Hitting Somebody as a Joke and Causing an Injury

Quote:

---

Quoting ALbertsmithe

---

The student was told to come in to the police station....the following day. Im sorry. This was a highschool cop and the cop said go to the police station the next day.

The other question is the police said dont talk to the other family. Is there any legality to this and is it a bad idea to do so? seems like something that can get worked out easily

---

One reason the police are asking the student to voluntarily go to the police station is so Miranda is not implicated. It is never a good idea to talk to the police when they suspect you of a crime without your attorney present. Getting an attorney is the immediate first step for the student.

If the police wantto be sure Miranda isn't implicated, they can talk to you over the phone. There's no chance of that being confused with custodial interrogation.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

If the police wantto be sure Miranda isn't implicated, they can talk to you over the phone. There's no chance of that being confused with custodial interrogation.

---

That would certainly be fair. The police do not want to be fair. They want testimonial evidence. They want to have the person in a coercive environment without giving the warnings required for an interrogation when in custody because some might make use of their rights. If the police brought the person to the station, then that could be considered custody. There are many cases where it is determined to not be custody when the suspect comes to the station of his own free will.

The police also want the testimony to stand up in court and not get thrown out because it was coerced.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

The police also want the testimony to stand up in court and not get thrown out because it was coerced.

---

There is a difference between a person's testimony when they were in a coercive environment and coerced testimony as legal jargon. It is not coerced testimony just because a suspect is alone in a closed room with two large police officers with one being nice and the other being mean. That does not mean such an environment is not coercive.

Quote:

---

Quoting ALbertsmithe

---

you have taken the little information you have and built this whole construct

---

Albert, please note this is because you have not provided, are unable to provide, or refuse to provide the necessary information in order for people to give you accurate advise.

I am not familiar with your state's laws but in many states a 16 or 17 year old can be questioned as an adult without their parent, legal guardian or counsel present. Now if she goes to the station and they start asking her to sign anything she needs to read it, if it says something like Rights Waiver or You have the right to an attorney, then the best advise would be for her to ask to speak with an attorney before answering any other questions.

Given the little information provided she could face the following or combinations thereof
1-nothing
2-civil action for medical bills
3-suspension or expulsion from school
4-criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor simple assault and/or battery
5-felony prosecution for unlawful felonious assault or malicious assault

True. But appearances are important as well. It's just as easy to do things in a way that will hold up to scrutiny as it is to do them in a way that can be looked at two different ways, one of them illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

True. But appearances are important as well. It's just as easy to do things in a way that will hold up to scrutiny as it is to do them in a way that can be looked at two different ways, one of them illegal.

---

One way that will "hold up to scrutiny" is to ask the person to come down to the station. That avoids the custody leg of Miranda. If Miranda is designed to prevent the harm of inherently intimidating environments, then if it is not implicated it is less likely to be looked at as an illegal interrogation. That is using your term of "illegal".

As the court held:

Quote:

---

(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

---

And of course let's not forget that a conviction of a batter to a minor constitutes a 10 year registration as a violent offender against youth.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

And of course let's not forget that a conviction of a batter to a minor constitutes a 10 year registration as a violent offender against youth.

---

Not quite.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...2&ChapterID=55

(b) As used in this Act, "violent offense against youth" means: (1) A violation of any of the following Sections of

the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, when the victim is a person under 18 years of age and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1996:

10-1 (kidnapping), 10-2 (aggravated kidnapping), 10-3 (unlawful restraint), 10-3.1 (aggravated unlawful restraint). An attempt to commit any of these offenses. (2) First degree murder under Section 9-1 of the

Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012, when the victim was a person under 18 years of age and the defendant was at least 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

(3) Child abduction under paragraph (10) of

subsection (b) of Section 10-5 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 committed by luring or attempting to lure a child under the age of 16 into a motor vehicle, building, house trailer, or dwelling place without the consent of the parent or lawful custodian of the child for other than a lawful purpose and the offense was committed on or after January 1, 1998.

(4) A violation or attempted violation of the

following Section of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 when the offense was committed on or after July 1, 1999:

10-4 (forcible detention, if the victim is under

18 years of age).

