Why no felony charges against Dave Chapelle's attacker?

Hmmm, is it because he isn't liberal and made some trans jokes?
ME THINKS SO!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rges-against-man-who-attacked-dave-chappelle/

charging at someone with a KNIFE isn't a felony?
This also occurred in L.A. where criminals get rewarded. I bet you the attacker even gets rich from this. A few CNN interviews "I was so traumatized by his trans jokes that i don't know what came over me, bla bla bla, i see now that it was wrong to do so go and BUY MY NEW BOOK"

 

If you ever wanted to get away with a crime, this administration is the one to do it under. A few days ago in Atlanta, a 35 year old woman with her three kids in the car got into a road rage tiff with a 17 year old girl, followed her for 15 miles, shot her in the face, and only got charged with assault..

 

This has nothing to do with politics here. It would depend if David Chappelle wants to file charges on assualt or not. My guess David did not want to do that. However, he was charged on 4 misdemeanor charges of battery and possession of a weapon.

BTW, with assault, it is usual, especially in a public venue as the Hollywood bowl, that the victim here must give consent, file a criminal complaint, and request charges to be made for that to happen. Just like in another event where Will Smith attacked Chris Turcker on stage. Chris Tucker refused to press charges, hence why no charges were made.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/05/entertainment/dave-chappelle-attack-no-felony-charges/index.html

 

This was a state crime not a federal crime. Try to learn the difference between judicial jurisdictional boundaries of who can charge a crime here.

And since the motive for the attack is unknown, try not to put out ridiculous, pathetic arguments that will show you know nothing about how the legal system works.

 

Why wasn't Will Smith charged for anything at the Oscars? Black Privilege that's why. It's the first rung in the ladder to reparations for slavery.

 

You are assuming that he declined to press charges?

I find the notion that he would decline to press charges extremely hard to believe. To make that assumption without being told as much is a leap in logic.

 

Chris Rock, not Chris Tucker. I know they all look the same, right?

 

It’s my understanding the victim doesn’t need to file charges, it just makes it easier to prosecute when they do.

 

Seems this is a state issue. Your problem should be with GA and not the bozo in the WH.
That being said...
"She was charged with four counts of aggravated assault, three counts of cruelty to children and one count of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony."

 

I'm pretty sure shooting someone in the face qualifies as attempted murder. Premeditated at that, since she followed her 15 miles to do it...

 

Because Chris Tucker refused to press charges. Now Will Smith is banned for 10 years minimum from the Oscars and has resigned from the Actors guild too.

 

From all the articles out there, no one was shot. The defendant was injured because security pretty much rough-handled him on stage, protecting David Chappelle.

 

It's harder to prove. If the person does not file charges and the police try to get him for assault, that is gold haven for the defense. And prosecutors want that win, especially something like this when it is easy to get a conviction without trying to get David Chapperelle to give disposition, time off for him to be at trial and testify, and him being exposed in a public manner he, David, cannot control. That is why a criminal complaint is needed because it makes it easier to win the conviction and why David didn't want to do that.

 

You are assuming that he declined to press charges?
I find the notion that he would decline to press charges extremely hard to believe. To make that assumption without being told as much is a leap in logic.

 

So a VIDEO that's seen by the WHOLE country with someone being charged with a KNIFE isn't enough? That sounds like BS to me. How could someone even defend that? We know the motive! stop pretending

 

I believe you but do you happen to have a link? i'd like to read it. Thanks

 

When did you gain mind reading powers?

 

The man had some sort of thing with Chappelle. Lee, who raps under the name NoName_Trapper and has a verified Spotify account, put out a song in 2020 with the title “Dave Chappell.”

""Aspiring rapper Isaiah Lee posted ‘rap track about Dave Chappelle & Hollywood Bowl before onstage attack on comedian’""
Here is a sample link to it..
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18463...sted-rap-track-dave-chappelle-hollywood-bowl/

Looks like guy was a little touchy according to neighbors.
https://nypost.com/2022/05/04/neighbors-remember-dave-chappelles-attacker-isaiah-lee-for-arguments/

bet his momma is proud of her boy in this picture.

 

It had nothing to do with Chappelle. The district attorney Gascon declined to press felony charges which left it as a misdemeaner.

 

Juries want to hear from the actual people it harmed. Videos are useful, but they are not the panacea in all assault trials. Videos are also limited, in scope, visual acuity, and motive. Furthermore, there are rules of evidence in which the person has a right to see his accuser. Since the assault was on a specific individual, that accuser must none other be the victim in law. Otherwise, the whole case can get thrown out and no prosecutor is going to risk a dismissal with prejudice if that happens.

 

Although the article didn't mention it one way or the other, the fact is, and a high probability is that David Chaperelle didn't want to press charges. I can understand his reasoning. He is a popular entertainer, with dates booked up to the next year. It would make his life complicated if he were to file a complaint because he would have to rearrange his shows, at a moment's notice, if this case does go to trial. And that costs money, not to mention fans who may or may not be willing to see him at a later date for this.

Besides, the DA would have no choice just as the DA had no choice with Will Smith. And if you read the article for what it says, not what you think it says, then there is a hint, based on his official statement, that David was not willing to press charges. He did not say it exactly, but that is what I got from his official statement.

 

If you read David Chaperelle's statement in the article, that is what I got. It is not direct, but indirect. He is trying to put this behind him and not deal with him. He has other options available to him right now such as a permanent ban on all his shows, his security detail will have his picture and profile on file, and a few other options. Right now, the defendant has not been threatening David that we know of and a trial will get him in the joint, even for assault, between 2 to 5 years. What then?

 

I do not share your assumption. Him being attacked is now a thing and he has lots of crazies that have been aggressive towards him in his everyday life. One would think that he would press charges for the express purpose of deterring any future would-be attackers. It would have taken him all but 10 minutes to give an official statement to the police who were already there.

I would also think that The LA police department would readily state that he did not want to press charges in order to take any potential backlash off of them.

At any rate, we can both speculate, neither one of us actually know, yet you are making post after post as if this is a given fact. That seems to me to be a giant leap in logic.

 

LINK: Dave Chappelle 'upset' attacker isn't facing felony charge: lawyer (nypost.com)

 

Nice find, there just went all of that other posters assumptions right out the window.