Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Dave Chappelle and the Death of Free Speech
With apologies for my prolonged absence from Ricochet, I wanted to call the members’ attention to my most recent contribution at The Pipeline, in which I address the Dave Chappelle incident at the Hollywood Bowl and the death of free speech. An excerpt:
In comedy’s long history, practitioners of the trade have been cloaked with what was once known as the “jester’s privilege,” a certain license that protected them from consequences when they made an observation that, from another’s lips, would have been viewed as transgressive. As should now be obvious to all, the jester’s privilege is dead.
I also address the issue of the appropriate charges against Chappelle’s alleged attacker, Isaiah Lee. There has been much criticism of Los Angeles County district attorney George Gascón for his refusal to file felony charges against Lee, and loath as I am to defend Gascón, in this case he is an example of the proverbial stopped clock. Under California law, the attack did not amount to a felony.
If anyone has further questions about the charges against Lee, I’ll be happy to engage in the comments.
Published in General
What a pleasure to read your contribution to the Pipeline.
Chappelle is a national treasure.
As much as I admire his having his pulse on the major issues of the day, I often reflect that without his dark skin, he may well have been chastised out of existence, as was Roseanne Barr over one single tweet.
So I feel it is not only his excellence as major wit and philosopher, but his working in the field of humorous endeavor in our society protects him as an outlier. This Super Ability allows him to go where no white comic has gone before.
I understand that while Lee had a weapon on him, it was not drawn when he attacked Chapelle, hence no felony. But he did draw his weapon on the venue security when they intervened. Why was no felony charged then? While our eyes are naturally drawn to the celebrity, we forget that others were involved as well. Any of the brave security guards could have been injury or killed by Lee. Who speaks for them?
Did they decline to press charges, mayhap to avoid negative publicity for the venue of which they were employees?
Since when is physical assault not a felony? I haven’t seen any video of the incident, so I may be missing something . . .
@jackdunphy-Great Pipeline piece and good to see you back here! Always look forward to your articles on PJM and insights about the decline of basic standards in our shared hometown.
It was my understanding that the weapon was found in his bag. Where did you learn he had brandished it?
To whatever extend Chappelle is still cloaked with the “jester’s privilege,” it is no doubt enhanced by his race. That’s where we are, I’m afraid.
To summarize the law very briefly, absent significant injury to the victim or use of a weapon, crimes of this type are charged as misdemeanors.
In Oregon we would call this a Class A Misdemeanor-Offensive Physical Contact. If an injury resulted from the contact, you would start moving up the Assault ladder. Offensive Physical Contact can be a trip to booking and the DA can prosecute a Misdemeanor. Much of that would depend upon the subject’s criminal history. Court calendars tend to be rather full so decisions by a DA can be made not to prosecute this type of crime.
As far as the faux gun that hides a knife there are off the book’s ways to prevent a suspect from keeping that item regardless of the lack of a prosecution. Once it gets into the property room you can make it extremely difficult or impossible for a suspect to retrieve that item.
A police officer should fill-out an Incident and Custody Report, but the decision to prosecute is the province of the DA’s office.
By the way Jack it’s nice to see you here again.
That is a stupid law.
Personally I’m a proponent of equal sentencing and criminality for any attempted crime that would be based on the crime itself. Thus if you assault somebody we should assume that your intent is murder and you should be held that way. This was a premeditated assault with clear intent to do significant significant bodily damage if not murder.
Thank you! Good to be back.
New York Post article by Guy Shepherd, dated May 12. Article states Lee went for his weapon when confronted by security resulting in broken arm.
We have lots of those.
I’ve always heard the mere act of touching someone was assault and battery. It didn’t matter how severe the injury was. But, I’m not a cop, so . . .
Found it. Here is the key passage:
In Illinois, simple assault and battery is hitting somebody. That is a misdemeanor. You don’t graduate to a felony unless you use a deadly weapon or do more damage than just scrapes and bruises.
Thanks Paul. This is my first post to anything, ever. I wasn’t sure how to link the article. I’m working on it. Also, hat-tip to Real Clear Politics. That’s where I found the article.
Except that plenty of assaults clearly do not include an intent to murder or cause grievous bodily harm. Our problem today is not that there is something wrong with the traditional understanding of misdemeanor vs. felonious assault. Rather, our problem is that leftists have corrupted the institutions of society so that vicious criminals are released to prey again and again, while intellectuals praise them as innocent victims of society.
This assault was clearly intended to cause damange.
The man should be locked away forever. He never needs to be out again. Every one knows you should not act this way my kids at 12 knew this. The man is not fit for society and he should be in a cell with other of his ilk until he dies.
Any unwanted touching can be considered a battery, but obviously there are degrees of unlawfulness.
Good heavens. Drunken bar scuffle with a few glancing blows and broken glassware? Attempted murder! Callously shoving someone out of the way in a crowd? Attempted murder! Angry wife throwing a grapefruit at her lazy husband during an argument? Attempted murder!
There’s a fine line to be drawn here. I don’t know what is meant by “he did go for it.” He may have reached into the bag but was prevented from removing the weapon. Absent a clear use or brandishing of the weapon, the misdemeanor charges are appropriate.
Reducto ad absurdum. Nice.
It is clear what I mean.
Nor do we know if he “did go for it” in any sense of the word. (Given that news reporting is sometimes wrong and I haven’t bothered to follow this case.)
Legally maybe buy not morally.
But you wrote “if you assault somebody we should assume that your intent is murder“, which is what I was responding to. Such an assumption would be inappropriate.
Which returns us to the vital importance of getting the facts right–the facts of the case, the facts of the law, etc. I’ve seen too much social media where the only thing that matters is the desired outcome and anyone who sticks to the facts gets pilloried.
Not really. You and I have talked about this before. I said that perhaps life imprisonment was too harsh for the loser stealing change out of unlocked cars and you said that I was soft on crime.