If that article fails to mention it where did you hear it? Link?

He will not get 225 years, if that number is even based on fact. What probably happened if that the total time for 9 counts of whatever type of assault this is in New York totals 225 years. In reality, he'll likely take some sort of plea deal for a much less harsh sentence, relatively speaking. Almost everyone just pleads guilty, rather than risk getting a worse deal at trial.

"Ibanez, 26, originally from Bolivia, has five prior arrests. A friend described him as an activist with a history of civil disobedience. Bratton wasn’t so kind. He said the suspect is “a professional agitator, and I hope he’ll be a professional resident of Rikers Island if we have a successful prosecution.”

Ibanez was arrested on nine counts of assault on a police officer — one for each cop splashed by the bogus blood — and other charges."


Not a first offense, either. This is his sixth offense, so for each prior offense, the time in jail and fines increase.

Yes, and the case is completely ridiculous either way. Splashing bogus blood on a policeman isn't assault by any sane definition of the word. The man's history of protests and getting locked up for them has no bearing on the validity of the case.

Assault is defined as simply as a threat of violence. Even if the guy simply threatened to toss the blood at the cops its likely the prosecution would have a strong case. In theory they could go for battery, but seeing as there was no serious physical damage done that's probably why they're gonna keep it at assault.

"Yes, and the case is completely ridiculous either way. Splashing bogus blood on a policeman isn't assault by any sane definition of the word. The man's history of protests and getting locked up for them has no bearing on the validity of the case."

No, throwing fake blood on people would probably be assault. What else would it be? Surely you support this sort of thing being illegal? We can't just let people throw gunk on other people without there being a legal sanction.

As for his history of arrests and protests having no bearing of validity, it's true that his past bad acts can't be used as proof that he threw fake blood in this case. But I don't think that's at issue. It seems pretty clear that he did this. Depending on how New York handles sentencing, his history as a general trouble-maker can be used by the judge to determine how much time he gets. If New York law allows it, the judge could even give him the maximum sentence even if the plea agreement was only for a token punishment.

So while his past has no bearing on whether or not he committed the assault, if I'm right and he does plead guilty then it's likely to be extremely relevant in what his sentence ultimately is. Still not gonna be 225 years, though.

It said 225 years on Tumblr. It must be true.

A person that is willing to attack a police officer deserves more harsh punishment. Like it or not, when someone has such little disregard for the law that they will attack those individuals that **risk their lives** for your safety and protection - then that person *deserves* to be punished to a greater degree than others. IN attacking police officers, he is in fact causing a situation that is already unstable to become even more so -- and thus is **endangering the lives of others**.

That asshole needs to rot in a fucking cell.

It's people like this man that prevent real discussion on the issues raised by the Ferguson case. People that portray police officers as being violent, power drunk maniacs only make it difficult for the people who are actually interested in making changes for the better to have their voices heard. Are there problems with the system? Probably, but you don't deal with problems by rioting and attacking police officers.

It's not just the Ferguson case. Many, many other issues are sidetracked by troublemakers like this guy.

"We can't just let people throw gunk on other people without there being a legal sanction."

It doesn't have to be assault. Doesn't that imply bodily harm? All this guy needed was a towel to clean his face and a dry cleaner.

Per Wikipedia: An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability.

Tossing something that appears to be blood at someone is what I would consider to be threat of bodily harm. How were they supposed to know that it wasn't real? There have been cases that have gone through as assault that are much weaker than this one. A 15 year old kid throws a baseball as his neighbor in anger? Assault open and shut. A protester throws a mysterious red substance at the chief of police during protests that have a history of being violent towards police officers? Assault open and shut.

@Hanged Man: with regards to the second clause the wikipedia definition is lacking in the sense that the "apparent, present ability to cause the harm" is based on the plaintiff or prosecutions interpretation of the actions ability to cause harm at the time of the incident. For example, if I hold up a bank using a fake gun, I am guilty of assault even though there was no potential for harm to actually occur.

So, red liquid is now a "threat of bodily harm"? Throwing a baseball has potential to cause quite a bit of harm. A baseball is hard, and reasonably easy to throw with both velocity and accuracy. I wouldn't prosecute when a 15 year-old throws one at a neighbor.

The implication of the gesture was pretty obvious. The threat of bodily harm is not affected by whether it was water with coloring or real blood, either.