(4.1) Involuntary manslaughter under Section 9-3 of

the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 where baby shaking was the proximate cause of death of the victim of the offense.

(4.2) Endangering the life or health of a child

under Section 12-21.6 or 12C-5 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 that results in the death of the child where baby shaking was the proximate cause of the death of the child.

(4.3) Domestic battery resulting in bodily harm under

Section 12-3.2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 when the defendant was 18 years or older and the victim was under 18 years of age and the offense was committed on or after July 26, 2010.

(4.4) A violation or attempted violation of any of

the following Sections or clauses of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 when the victim was under 18 years of age and the offense was committed on or after (1) July 26, 2000 if the defendant was 18 years of age or older or (2) July 26, 2010 and the defendant was under the age of 18:

12-3.3 (aggravated domestic battery), 12-3.05(a)(1), 12-3.05(d)(2), 12-3.05(f)(1),

12-4(a), 12-4(b)(1), or 12-4(b)(14) (aggravated battery),

12-3.05(a)(2) or 12-4.1 (heinous battery), 12-3.05(b) or 12-4.3 (aggravated battery of a

child),

12-3.1(a-5) or 12-4.4 (aggravated battery of an

unborn child),

12-33 (ritualized abuse of a child). (4.5) A violation or attempted violation of any of

the following Sections of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 when the victim was under 18 years of age and the offense was committed on or after (1) August 1, 2001 if the defendant was 18 years of age or older or (2) August 1, 2011 and the defendant was under the age of 18:

12-3.05(e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) or 12-4.2

(aggravated battery with a firearm),

12-3.05(e)(5), (6), (7), or (8) or 12-4.2-5

(aggravated battery with a machine gun),

12-11 or 19-6 (home invasion). (5) A violation of any former law of this State

substantially equivalent to any offense listed in this subsection (b).

Trust me. A conviction of conditional discharge or felony battery(concussion could qualify) mandates a registry on that list. That is fact.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Trust me. A conviction of conditional discharge or felony battery(concussion could qualify) mandates a registry on that list. That is fact.

---

I am not good at trusting when the words are right in front of me. Please give the section. "Felony" battery might be considered aggravated battery. That is assuming there is a concussion or the battery would otherwise be considered aggravated. Look to the requirements of when one must register under aggravated battery. Sometimes a person under 18 would have to register. Not with aggravated battery.

I have not the time to go over statutes for something that I and every other PO in the county of Cook has to enforce with victims who are minors. If the victim is 17 and under and the offense is a violent offense, then the offencer must register. That goes for felony and conditional discharges. Feel free to test that statement if you'd like. I had 10 people register and that is the main criteria.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

I have not the time to go over statutes for something that I and every other PO in the county of Cook has to enforce with victims who are minors. If the victim is 17 and under and the offense is a violent offense, then the offencer must register. That goes for felony and conditional discharges. Feel free to test that statement if you'd like. I had 10 people register and that is the main criteria.

---

In your first post you wrote:

Quote:

---

And of course let's not forget that a conviction of a batter to a minor constitutes a 10 year registration as a violent offender against youth.

---

I disagreed and supplied the statute.

I now see you changed your position to "felony" battery on a child. That is not entirely the case. It is close enough to not worry about the differences. I am glad we came to a resolution we both can agree on.

My goodness, you like to argue just argue, huh? A felony is just that. A conditional discharge is a misdemeanor. Either was a conviction for the battery lands you on the list. But, being that I am answering a question about something I have to order defendants in my home state to do, I know that both misdemeanors and felonies appy. I hope that now we have a resolution on this matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

My goodness, you like to argue just argue, huh? A felony is just that. A conditional discharge is a misdemeanor. Either was a conviction for the battery lands you on the list. But, being that I am answering a question about something I have to order defendants in my home state to do, I know that both misdemeanors and felonies appy. I hope that now we have a resolution on this matter.

---

Then you should be able to show the statute. I supplied what I felt was the registration statute. A misdemeanor battery is not reportable there absent other conditions. Do you allege another condition here?

