Judge finds probable cause in St. James Gate alleged assault archived

You can throw the first punch and still not be the instigator...

For example--although this is in CA: http://criminal-lawyer-blog.irvinecriminallawyer.com/2012/06/can-you-throw-the-first-punch-and-be-found-not-guilty-of-assault/

mrincredible said:

I think if we want to keep this thread from getting yanked it would be best to discuss facts and not speculate or make assumptions.

No speculation. Just stating the alleged victim's direct quote. If he antagonized the bartender as he states, he certainly is admitting some type of responsibility.

How about he antagonized him after he was verbally abused?

As for a hate crime prosecution, I would be surprised if that actually happened. This appears to be a bar fight where one person called another a nasty name in the course of an ongoing dispute. Generally, people are prosecuted for a hate crime when they target someone because they belong to a specific, protected class - ie, attacking a stranger just because he is black, gay, Muslim etc. Not sure this really meets the criteria.

strawberry said:

mrincredible said:

I think if we want to keep this thread from getting yanked it would be best to discuss facts and not speculate or make assumptions.

No speculation. Just stating the alleged victim's direct quote. If he antagonized the bartender as he states, he certainly is admitting some type of responsibility.

Re-read your post and tell me it is free of speculation and assumptions.

Oldstone said:

How about he antagonized him after he was verbally abused?

well, I guess someone, somewhere will have to determine just how victimized the alleged victim really is.

From what I've read, there was an argument, the alleged victim eventually refused to leave the bar when he was told to leave near closing time, he left but for some reason came back and he eventually antagonized the bartender rather than leave the scene. There was also spitting or something. All this makes this alleged incident a little more two sided than I think some of us were led to believe. Based on all this, and the fact that there are seemingly injuries to both, I'm of the opinion that this thing doesn't make it to a jury. I certainly can't see a man losing his freedom over the incident.

mrincredible said:

strawberry said:

mrincredible said:

I think if we want to keep this thread from getting yanked it would be best to discuss facts and not speculate or make assumptions.

No speculation. Just stating the alleged victim's direct quote. If he antagonized the bartender as he states, he certainly is admitting some type of responsibility.

Re-read your post and tell me it is free of speculation and assumptions.

again, all that comes from the patch. Not my speculation or assumptions. The Patch is a credible source of news and information.

strawberry said:

I'm guessing that this thing is eventually thrown out of court.

Speculation. Or assumption. Take your pick.

Ditto the comment about the defendant's lawyer having a field day.

mrincredible said:

strawberry said:

I'm guessing that this thing is eventually thrown out of court.

Speculation. Or assumption. Take your pick.

Ditto the comment about the defendant's lawyer having a field day.

why are you hung up on speculation? Dave made it clear that if charges were filed, he would look at this differently. I think you're a day late and a dollar short.

And again, I believe so too is the alleged victim. I feel awful for all the people involved and hope that cooler heads prevail and common sense restored to our legal system that has become inundated with too many he said/she said cases about nothing.

I am interested that this thread remain open as a factual discussion of the situation as it unfolds. If it turns into yet another opinion, speculation and assumption fest I can see it getting pulled.

mrincredible said:

I am interested that this thread remain open as a factual discussion of the situation as it unfolds. If it turns into yet another opinion, speculation and assumption fest I can see it getting pulled.

hopefully it does get pulled because gossip is gossip and it's horrible that a small town like this is so crazed about it but since this thread isn't being pulled, I may as well play lawyer with the rest of you.

Bottom line, the alleged victim has a huge hill to climb. First off, his decision to post his version of events on Yelp?? I mean, geez. He admits he antagonized the bartender??

A "he said/she said case about nothing"? Seriously? That is a truly shocking thing to say in this context.

Let's see. The way I read the sequence of events:

1. "....he asked Meade for a drink at about 1:40 a.m. and Meade allegedly said no. When asked why, Kresofsky told the judge Meade made a homophobic slur aimed at him."

2. "The verbal altercation soon turned violent, Kresofsky said.'

