GUILTY NY - Barbara Maier Gustern, 87, brutally shoved in street, dies, Manhattan, 12 March 2022 *arrest*

[squareandrabbet]

Absolutely disgusting, really. So many bullies walking around, not being held accountable. Ugh.

The cesspool scion socialite charged with fatally shoving NYC grandmother | Daily Mail Online

I don't think the lawyer will get far with talk like this...

Speaking to reporters after the arraignment, Aidala insisted that, even if his client had shoved 87-year-old Gursten, a manslaughter charge was unwarranted.

The A-list attorney said that pushing someone 'who's on the sidewalk' isn't the same thing as 'pushing someone in front of a cliff' or 'pushing someone in front of a moving train', according to the New York Post.

... Ahem, excuse me "Attorney Joker", but the street of the concrete jungle absolutely possesses many features that can kill a person; and in this case, in fact did.

Stone stoops and stairs; metal railings; even street grates, if you hit them right. Pavement can absolutely kill people, SMH...

 

[bombardier]

I don't think the lawyer will get far with talk like this...

Speaking to reporters after the arraignment, Aidala insisted that, even if his client had shoved 87-year-old Gursten, a manslaughter charge was unwarranted.

The A-list attorney said that pushing someone 'who's on the sidewalk' isn't the same thing as 'pushing someone in front of a cliff' or 'pushing someone in front of a moving train', according to the New York Post.

... Ahem, excuse me "Attorney Joker", but the street of the concrete jungle absolutely possesses many features that can kill a person; and in this case, in fact did.

Stone stoops and stairs; metal railings; even street grates, if you hit them right. Pavement can absolutely kill people, SMH...

What a piss-poor argument. Stabbing someone in the leg is 'better" than stabbing someone in the chest but, duh, you shouldn't do either!! And should be held accountable if death occurs!
I also think that all mentally competent adults are aware that people in their 80s can die from simple falls. IMO if you shove an elderly person you are doing that with the knowledge that they may die or be seriously injured.

 

[mickey2942]

My personal opinion is that this situation will go on for years. There is zero justification for brutally knocking someone down on the ground. The attorney can state she didn't mean to, she was just walking fast, whatever...a 20 something year old knocked an 87 year old to the ground, for no apparent reason.

So, when you have an obviously guilty client, angle for a plea bargain, probably won't happen here, seems like the victim's family won't go for a soft deal. Next plan, from what other criminals have done, is let it go for years, stall, and probably the "Cesspool Socialite" will get pregnant right away. (Elizabeth Holmes). Mental health evaluations, on and on...

 

[JohnBull]

Here's what I see for the definition of first degree manslaughter in New York, as it would apply here:

With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, [accused] causes the death of such person or of a third person ....​

Key is going to be whether she actually "intended" to cause "serious physical injury." That speaks to two different elements of fact, which would be reflective of her state-of-mind when she gave the push. Is it a question of her actually thinking, "I'm going to hurt this b..ch," or is it a case of an impatient, impulsive person applying a shove in order to expedite the victim's getting out of her precious way? If it goes to a jury a good, maybe even a mediocre attorney will probably be able to convince one or more jurors of the latter. It depends on the evidence at hand, and I'm not convinced it's necessarily an open-and-shut case.

 

[MadisonS]

Key is going to be whether she actually "intended" to cause "serious physical injury." That speaks to two different elements of fact, which would be reflective of her state-of-mind when she gave the push. Is it a question of her actually thinking, "I'm going to hurt this b..ch," or is it a case of an impatient, impulsive person applying a shove in order to expedite the victim's getting out of her precious way? If it goes to a jury a good, maybe even a mediocre attorney will probably be able to convince one or more jurors of the latter. It depends on the evidence at hand, and I'm not convinced it's necessarily an open-and-shut case.

BMG told witnesses that she had never been hit so hard in her life. It's reasonable to assume that Cesspool Socialite intended harm.

 

[JohnBull]

BMG told witnesses that she had never been hit so hard in her life. It's reasonable to assume that Cesspool Socialite intended harm.

Yes, but that's a subjective thing. It might or might not serve to convince jurors that she intended serious injury. I'm not advocating one way or another, but it's something that has to be borne in mind if you want to be objective. If all we're doing is going by emotion, the perp should hang.

 

[mickey2942]

BMG told witnesses that she had never been hit so hard in her life. It's reasonable to assume that Cesspool Socialite intended harm.

Dying declarations have significant weight, INMO. For a jury.

 

[JohnBull]

Dying declarations have significant weight, INMO. For a jury.

And that might work if your dying declaration is "she meant to kill me." Which is a subjective thing.

 

[Satchie]

Here's what I see for the definition of first degree manslaughter in New York, as it would apply here:

With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, [accused] causes the death of such person or of a third person ....​

Key is going to be whether she actually "intended" to cause "serious physical injury." That speaks to two different elements of fact, which would be reflective of her state-of-mind when she gave the push. Is it a question of her actually thinking, "I'm going to hurt this b..ch," or is it a case of an impatient, impulsive person applying a shove in order to expedite the victim's getting out of her precious way? If it goes to a jury a good, maybe even a mediocre attorney will probably be able to convince one or more jurors of the latter. It depends on the evidence at hand, and I'm not convinced it's necessarily an open-and-shut case.

