had charges dropped but he’s been in Rikers since the incident. Probably couldn’t make bail. Glad he’s being freed.
Good for him. Now let’s see if the indict the women, who were clearly the aggressors in this situation. Maybe it’ll teach them to behave themselves.
I’m glad to hear this and thanks for the update.
I would guess that they have convictions and suspended sentences in their future.
I love this comment from the franchise owner:
Meanwhile, back in October:
Yeah, thanks so much for the support.
Well, whether you like it or not, they pretty much have to fire the guy to legally cover their asses. As well as to prevent any future revenge-oriented issues with friends or supporters of the two women.
I just would have preferred a statement about how Rayon is part of the fabric of the community. 
Update - Darbeau and Edwards plead not guilty to felony burglary.
Apparently they threatened and berated cops and EMS workers, but the the whole article could be distilled to this:
I do wish that wasn’t so paraphrased, because it’s the real meat, innit? The first bit is pretty idiotic; scrutinizing a fifty is hardly provocation, as it’s pretty much universal for fast food transactions. It will be interestomg to know if the second bit (abusive, homophobic treatment by staff) is any more substantial.
Late LOL. 