Yup, adding lanes induces demand. But it also benefits more drivers...

>$1.4 million a year
>
>the centers have helped prevent nearly 700 overdoses

Let's say those 700 overdoses were in a single year (they weren't, because they were operating since 2021, but let's do that to steelman the argument).

That's $2,000 per overdose prevented. A narcan dose costs between $22 and $60. (In Europe, that would cost $3)

That makes it quite profitable to be preventing overdoses. And actually reducing addition would be quite costly for this high growth industrial complex.

The system is not just underfunded, but also very wasteful.

A tiny quantity of individuals being repeatedly arrested and released are consuming a disproportionate amount of resources in the police, DA, public defense, courts.

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.

In your argument, "can" is doing a lot of lifting here. Sure it's 100% correct in a logician's pedantic sense, after all "can" doesn't imply it "must". It's not hard to conceive scenarios of intentional physical touch that must be considered assault which would validate the "can" assertion.

But that's not a gotcha, because that doesn't contradict with anything I wrote. I didn't claim the statement was incorrect. I called it a "bad example" and added more context to it because on its own that statement is misleading in this context.

My clarification that in NY they are "not automatically assault" is still 100% correct and adds relevant context.

So your point is not only pedantic itself, it tries to be obtuse and redirect away from the stink that those those examples are misleading.

Public debate doesn't benefit much from out-of-context statements that are misleading, even if those out-of-context statements are 100% correct in a pedantic sense.

>To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.

You're correct that comment I replied referred to "any assault".

However, that's not the point I was replying to (and indeed it's not what I quoted in my reply).

My reply was aimed at the bad examples of "assault" that were provided. Those bad examples would be misleading and missinformative to the reader.

They would be misleading because these are not automatically assault under NY Law, and thus such conducts would not be impacted in any way by the bill proposal from the news.

>Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.

​

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.

I'll copy my reply here too:

>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.

It's not pedantic.

It's actually quite relevant to this news, because they are proposing changes to assault when committed against retail works.

They are not proposing changes to offenses that are not assault under NY Law.

>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.

It's not pedantic.

It's actually quite relevant to this news, because they are proposing changes to assault when committed against retail works.

They are not proposing changes to offenses that are not assault under NY Law.

>I'm not racist, let's help out the less fortunate, sure it's ok to tax me more, wait there's someone who looks scary who just made eye contact with me, can we get a cop over here?

That's spot on!

That will probably depend on the specifics on the case. If the woman was injured when she was pushed to the ground (and for example could not perform her work properly for a week), that can be a problem for the defendant and be a misdemeanor assault.

>pushed a 56-year-old woman to the ground on New Year’s Eve in Manhattan

But if we are being realistic here, they are only prosecuting this because of the hate crime component.

>The kettling strategy was broadly defended at the time by Mayor Bill de Blasio and the police commissioner, Dermot F. Shea, who said it was needed because protesters were defying curfews and looters had ransacked parts of Manhattan, though the demonstrations had been largely peaceful.
>
>...
>
>The shocking scenes of looting, scuffles between the police and protesters and destruction of police cars led then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mr. DeBlasio to announce on June 1 that they would deploy twice as many police officers and impose a curfew.
“There comes a point where enough is enough,” Mr. de Blasio said.

Remember this the next someone says De Blasio was progressive. He was a jackass posing as a progressive and contributed to the situation that led to the protests escalating to riots.

>A slap to the face meets the criteria if you say it caused you substantial pain.

Not in the NY case law. People v. Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445 (2007):

>"petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like delivered out of hostility, meanness and similar motives" constitute only harassment and not assault

There needs to be a clear intent on the defendant to inflict significant pain, otherwise it won't be an assault ("Motive is relevant because an offender more interested in displaying hostility than in inflicting pain will often not inflict much of it.")

So say, if a victim is retrained physically (can't run away), while the attacker slaps the victim repeatedly with the intent of causing pain, sure, that could probably be a misdemeanor assault.

For simple slaps to rise to the level of assault, I don't see that merely happening in the heat of a moment. Anyone who actually intents to cause pain could just as easily close a fist and throw a punch instead of a slap.

Maybe borderline, a "double ear clap" could arguably be assault, but that's not a regular slap.

The laws have changed in those 5 years.

This opinion article from the NY Post explains it in vivid language, but the underlying facts are undeniable: https://nypost.com/2023/01/19/new-yorks-discovery-laws-are-designed-to-let-criminals-go-free/

>The study points out that in New York City in 2019, before discovery reform, 49% of misdemeanor cases resulted in dismissals. In 2021, that number soared to 82%. In 2022, it was 74%. Defendants are, unsurprisingly, playing out the clock.

The rate of case dismissal before any trial or plea deal could happen skyrocketed after the NY discovery law reform was enacted.