A conditional discharge is a conviction!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Felony; generally can't be expunged. Conditional discharge; generally can't be expunged. Supervision; can be expunged. Usually after a period of 2 years. CDS and Felony charges are reported as convictions and placed on the NCIC LEADS sheets as convictoins of the offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

A conditional discharge is a conviction!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Felony; generally can't be expunged. Conditional discharge; generally can't be expunged. Supervision; can be expunged. Usually after a period of 2 years. CDS and Felony charges are reported as convictions and placed on the NCIC LEADS sheets as convictoins of the offense.

---

What does that have to do with the discussion? I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and can miss a lot. I have in the past when writing to this forum. I just do not see the relevance to this topic at all.

Because the conviction does not have to be a felony. Even misdemeanor battery to a minor qualifies.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Because the conviction does not have to be a felony. Even misdemeanor battery to a minor qualifies.

---

I provided the statute that appears to me to be the registration statute. Simple battery against a minor with nothing more is not something one must register for under that statute. For your claim to be true there must be another statute covering the same issues of battery against a minor. Please provide that other statute.

Seriously, I've wasted enough time debating with you about this issue. The bottom line is that a battery committted in the state of IL that reslts in the victim recieving a concussion by use of an object, is enough to be classified as a felony. In IL, that would be a agg. battery. I can go on and on with personal examples. Now... If it makes you happy, I will go on record by saying that my guys register for misd. or felony domestics. Conditional discharge for battery against a minor, probably will not qualify unless there is an included offense or factor that follows. For the sake of the actual OP's original question, felony charges could easily be filed based on the nature of the injury sustained and the location in which the offense happened. Hopefully, you can rest easy now. I gave an amendment to the statement. If you have any other queries about this subject feel free to come to IL and test your hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Seriously, I've wasted enough time debating with you about this issue. The bottom line is that a battery committted in the state of IL that reslts in the victim recieving a concussion by use of an object, is enough to be classified as a felony. In IL, that would be a agg. battery. I can go on and on with personal examples. Now... If it makes you happy, I will go on record by saying that my guys register for misd. or felony domestics. Conditional discharge for battery against a minor, probably will not qualify unless there is an included offense or factor that follows. For the sake of the actual OP's original question, felony charges could easily be filed based on the nature of the injury sustained and the location in which the offense happened. Hopefully, you can rest easy now. I gave an amendment to the statement. If you have any other queries about this subject feel free to come to IL and test your hypothesis.

---

I just Google the law. Domestic battery is not in our facts is it? That would be an example of the "without more" I mentioned. I have always rested easy and maintained consistent from the start. You seemed to be the one to need to correct and refine your statements throughout. I have no idea what you mean by my "hypothesis".

I agree there is a recent case in IL where a diagnosed but untreated minor concussion where the victim was immediately released (because there is not treatment for such an event) was considered enough of a "something more" a reasonable jury could find was a "serious bodily harm" element required for an aggravated battery. If done against a minor after the statutory date, then it would require registration. If before the statutory date, then it would have had to have been done by an adult. There is not a concussion in our facts either. That was bought up by the author as a conditional after being accused of any of a number of things by other members.

Feel free to go about your job with just a bit more knowledge about the actual statute you oversee. It is always good to review once in a while.

Welfarelvr googled the law.

Viol8te works with the law every day.

But we're supposed to believe that Welfarelvr knows the law better than Viol8te?

I see.

It kinda got pointless to keep arguing. And I actually like to argue, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Welfarelvr googled the law.

Viol8te works with the law every day.

But we're supposed to believe that Welfarelvr knows the law better than Viol8te?

I see.

---

It seems Welfarelvr knows how to read and is willing to take the time to do so. Others? Not so much.

Point out my error.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

It kinda got pointless to keep arguing. And I actually like to argue, but whatever.

---

Your theory of arguing is Monty Python's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY

Mine is silly quoting of laws and of facts.