3. "The two began shoving and grabbing. Kresofsky told the judge the two spat at each other and Meade then punched Kresofsky in the face."

4. "The two then made their way outside, he told the judge, where his friends were holding Meade back."

THEN:

5. '"I was antagonizing him," Kresofsky said.'

Which in no way justifies:

6. "[Meade].....pushed my friend and punched me in the face. Then he ran up and kicked me in the face."

The "antagonizing" came looooong after the altercation had already begun--allegedly with a homophobic slur. And AFTER the alleged victim had already been punched in the face. Not seeing "instigation" here. Not in any way, shape or form. Interesting that some do, though. And not "interesting" in a good way.

mr incredible - How can there be any factual discussion when there are no facts? Just two stories and all our opinions.

I wonder if this is what the reporter heard or if it was taken from the actual court transcript/recording.

algebra2 said:

How can there be any factual discussion when there are no facts? Just two stories and all our opinions.

I'm betting that there will be many more than two stories to come out of this. Bartender, others working there, Kresofsky, his friends. They'll likely all be somewhat different.

Oldstone said:

How about he antagonized him after he was verbally abused?

Worse than that. Reading the timeline given in the article the plaintiff antagonized the defendant after the defendant punched the plaintiff in the face. The a good portion of the physical assault by the defendant preceded the verbal antagonizing by the plaintiff. Considering that the plaintiff had been insulted, spit on, grabbed, and punched, I can completely understand if at that point he lost his cool and said things he shouldn't have.

MATB beat me to it while I was typing, and made the timeline of events even clearer than I did.

Rashomon

Steve said:

algebra2 said:

How can there be any factual discussion when there are no facts? Just two stories and all our opinions.

I'm betting that there will be many more than two stories to come out of this. Bartender, others working there, Kresofsky, his friends. They'll likely all be somewhat different.

and at 1:40 AM on a Monday night, I doubt there will be a sympathetic judge. The alleged victim was told to leave, left but came back. This to me indicates he came back looking for trouble. Look, again, I feel bad for everyone. I don't see bad people here, just a bad incident. Let's hope this thing is turned over to mediation so all involved can go on living their lives with a better understanding of the dangers associated with alcohol.

I think an important point here is that this incident didn't involve two drunk guys sitting at the bar. One was IN CHARGE of the bar. Isn't part of the job of a bartender ( maybe even a legal obligation) to ensure that patrons behave themselves in a reasonable and safe fashion, make sure people don't get too drunk and drive, etc. if the bartender himself was already drunk and instigated a fight, doesn't that factor in somehow? Throw on top of this the homophobic slur from someone representing this local business. Those two elements make this, IMO, much more than a he said/ she said.

Steve said:

I wonder if this is what the reporter heard or if it was taken from the actual court transcript/recording.

Yes I had the same question. Are they from court testimony? or an interview? or what. And if this is part of court testimony , I would want to know full context. The reporter included a full statement from the Meade family and a quote from the brother. It seems only fair to put those Kresofsky quotes and non-quoted comments descriptive of the event in a full context. Include the transcript.

there is a legal notion of "fighting words" that may come into play if the Judge finds the anti-gay slur was used.

none of us were there- none of us know what happened. it looks bad for Meade, but i'd remind in the days right after this incident the plaintiff and/or his friends posted things in here that were not true per their ultimate complaint against the defendant. they embellished the story in here, so they are proven capable of lying.

meandtheboys said:

Let's see. The way I read the sequence of events:

1. "....he asked Meade for a drink at about 1:40 a.m. and Meade allegedly said no. When asked why, Kresofsky told the judge Meade made a homophobic slur aimed at him."

2. "The verbal altercation soon turned violent, Kresofsky said.'

3. "The two began shoving and grabbing. Kresofsky told the judge the two spat at each other and Meade then punched Kresofsky in the face."

4. "The two then made their way outside, he told the judge, where his friends were holding Meade back."

THEN:

5. '"I was antagonizing him," Kresofsky said.'