If two drunks get into an escalated bar fight and they end up assaulting each other (let's say they attack each other with broken bottles, both get cuts and stabs, and are sent to the hospital for stiches and blood loss without any serious permanent injuries), that could be misdemeanor assault under NY Law. That's ugly and probably regrettable, but not enough to send them to prison for a drunk night "mistake".

That's still very different than a violent person injuring someone who is just working on a retail store, resulting them into being sent to a hospital.

I think this bill idea strikes a very timid and cautious approach in making that distinction clearer, which is not too bad if they are trying to avoid a draconian law or something.

In my opinion, it should be extended to other workers, and it should be extended to people commuting to/from work or school, and people going to/from medical appointments. I hope in a future bill.

>You lose your temper and slap the person in the face. That’s Assault.

The "slap" needs to result into an injury, otherwise it's not assault.

Like if the victim is slapped near the subway platform edge, then fall over as a result, and fractures a leg during the fall, then that could be potentially considered a misdemeanor assault.

>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.

You must be thinking of a different state other than NY.

Under NY Law, assault requires physical injury. If someone was merely touched, the prosecution will have a really hard time proving beyond all reasonable doubt there was injury caused by it.

Edit: for clarity, if this bill idea was enacted into law, merely touching a retail workers would hardly constitute assault because it requires physical injury, and this bill would make no difference in practice.

>Or ‘Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.’

That would probably not be assault under NY law.

But if the defendant was for example a tiktok prankster running after people while a carrying chainsaw (but without the intent of actually hurting anyone), and fell over and injured someone with it, that could be considered a misdemeanor assault because of the recklessness.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00

NY law doesn't have battery. This is the definition of the least severe assault (which is not a felony):

1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or
2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or
3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00

That’s not really needed.

For example, people who are just stealing food to feed their family aren’t going to be assaulting anyone.

In fact, I believe if they just ask nicely or be nice about it, most retail employees would find a way to give them some food or look the other way.

They will be fear-mongering about the fascist regime the retail store security guards will impose on society.

Edit to add:

They will be trying to spread misinformation about what "assault" actually means in NY, to give the false impression that anyone can commit misdemeanor assault by doing something really minor like touching someone or slapping someone.

Security guards don’t do shit to be honest.

Even when they hire off duty cops, they just stand playing on their phone. It’s just for show.

Again, it appears such fear is overblown and not grounded in solid evidence.

Edit: anecdote of a single store doesn’t constitute solid evidence. The store in that anecdote you provided can be sued for damages and they will stop that real quick, if they haven’t already.

I think your fear is overblown, because employees already have a big incentive to not react physically: that would violate company policy and they would just get fired.

This bill won’t fundamentally change that.

And companies implement those policies because otherwise they can be sued, say, if their guard causes or sustain injuries, making the company liable.

Edit: well, the commenter (AceContinuum) complained that people were downvoting without explaining. I provided a different viewpoint and got blocked as a result. Not the best example of open mindedness, but a representative example of ideological blindness in my opinion.

I think the stereotypical example is two drunks getting into a bar fight that escalated into them assaulting each other, and that putting them behind bars for 7 years would be excessive.

Edit: There's a lot of confusion about what's assault in NY law.

Two drunks just yelling and threatening each other, or even punching each other won't necessarily be enough to qualify as assault under NY Law. But if they both pull out a knife and stab each other leading to bleeding and hospitalization (intentionally causing physical injury), then that could be a misdemeanor assault.

It will only become a felony assault if the injury is serious, like with a permanent loss of an organ or limb. For example, if one them gets stabbed in the eye and loses vision, then that could qualify as felony assault.

> A bill set to be introduced in the Legislature as early as this week by state Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton (D-Staten Island) and Assemblyman Manny De Los Santos (D-Inwood) would make it a felony to commit even minor assaults against retail workers.

A good step towards protecting those who are simply doing their job and honestly working for their livelihoods.

Edit: An assault can result in medical bills, time off, psychological trauma and even losing a job—specially in retail. They all imply loss of income. It’s far from being a harmless crime and can impact a whole family. I’m glad there’s finally a bill that takes it more seriously.

Edit 2: NY law doesn't have battery. And the definition of assault in NY is different than in many other states. See https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.00 for what a misdemeanor assault requires: no one can commit it accidentally. They need to be intentional, acting recklessly or with criminal negligence. And it needs to cause injury, otherwise it's not assault.

For companies, remote worker benefits the companies more than the workers. Because in-office work would require both a high salary plus the costs of the office space. In contrast, a remote worker, even if making the same salary, would still cost the company less.

For city workers, I have concerns with people working for the city, but who at the same time don't live in the city. It doesn't really matter to me if they work remotely as long as they live in the city.

But if they are going to be making decisions that impacts the city, they need to have some skin in the game, in my opinion.