Besides, there are already laws on the books. Why in one fatal case, the participants got a whole year and a half! http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23359158/ny......ath-case

Wasn't that a family court case in which the defendant was 13 years old?

We both could probably cite hundreds of cases involving all sorts of crimes in which a defendant got off with far less than most would perceive as just. Just as we could list a similar number of cases in which a defendant received over twenty years for a relatively minor offense. Those doesn't really go to the issue we're discussing here, however.

One defendant was 13 years old; the other was 16.

As for the article you pasted, I'd say that it doesn't really go into the issue we're discussing here, either. To be more specific, the claim that the knockout game is less common than people think doesn't address the question of how it should be handled when it does happen. We do know that it happens, we do know that it's happened in a number of cities across the country, and we do know that it's potentially fatal. Granted, some assaults are already considered felonies in Washington, but others are considered misdemeanors.

So the question is, if you randomly assault an unsuspecting person and it doesn't cause "bodily harm accompanied by substantial pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering," should that be a felony or a misdemeanor? I'm in agreement with those legislators who think that the current legal framework, which classifies such an assault as a misdemeanor, is inadequate.

+1

I disagree, Lobo. We are, again, talking about a law which purportedly is designed to combat the so-called "knock-out game." Since, by definition, the knock-out game involves more than one perpetrator (the one doing the striking and those with whom he's playing the game), it ALREADY IS a felony conspiracy under the laws of this state and most others, regardless of whether any injury at all actually takes place.

The question is whether the ASSAULT itself, which is a separate crime, should be a misdemeanor or a felony. The fact that participants alao engage in conspiracy, which is a felony, is irrelevant.

What about the lone assailant who chooses to play the game by himself? Think of solitaire. No one challenged him, but he wants to get into the "game."

I thought about that, Bob, but it seems that it would defeat the whole motivation for the game in the first place- to show your friends what a tough guy you are. A lone assailant, acting randomly and without provocation would most likely be a nut job (to use the technical term).

And I disagree, Lobo. The fact that it is a group activity automatically makes it a felony- so it is highly relevant as far as sentencing goes.

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing here. If they're guilty of conspiracy, they're also (and separately) guilty of the assault. Nobody is disputing that the conspiracy is a felony. The question is whether the assault itself is a felony or a misdemeanor. The proposed law would make it a felony. That's the change under debate, not the conspiracy. They've committed two crimes - conspiracy and assault. The question is whether that's two separate felonies, or one felony and a misdemeanor. The fact that the conspiracy is a felony has no bearing on whether the assault is (or should be) a felony.

It does have bearing on the matter because the purpose of the new statute is supposedly to enhance the penalty by making what was previously a misdemeanor a felony. But, since the conspiracy is there, a defendant would already by subject to felony sentencing, which would normally be concurrent with the assault sentence anyway. In other words, the defendants would face the same total sentence under the new law as they do under the present one.

So I'm just being pragmatic.

Further- with the conspiracy it isn't necessary to show that the victim sustained any injury at all. The battery needn't even be completed.

Ok, I understand. But conspiracy has its own problems with respected to proof, i.e., "I knew he was going to do it, but I didn't conspire with him to do it.". I suspect of the convicted defendants participating in the knockout game, relatively few if any have been convicted of conspiracy.

Just shows how unimaginative some prosecutors are.

Where can I find this official "Knock-Out Game" rule book that Bob seem to be referring to? What's it called when someone just decides to randomly belt someone in the face and see if they can knock them out, all on their own, Just for fun? Or does that never happen?

Reread my posts and maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about. And look at the many news reports that came out late last year when the media started hyping a crime that many police remain skeptical of. The alleged "game" in every instance has involved groups of youths. Just like the "wilding" incidents from decades ago. Are you aware of any incidents in which a lone individual confessed to playing "solitaire knockout?"

Of course there is an elephant in the room here that, so far, no one has mentioned. And that's the racial and political undertones to the knock-out game reporting. I don't care to get into that argument, but it is pretty well summarized (and in a balanced fashion) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game