§ 22–404. Assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner;
(a)(1) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.
(2) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes significant bodily injury to another shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “significant bodily injury” means an injury that requires hospitalization or immediate medical attention.
To breakdown the legalese to plain-speak, noted DC criminal defense attorney, David Benowitz breaks down simple assault; (emphasis mine)
In DC, a person may be charged with simple assault (misdemeanor), assault with significant injury, or aggravated assault. Simple assault is when a person makes an attempt or effort, with the use of violence, to injure another person, and at the time of the attempt has the ability to injure the person. A DC simple assault charge also requires that the action is committed voluntarily and on purpose. A simple assault offense can also be charged under an “intent to frighten” theory.
Watch the video for yourself… you make the call. In the meantime, Fox News is reporting that the White House has pulled Acosta’s “hard pass”;
CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass to access the White House was suspended “until further notice” Wednesday, hours after he engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with President Trump.
As a result of today’s incident, the White House is suspending the hard pass of the reporter involved until further notice.
President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern…
Eight members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) , to include the monumentally dimwitted Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), have joined forces in another attempt to push through something called the Police Accountability Act.
As reported by Pete Kasperowicz of the Washington Examiner, if any given law enforcement official (LEO) should be found of committing murder or assault in the line of duty, the same LEO would also find themselves up on federal charges that could result in the death penalty;
Several House Democrats have introduced legislation that would subject state and local police to the death penalty if they are found guilty or assault or murder.
The Police Accountability Act, from Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., is one of the Democrats’ answers to the police brutality that they say still plagues black Americans around the country.
His bill would subject police to the death penalty when cops commit certain crimes that already trigger the death penalty in other circumstances. Johnson, who has introduced this bill in prior Congresses, said it’s needed because police cannot be put above the law.
“I support our law enforcement officers,” Johnson said. “They have a difficult job to uphold the law and to protect and serve the American people and to keep them safe from harm’s way. They should be commended and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude.”
“But law enforcement officers are not above the law and should be held accountable like anyone else,” he added.
“People are rightfully demanding an end to unequal justice, and that those who are responsible for the use of excessive force be brought to justice,” Johnson said.
Unfortunately for Congressman Johnson and his pals at the CBC, reporter Philippe Lemoine of the National Review has already published data that sinks the Democrat narrative the black males are somehow “targeted” by police;
According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police.
This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small.
Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.
Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.
Perhaps living proof that a mind is a terrible thing, Rep. Johnson is best known for his concern that the US territory of Guam might “tip over” if too many Marines were stationed in the Island.
Alrighty, how many of you are furious at Ray Rice, the Baltimore Ravens, Roger Goodell, and the NFL as a whole? Oh, I’ll take a chance and would say that an awful lot of you are. But I ask you to consider this – how upset would you be with me if the headline instead was “Anger at Raven’s Rice for KO’ing girlfriend, so what?”
I’ll hazard a guess that more than a few of you would be very, very upset with me. But why would anyone be upset with lil’ ol’ me? Liberals are constantly pounding us with the politically correct mantra of *men and women are equal … men and women are equal*
In fact, liberals are so deep into the belief that there is no difference at all between the sexes, they’ve recently authorized women to fill the ranks of Combat Arms billets in the Armed Forces. With a swipe of his famed pen, Barack Obama opened infantry, artillery and armor MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties) to the ladies.
God help women if they are ever subject to a National Draft and *forced* into the Grunts, but I digress. I’m not going to re-argue my opinion that it’s utter stupidity to place women into combat roles, I’ve done that already. Here’s what I’m going to argue instead; why are so many in full melt down over Ray Rice smacking his beloved into unconsciousness? No, let me re-phrase that … why are no manyliberals in full melt down over Ray Rice smacking his beloved into unconsciousness?
After all, if I use the rhetoric of liberalism, there is not a whit of difference if the assailant had external genitalia, and the victim had internal genitalia. Using the argument of classic liberalism, this is simply a case of one human being assaulting another human being, right? And why not? Liberals want women to not only be active participants in the most violent, bloody and savage profession in the history of mankind … liberals expect women to win whilst assigned to the most violent, bloody and savage profession in the history of mankind.
I’d like to remind the American people that 18, 19 and 20-year-old Marines quite often engaged in and won knife fights with Iraqi insurgents in rooms sometimes no bigger than an elevator. Notably during the very often beyond gory Battle of Fallujah.
So to the liberals out there that happen to be reading this, I say to you the following;
You have every right to consider Ray Rice a two-bit thug.
You have every right to expect Ray Rice be investigated for Assault and Battery charges.
You have every right to hope Ray Rice is tried, convicted and jailed for what he did in that Atlantic City hotel elevator.
But you have no right to be angered because the victim was a woman.
It’s time for that moment of clarity, liberals. Either women are special or they aren’t. The days of you having it both ways are over. But in all fairness, I’m quite sure that if any liberal women were on a sinking ship, they’d be the first to change sides and wholeheartedly agree with the old adage of “Women and Children First.”