Here's the thing. I will put out the worst case scenario and let the chips fall where they may. My statement stod plausible and will remain so. Unfortunately for me, I spend a lot of time enforcing the laws that you Google. Therefore, I'm going to give you the worst possibility and allow you to pray for the best. I'm not here to coddle, console or minimize any criminal activity. I like the fact that you have to sweat out a scenario and hope that you catch a break. Now, as for my understanding of the law, I've been in this game for years. I understand it quite well. If you think that this offense can't fall under the criteria for VOAY registration, I don't care. One, OP stopped posting long ago. Two, you don't live here. Three, who cares. I give youu worst case and let you work from there.

I think they are both valuable contributing members. I'm just gonna sit by and eat my popcorn.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I think they are both valuable contributing members. I'm just gonna sit by and eat my popcorn.

---

You have been here a lot longer than I and I believe in the wisdom gained from experience so I will accept your judgment. You have seemed to have been reasonable in your disagreeable-ness.

Quote:

---

My statement stod plausible and will remain so.

---

Please reread how the discussion came about. You made a post and I said "not quite" and gave the statute. The rest flowed from there.

Quote:

---

If you think that this offense can't fall under the criteria for VOAY registration, I don't care.

---

All I care about here is clarity. All I stand for is the proposition that the mere fact a battery happened against a minor would require registration is untrue. Read all my unedited posts in this thread with that thought in mind and see if I have not been consistent and clear that is all I was saying.

Quote:

---

One, OP stopped posting long ago. Two, you don't live here. Three, who cares. I give youu worst case and let you work from there.

---

One, only after doom and gloom came from everyone rather than a discussion on the law. I am new here and still trying to get my legs as to the etiquette. It seems there is much said beyond the law. I make no judgment on that as this is not a place I control or provide. Until there is some clear statement from one who controls or provides that one cannot discuss the law on a site called ExpertLaw I feel license to focus on that portion of the discussion.

Two, you are correct. Is that a requirement for posting?

Three, anyone who cares about the law rather than personal opinion.

I suggest the "worst case" would be if the victim died within a year and a day from the incident due to the striking. A less likely made up fact than a concussion to be sure. Even better than either would have been if you took my invitation to provide the something more and made the claim it could have risen to aggravated battery because the victim was under 13 and the perpetrator was an adult. Or that the school is considered a "public way, public property, a public place of accommodation or amusement, a sports venue, or a domestic violence shelter". (We could then discuss statutory construction then and the problem with pulling out teachers and school employees in one section when any school battery would apply.) That seems like what I would consider an ExpertLaw discussion over an Expert[appeal to authority fallacy] discussion.

Oh my God... It still talks. Look, for the offense that was committed, VOAY registration is a plausible outcome. By reading the ILCS, there are various ways that can occur. Being a probation officer, I am aware of how any OP can lighten the level of abuse in order to minimize the actions of the defendant.

Your post of I am new here and trying to learn the etiquuette of posting manners is irrelevant. For all you seem to want to do is argue. I see from various postings of yours that you attempt to be helpful and not troll around and become a pain in the ass. Again, it is not my desire to do research for someone's defense to an illegal act. With the info provided by the OP, can a VOAY registration be a possible outcome? Yes. Will it? WHO THE HELL KNOWS!!! Is it my responsibility to check on whether or not the circumstances as unlikely as they have been reported to this forum applies to this mandate? Hell no. Can I with confidence state that registration is possible? Again yes.

I suggest that you understand that a person needs not to die in order to fall under a VOAY. I suggest that understand that offenders still at minor age and adjudicated in adult court still fall under this mandate. Lastly, I am not invested in arguing with you. Because what was a post by an OP that has not posted in a looonnnnnnnnng time has now become a pissing contest. I can care less about getting into that. Somply because I have had to register folks for this list and I know why I had to do so. I know when they do and don't fall under that condition. Your seemingly unending desire to get the last word on something you Google'd as opposed to what I do for a living is rather pathetic.

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Oh my God... It still talks. Look, for the offense that was committed, VOAY registration is a plausible outcome. By reading the ILCS, there are various ways that can occur. Being a probation officer, I am aware of how any OP can lighten the level of abuse in order to minimize the actions of the defendant.

