THere’s video of her throwing the microphone. How can there not be sufficient evidence that she assaulted someone and be charged?
Want to link to the video please?
…there is insufficient evidence of the charge of battery, not assault.
The person who filed the police report wasn’t the person Cardi B was aiming at. It was somebody else who was allegedly hit.
In Vegas assault and battery are different things.
Ok, so battery, not assault. How can she not be charged with ‘battery’… It can’t be that she didn’t physically ‘touch’ the other person…otherwise beating someone with a baseball bat would not be ‘battery’
I don’t know anything about this case. But, the doctrine of “transferred intent” ought to cover what I understand you to be saying happened. As the Nevada Supreme Court has put it:
The doctrine of transferred intent is a theory of imputed liability. It was developed to address situations where a defendant, intending to kill A, misses A and instead accidentally kills B. Without the doctrine, the individual responsible for B’s death could not be charged with murder because there was never an intent to kill B.
Rather than allow an individual who intended to commit murder to escape full responsibility for his conduct simply because he killed the wrong person, the doctrine of transferred intent was established. The intent to kill A would be transferred or imputed to victim B. The doctrine of transferred intent was created to avoid the specific intent requirement and thus hold the defendant accountable for the consequences of his behavior when he injures an unintended victim.
…Cardi B didn’t intend to kill anyone, I doubt she even intended to hurt anyone. Someone threw a liquid at her (an increasingly common thing at live concerts, there have been several incidents in the last couple of months) and she retaliated. They didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict, so they dropped the case. There really isn’t much more to it than that.
Why charge someone when they are unlikely to be found guilty, especially when nobody was hurt? The people that are needing to be charged are the idiots who keep throwing things at performers. Its getting out of hand and it isn’t a surprise that performers have started to get a bit defensive about it.
It would be helpful if you would post cites to where it says that she won’t be charged.
The doctrine is not limited to murder. It’s a general common law criminal doctrine (with some narrow exceptions not relevant here).
I don’t know whether there is sufficient evidence to charge “Cardi B” (I don’t even know who that is). But, as I understand this thread: “Cardi” threw an object at Person A (i.e., attempting to commit a battery of Person A), missed Person A, and hit Person B.
And what I’m saying is that, unless Nevada has some really odd exception to the general rule (and my 30 second search suggests that it doesn’t), it shouldn’t matter that she wasn’t aiming at Person B. The required intent (“deliberately touching”) gets “transferred” to Person B.
I’m struggling to think of another reason for a grown adult to throw a heavy item at someone other than to cause them harm in some way.
In the heat of the moment it is very likely she intended to hurt someone (hopefully the liquid thrower in her mind), how much slack we cut her for the undoubted provocation is up for debate.
…I never claimed it was.I was just pointing out to the person who literally doesn’t know anything about the case that perhaps you are missing some of the nuance here.
I just watched the video on YT. She definitely threw a microphone at someone. How can there “not be enough evidence”?
…It’s certainly evidence that she threw a microphone!
Posts #3 & #10 contain cites to news articles including a thumbnail image of our mike-thrower.
I have no comment on the incident itself, but I want to point out that in both pix she looks more AI-generated than real.
Perhaps this is the start of a new marketing approach to the music biz. Make the real celeb look like an AI, then have AIs touring (ABBA Voyage anyone?) while the real celeb stays home and collects the money. How can one person perform live in multiple places? Now they can, for particularly nuanced values of “live”.
Did the person hit with the microphone ask for her to be charged? Without that the state would be wasting its time charging her with a crime. Further reading of the specific law could exclude this as a crime because of the lack of serious harm. The alleged victim still has the ability to sue Cardi B for battery or assault but lacking substantive damages that could backfire because Cardi B can surely afford much better lawyers.
Was the victim hurt by the microphone, with a busted lip needing stitches or a black eye.
If so perhaps her management company would settle a nice little sum for their pain and suffering. If not, press charges?
Otherwise No harm no foul, but it is funny she stopped to pitch her mic and the vocal tracks kept rolling without her. Is that what they call a concert? Rather that’s just an appearance!
Maybe there is insufficient evidence of damage to the person?
Though it seems hard to not tell a person they really weren’t hurt.
The unnamed individual reportedly told police she was “experiencing pain because of this incident" and planned to seek “medical attention.”
Here’s my latest theory. Cardi B threw the microphone and hit someone. Another person totally unrelated to the incident and maybe even many feet away, ‘claimed’ they got hit and suffered pain…but after the footage was reviewed, it became clear that person was not struck.
That’s about the only scenario I can come up with for not pressing charges in this particular case with that particular person claiming to be a victim.
…they considered that there was insufficient evidence in order to secure a conviction of the charge of battery in court.
It really is nothing more complicated than that. These decisions are made all of the time. The person who threw the water at Cardi B is also not being prosecuted, even though there was video. Apparently, the person who threw the object that hit Harry Styles wasn’t prosecuted. The person who threw the phone at Drake also wasn’t apparently prosecuted, neither was the person who threw something at Ballerini.
Not everything goes to court. Not everything needs a “theory.”
That’s a key part that isn’t obvious. Is it insufficient evidence that the event occurred? or insufficient evidence that a jury would convict her for doing what she did?
What I’ve read doesn’t make that distinction clear.
…because it doesn’t matter. It LITERALLY doesn’t matter. If you really want to find out the answer then pick up the phone and call the police department. But that isn’t something the press are going to follow up because nobody even really cares.