As a matter of fact, there is a lot of harm that could be done by a 'mysterious red liquid'
What if it was a acidic substance? It wouldn't have been the first time such a substance was used to attack people. All that matters is that the prosecution can prove that the act wasn't consented to and there was the possibility (however remote) that the action could have damaged the official in some way. Even having to replace a suit is cause for a civil suit, though a criminal offense would require proof of potential BODILY harm, which I feel they can prove that as well.

"The threat of bodily harm is not affected by whether it was water with coloring or real blood, either."

Kinda depends.
I'd say throwing infected blood at someone could be considered more threatening..

Throwing, say, blood of someone who was controversially convicted to death by the guy you're throwing it at could be considered a threatening symbolic message as well..

"What if it was a acidic substance?"

It wasn't, so who cares? I threw a beach ball at you, but what if it was a round rock that I painted to look like a beach ball?

There are a ton of ways to look at it, but the fact is the prosecution can prove that there was AT LEAST one way to view the action as threatening, and the defense has to prove that there was no reasonable way to see the actions as threatening, something this guys lawyer will have a difficult time with given the many different ways the prosecution can go with this case.

@bo: The law. You could in theory bring an assault case for throwing a normal beach ball at someone, but it wouldn't go through because there isn't a jury in the world that would find that a reasonable threat to bodily harm. If it was a rock, well there may not be a case for assault, but there would be a case for battery. Its a different legal course of action, as assault is based on perception of action while battery is based on effect.

It doesn't matter if you can view it as threatening. It wasn't and isn't. That's not the same thing as an actual threat of bodily harm.

How do his actions not pose an actual threat?

How do his actions pose an actual threat? I mean, burden of proof issue here, I think.

Steps in proving guilt in an assaut case:
1. The actions of the defendant were carried out intentionally.
-The man clearly knew that the substance he was throwing would impact police officers. The merit behind his intentions are irrelevant, all that must be proven is that for whatever reason he willingly threw the substance at another person.

2. The plaintiff/prosecution did not consent to be subject to the acts of the defense.
-The police officers in no way consented to have this substance thrown at them. The only fault in this aspect of the process is that the police officers cannot file for a CIVIL case as regulation prohibits them from doing so, otherwise officers could sue anyone who attacks them, and the courts have ruled that such law suits would inhibit criminal case proceedings. But as for criminal law, this restriction holds no bar. The state is free to prosecute for assault and give punishment as it sees fit (which will be hefty seeing as DA's don't take kindly to assault of a police officer).

3. The actions of the defendant must be proven to HAVE THE POTENTIAL to be harmful or offensive on the standard of a reasonable person.
-This is where (I think) we're having the most disagreement. My argument, and what I'm pretty sure the prosecution will argue, is that there is some existing scenario where the substance the defense threw at the officers could have caused any of the officers bodily harm. Burden of proof is always an issue in cases, but it's not hard to fulfill that obligation in cases that rely on how the prosecution interprets the actions of the defendant. As for the reasonable person standard, this usually comes down to the jury pool. If I were on this case, I think the prosecution would have an easy time finding a convincing scenario where there was the potential for harm. Remember, the case doesn't revolve around the potential of fake blood to cause harm, but rather on the potential for any red substance to cause bodily harm.

Why should it revolve around any red substance? Of course a bottle of pure bromine or some other toxic red substance would cause harm, but that's not what he used.

The actual ability of the substance used to cause harm would be important in a battery case, as battery is used when harm actually occurs. Assault is different because whether or not any harm has actually occurred isn't relevant, all that matters is that the potential for harm could have existed, and there are basically two situations that assault cases work down to.
1. There is a failed action that could have caused harm. Ex, I shoot a gun at you and miss.
2. There is an action that could be interpreted to cause harm. Ex, I pull out a fake gun and threaten to shoot you with it.
Both actions are equally harmful in the eyes of the law.

My interpretation is based on the second, simply because the substance COULD have been dangerous, an assault has occurred.

Throwing fake blood doesn't have to imply harm. It could also be a metaphor for the police being overly aggressive and thus covered in blood from their actions.

In my opinion its a pretty stupid thing to classify as assault. But.... it was still a criminal action, and levelling charges makes sense.

I'm not denying it was criminal, I just disagree with what he's being prosecuted for. He should have charges leveled against him, but he's having the wrong ones included in the mix.

What is he guilty of then? I don't see anything off the top of my head.

Property damage, certainly. There are some other nuisance things you could probably get on him as well.