Your post of I am new here and trying to learn the etiquuette of posting manners is irrelevant. For all you seem to want to do is argue. I see from various postings of yours that you attempt to be helpful and not troll around and become a pain in the ass. Again, it is not my desire to do research for someone's defense to an illegal act. With the info provided by the OP, can a VOAY registration be a possible outcome? Yes. Will it? WHO THE HELL KNOWS!!! Is it my responsibility to check on whether or not the circumstances as unlikely as they have been reported to this forum applies to this mandate? Hell no. Can I with confidence state that registration is possible? Again yes.

I suggest that you understand that a person needs not to die in order to fall under a VOAY. I suggest that understand that offenders still at minor age and adjudicated in adult court still fall under this mandate. Lastly, I am not invested in arguing with you. Because what was a post by an OP that has not posted in a looonnnnnnnnng time has now become a pissing contest. I can care less about getting into that. Somply because I have had to register folks for this list and I know why I had to do so. I know when they do and don't fall under that condition. Your seemingly unending desire to get the last word on something you Google'd as opposed to what I do for a living is rather pathetic.

---

What is pathetic is a person who continues to post as an expert who does not want to discuss the law they are a purported expert in. You continue to spout how much you are knowledgeable in the area and still cannot deem to actually READ and APPLY the law. You just want to give your opinion. Great. I give the law your opinion is supposed to be based upon. It is curious why it is more important to you to read my previous postings in order to form an opinion on me than it is to read the law. Not as a defense to the "OP" but as a point of reference for anyone coming to the thread. More curious is why you continue to insist a battery with nothing more other than it being committed against a minor can be a registration offense. How easy would it be to supply a reference for that opinion? You do this for a LIVING. Surely there must be a pamphlet under the potted plant on your desk or something.

I completely understand a person does not need to have to die to have to register under a "VOAY". I actually READ the law requiring registration and the laws it referenced and the appellate case law on the matter. Have you? I have no desire to get the last word on the matter. I do and will respond to foolishness. It seems foolish to me for you to insist you are right because it is your job when it would have taken far less time for you to simply provide the statute or case showing simple battery on a minor with nothing else requires reporting.

Once and for all, then after this statement, consider this a dead issue. Can the events described by the OP qualify as VOAY? Yes. The specifics as to what the police reports and other factors determine that outcome is not known to me. Is it a worst case scenario? Yes. Will it happen. DON'T KNOW. AM I done with your argumentative and direspectful ass? YES. Will I respond anymore to your condescending and shortsided rhetoric pertaining to this topic? Hell NO! Will you walk away thinking that you won something? RESOUNDINGLY YES TO THAT! WIll I care? NO! Do I still know my job and what has to be done when the time comes? AFFIRMATIVE.

One last note. I don't give definitive answers because every post is not definitive to the facts. Things are omitted, minimized, and outright fabricated at times. So again, I give the worst case scenario. Anything that you think about that means nothing to me. Later...

Quote:

---

Quoting viol8te

---

Once and for all, then after this statement, consider this a dead issue. Can the events described by the OP qualify as VOAY? Yes. The specifics as to what the police reports and other factors determine that outcome is not known to me. Is it a worst case scenario? Yes. Will it happen. DON'T KNOW. AM I done with your argumentative and direspectful ass? YES. Will I respond anymore to your condescending and shortsided rhetoric pertaining to this topic? Hell NO! Will you walk away thinking that you won something? RESOUNDINGLY YES TO THAT! WIll I care? NO! Do I still know my job and what has to be done when the time comes? AFFIRMATIVE.

One last note. I don't give definitive answers because every post is not definitive to the facts. Things are omitted, minimized, and outright fabricated at times. So again, I give the worst case scenario. Anything that you think about that means nothing to me. Later...

---

I suppose this is an agreement with each of my points. I appreciate the fact you know what to do when a competent person checks the box on the form saying the person you will supervise must register.

Quote:

---

And of course let's not forget that a conviction of a batter to a minor constitutes a 10 year registration as a violent offender against youth.

---

Almost never give definitive answers.