Whoa, let’s take a step back and look at the Prosecutor’s press release. The only connection that this incident had to the rash of burglaries and break-ins, is that one person, Tejay Johnson, was also involved in the alleged “unprovoked” attack by 6 people on “at least” 4 people. The press release talked about the unrelated crime for over 75 % of its space. Couldn't they have just said the 6 were charged with a crime, and one of the alleged assailants was charged in another crime? I say again, the release says that the 6 “surrounded” at “least 4” people. Well how many was it? Did the 6 surround 8 people, or 10? What exactly are the geometric capabilities of the 6? Sounds dubious to me. Why use the words “at least”? So the Prosecutor’s office issues a press release that confuses a lot of forum posters and other intelligent folk into thinking the alleged assailants were involved in the break-ins. There is no true link there (at least not yet). One person’s jaw was broken. Hmm. 6 kids go and get into a fight with “at least” 4 kids, and a person’s jaw is broken. Sounds like a few friends got into a fight with another group of friends, and one person ended up hurt badly. That never happens....
So each of the defendants was charged with assault. How many jaws were broken? Did they all take turns punching one person such that the last hit caused the jaw to break? Here is the statute, please note that this is a 4th degree offense:
§ 2C:33-1. Riot; failure to disperse
a. Riot. A person is guilty of riot if he participates with four or more others in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in section 2C:33-2a:
(1) With purpose to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime;
(2) With purpose to prevent or coerce official action; or
(3) When he or any other participant, known to him, uses or plans to use a firearm or other deadly weapon.
Riot if committed under circumstances set forth in paragraph (3) is a crime of the third degree. Otherwise riot is a crime of the fourth degree.
b. Failure of disorderly persons to disperse upon official order. Where five or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in section 2C:33-2 a. likely to cause substantial harm, a peace officer or other public servant engaged in executing or enforcing the law may order the participants and others in the immediate vicinity to disperse. A person who refuses or knowingly fails to obey such an order commits a disorderly persons offense.
So what if two of the defendants can prove they are totally not involved? Now both riot offenses are gone (cause now they don't reach the statutory minimum),
And the prosecutor’s office decides to do this 2 days before opening day when they have had months to investigate.
I am sorry, but pending further evidence, something seems wrong to me here.
Now, I realize evidence may come out that totally nullifies everything I have said. Please take my comments as dealing with the situation as it exists today.
So each of the defendants was charged with assault. How many jaws were broken? Did they all take turns punching one person such that the last hit caused the jaw to break? Here is the statute, please note that this is a 4th degree offense:
§ 2C:33-1. Riot; failure to disperse
a. Riot. A person is guilty of riot if he participates with four or more others in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in section 2C:33-2a:
(1) With purpose to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime;
(2) With purpose to prevent or coerce official action; or
(3) When he or any other participant, known to him, uses or plans to use a firearm or other deadly weapon.
Riot if committed under circumstances set forth in paragraph (3) is a crime of the third degree. Otherwise riot is a crime of the fourth degree.
b. Failure of disorderly persons to disperse upon official order. Where five or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in section 2C:33-2 a. likely to cause substantial harm, a peace officer or other public servant engaged in executing or enforcing the law may order the participants and others in the immediate vicinity to disperse. A person who refuses or knowingly fails to obey such an order commits a disorderly persons offense.
So what if two of the defendants can prove they are totally not involved? Now both riot offenses are gone (cause now they don't reach the statutory minimum),
And the prosecutor’s office decides to do this 2 days before opening day when they have had months to investigate.
I am sorry, but pending further evidence, something seems wrong to me here.
Now, I realize evidence may come out that totally nullifies everything I have said. Please take my comments as dealing with the situation as it exists today.
