It seemed to me that your first post was explaining why you thought there was insufficient evidence and that it was because she didn’t hit the person she was aiming at (which really isn’t a mitigating fact; in fact, I think it argues in favor of prosecution).
But really, none of the “nuance” here appears to be related to the sufficiency of the evidence. Maybe the victim had it coming; maybe this Cardi is too rich and prominent; maybe the victim is from out of state and doesn’t want to come back to testify; maybe the state doesn’t have sufficient resources (or motivation) to prosecute fairly low-level offenses. These are all reasonably common reasons to decline prosecution, but it’s not a sufficiency problem.
I have learned quite a bit in a short time frame thanks to this thread. I’ve learned about the doctrine of transferred intent and understand it as presented. I know more about the distinction between assault and abbery than I did before. I’ve also learned that there’s apparently a person named Cardi B. Who flings microphones at people.
IANAL, but I would imagine that transferred intent only applies if the original intent was a crime. If someone threw something at Ms. B, and B threw something back at that person, and hit them, that could reasonably be interpreted as self-defense or provocation, or something else that would make it not criminal. The fact that B’s aim was bad doesn’t change her non-criminal intent, and so hitting the actual victim wasn’t a crime, either.
Of course, such a position is debatable. A jury could find that her throwing the microphone, even at the person who first threw something at her, was not a reasonable defensive response. Depending on the jury’s decision, she could be found guilty. But the state is not obligated to pursue every case where the defendant could be found guilty: There’s a limited amount of resources for the criminal justice system. And so they’ll pick and choose, and cases for which the probability of conviction is low, or where the crime was relatively minor, will get lower priority.
I don’t have an answer for you, but Id like to note my observation that absolutely noone else here has even tried to answer the actual question except this Falchion guy, and for his efforts he gets this other Banquet_bear guy trying to jump up his ass while also not answering the original question.
I think the question is pretty straightforward and a good one. The police claim they dont have enough evidence, when there is very clear evidence. And the answer is probably that the police, regardless of their statement, are not declining to prosecute due to lack of evidence; rather theyre likely declining to prosecute because one of the half dozen “maybe” reasons Falchion gave, and Banquet_Bear jumped up his ass about.
…this banquet bear guy answered the original question.
There was very clear evidence that a thing happened. There wasn’t enough evidence to secure a battery conviction. There is nothing more to it than that.
Pointing out that the person who admitted they literally knew nothing about the case had plenty of opinions about said case is not “jumping up their ass.” It doesn’t take a lot of effort to watch a short video and read a couple of articles. It was the least someone could do before they decided to jump my ass.
A lot of laws require intention. The difference between 1st-degree murder and 3rd-degree murder is purely one of intention. It very well could be that the relevant authorities feel that they can’t prove intention well enough to make anything stick.
And the OP is asking why the “clear evidence that a thing happened” was not enough to “secure a battery conviction.” Your answer is effectively just begging the question.
And I cannot see Falchion as jumping on you. She saw a point of possible disagreement, and brought up a cite to back that up.
If this is a high jack someone will probably move it, but I have to ask. Why would somebody pay to go to a performance if they hate the performer so much they want to throw stuff at them?
People don’t go to performances only because they like the performer that much. They go to meet people, party, dance, enjoy the experience, and get drunk and act stupid.
BTW: This is nothing new. I remember this becoming a big problem at concerts in the 70s. Assholes were throwing more than drinks at performers. At a J Geils concert after a metal object was thrown at the band on stage some guy came out and said if they caught anybody doing that they’d let the roadies handle it their way. With the memory of Altamont fairly fresh there were no more incidents that night.
That doesn’t answer my question. Why would someone who hates a particular artist so much they want to throw shit at him, go to a performance by that particular performer, even if it was to do the stuff you said? I sure wouldn’t “enjoy the experience” of going to a show featuring someone whose work or personality I hated so much I’d be wanting to threow shit at him.
Heck, people do odd things for their own reasons. There was a guy who would drive to a different city and pay full price just to shout “YOU SUCK!!! YOU GUYS SUCK!!!” at my band in between every song.
Yep, people have been throwing dumb things for some time. I was present for David Yow getting hit in the head by a beer bottle back in 1994. He’s no diva, so they swept up the glass, he said “nice shot, dick” and they finished the song.
I must have missed the part where this person was found and said they hated Cardi B. But if someone did hate a performer that much wouldn’t that be the reason they go see the performance, so they could throw shit at them? Or more likely it had nothing to do with what they thought of the performer at all.
From what I’ve read, the people who threw stuff on stage have never said that they did so because they hated the performer. They thought it was funny, they wanted the performer to take a selfie with their phone, they got caught up in the moment, etc. None of them said it was because of hatred. Granted, they could be covering their asses, but I don’t see that they really expected to injure the performer. Never attribue to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity.
Incidentally, a clip has surfaced from earlier in the concert where Cardi B asked the audience to throw water on her. So in this case, it’s a lot less likely that the thrower was mad at the target.
One throws stuff at people because one wants to hit them with it, causing embarrassment and/or pain. That’s an act of hate. If one has such an aversion to the performer, either their work or personality, it would be easier and less expensive to stay away from their performance, maybe stay home and write them nasty un-fan letters or slag them online or on a call-in radio show, than pay for a ticket, stand in line, etc just to get a chance to throw something at the target of their animosity.
Nobody goes to a concert or performance to throw stuff at artists they like. It doesn’t make sense that an un-fan of a performer would go to the trouble and expense of going to a show just to do something like that to them. If you like someone enough (their material and the performance or themselves), it wouldn’t occur to you to act so aggressive. For example, I’ve always loved Patti Smith, and if I got a chance to see her in concert I wouldn’t even think of throwing something at her, or think it was funny, even if I got shitfaced. On the other hand I loathe and despise Ted Nugent, the man himself and his music. If he came through my town I wouldn’t go to his show at all, not even if I got a free ticket, not even if the seating provided an opportunity to hurl projectiles at him at close range. I’d simply stay away so as not to be subjected to his shit. Might call the radio station to make bitchy sarcastic remarks about him, but that’s about it.
If you like an artist you don’t come to their show to throw stuff at them.