Which in no way justifies:

6. "[Meade].....pushed my friend and punched me in the face. Then he ran up and kicked me in the face."

The "antagonizing" came looooong after the altercation had already begun--allegedly with a homophobic slur. And AFTER the alleged victim had already been punched in the face. Not seeing "instigation" here. Not in any way, shape or form. Interesting that some do, though. And not "interesting" in a good way.

this is according to the victim..We have yet to hear from the defendant who I'm sure sees all this differently.

If this was an incident between two patrons I think it'd be a whole lot different... as it is, this is a very serious situation for the bartender and the Gate.

I know a lot of people will be following this case as it progresses through the system - we'll see how it turns out.

conandrob240 said:

I think an important point here is that this incident didn't involve two drunk guys sitting at the bar. One was IN CHARGE of the bar. Isn't part of the job of a bartender ( maybe even a legal obligation) to ensure that patrons behave themselves in a reasonable and safe fashion, make sure people don't get too drunk and drive, etc. if the bartender himself was already drunk and instigated a fight, doesn't that factor in somehow? Throw on top of this the homophobic slur from someone representing this local business. Those two elements make this, IMO, much more than a he said/ she said.

That. And the "alleged" homophobic slur. In Maplewood!

case said:

this is a very serious situation for the bartender and the Gate.

Well, I aborted what I was told would be a 45 minute wait for a table the other day, so it doesn't seem that serious for them.

RVM said:

there is a legal notion of "fighting words" that may come into play if the Judge finds the anti-gay slur was used.

none of us were there- none of us know what happened. it looks bad for Meade, but i'd remind in the days right after this incident the plaintiff and/or his friends posted things in here that were not true per their ultimate complaint against the defendant. they embellished the story in here, so they are proven capable of lying.

Not included in the complaint doesn't necessarily mean not true.

strawberry said:

Steve said:

algebra2 said:

How can there be any factual discussion when there are no facts? Just two stories and all our opinions.

I'm betting that there will be many more than two stories to come out of this. Bartender, others working there, Kresofsky, his friends. They'll likely all be somewhat different.

and at 1:40 AM on a Monday night, I doubt there will be a sympathetic judge. The alleged victim was told to leave, left but came back. This to me indicates he came back looking for trouble. Look, again, I feel bad for everyone. I don't see bad people here, just a bad incident. Let's hope this thing is turned over to mediation so all involved can go on living their lives with a better understanding of the dangers associated with alcohol.

Where are you getting the version of events where the victim was told to leave, left but came back. All previous accounts -deleted from MOL indicated that the bartender would not allow the victim to get his jacket. He manhandled him in the bar and followed him out into the street. Patch doesn't have any detail to the effect you alledge. Are you a Meade Schill? or are you writing an ABC Afterschool Special?

ktc said:

case said:

this is a very serious situation for the bartender and the Gate.

Well, I aborted what I was told would be a 45 minute wait for a table the other day, so it doesn't seem that serious for them.

At least, not yet...

mod said:

strawberry said:

Steve said:

algebra2 said:

How can there be any factual discussion when there are no facts? Just two stories and all our opinions.

I'm betting that there will be many more than two stories to come out of this. Bartender, others working there, Kresofsky, his friends. They'll likely all be somewhat different.

and at 1:40 AM on a Monday night, I doubt there will be a sympathetic judge. The alleged victim was told to leave, left but came back. This to me indicates he came back looking for trouble. Look, again, I feel bad for everyone. I don't see bad people here, just a bad incident. Let's hope this thing is turned over to mediation so all involved can go on living their lives with a better understanding of the dangers associated with alcohol.

Where are you getting the version of events where the victim was told to leave, left but came back. All previous accounts -deleted from MOL indicated that the bartender would not allow the victim to get his jacket. He manhandled him in the bar and followed him out into the street. Patch doesn't have any detail to the effect you alledge. Are you a Meade Schill? or are you writing an ABC Afterschool Special?

from all the deleted mol stuff..