If intent were defined and decided that way, IMO no criminal case could ever be resolved, since no one can read another person's mind in the present, much less the past.

The issue of what 'intent' means in the criminal justice system is well defined and the judge instructs the jury on these legal definitions and what specific issues they are to decide. They are not left to just make it up themselves.

Intention (criminal law) - Wikipedia
This is the idea of what a 'reasonable person' would do or think in similar circumstances.

IMO what the law means is, if she did not intend to cause serious harm and potential death to her victim, then she would not have pushed her to the ground, she would have said 'excuse me', not 'b****, she would have passed by her by barely touching her, or waited until she could do that.

JMO

 

[mickey2942]

And that might work if your dying declaration is "she meant to kill me." Which is a subjective thing.

The perpetrator did not stop when the victim was on the ground. Apologize, call an ambulance, or offer any explanation. Instead, she watched the victim going to the hospital from across the street.

She deliberately deleted Social media, pictures on the Internet when she was identified. She quit her job, and went to her parents house. When LEO went to her parents house, the parents did not allow the police in, and denied that the perpetrator was in the house, even though she was there, hiding. She arranged to go to the police station, with her attorney.

Every single action the perpetrator did after the victim was knocked down was deliberate.

She may not have meant for her victim to die. But she definitely didn't show any remorse for knocking her down.

 

[scriabina]

The perpetrator did not stop when the victim was on the ground. Apologize, call an ambulance, or offer any explanation. Instead, she watched the victim going to the hospital from across the street.

She deliberately deleted Social media, pictures on the Internet when she was identified. She quit her job, and went to her parents house. When LEO went to her parents house, the parents did not allow the police in, and denied that the perpetrator was in the house, even though she was there, hiding. She arranged to go to the police station, with her attorney.

Every single action the perpetrator did after the victim was knocked down was deliberate.

She may not have meant for her victim to die. But she definitely didn't show any remorse for knocking her down.

Very well said!

One question: do we know for certain that she was hiding in her parents' house when LE came looking for her?

 

[mickey2942]

Very well said!

One question: do we know for certain that she was hiding in her parents' house when LE came looking for her?

Lauren Pazienza's parents 'may be charged' for 'helping her hide from police' | Daily Mail Online

 

[NervousNellie]

The perpetrator did not stop when the victim was on the ground. Apologize, call an ambulance, or offer any explanation. Instead, she watched the victim going to the hospital from across the street.

She deliberately deleted Social media, pictures on the Internet when she was identified. She quit her job, and went to her parents house. When LEO went to her parents house, the parents did not allow the police in, and denied that the perpetrator was in the house, even though she was there, hiding. She arranged to go to the police station, with her attorney.

Every single action the perpetrator did after the victim was knocked down was deliberate.

She may not have meant for her victim to die. But she definitely didn't show any remorse for knocking her down.

LP’s employer has gone on the record as saying she resigned from her job in December. It had nothing to do with this incident.

 

[SMK777]

Evidently, the victim was in the act of hailing a taxi. Perhaps the perpetrator thought the victim had "stolen" the taxi?

I have never lived in New York City. But, I have a general understanding that arguments between New Yorkers over "claimed" taxis and for whom the taxi was truly stopping for are not unheard of.

My guess is that the victim might not have ceded the taxi to LP. LP then pushed her in retribution?

That makes some sense at least. Something had to have motivated her, as horrendous and inexcusable as the act was.

 

[Ruby12345]

LP’s employer has gone on the record as saying she resigned from her job in December. It had nothing to do with this incident.

That was her previous job. She then worked in a shop and quit after this happened.

 

[NervousNellie]

That was her previous job. She then worked in a shop and quit after this happened.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[SMK777]

Sorry for asking this, and I don’t know how I’ve managed to miss this information, but was the actual crime captured on CCTV, or by witnesses, or what?

Just trying to figure out what the defense is working with. Thanks.

 

[Cryptic]

Lauren Pazienza's parents 'may be charged' for 'helping her hide from police' | Daily Mail Online

I suspect that such charges would be far more theoretical than actual.

In the end, instances of parents, spouses, other relatives etc. refusing to let police search homes for a suspect with out a warrant and lying about whether suspect "S" is in the home are probably very common. Yet, charges are very rare.

The rarity of charges is probably based on the difficulty in proving that serious crime suspect "s" was truly in the home at the exact time when the police came by and inquired.

There may also be another softer concept at work. Totalitarian regimes of any socio political ideology make turning in spouses, relatives etc. an expectation. But, the expectation that say, parents turn in a daughter has never really been part of the US social contract.

As a result, I bet many proscecutors shy away from such charges unless the circumstances are truly egregious.

 

[Satchie]

I suspect that such charges would be far more theoretical than actual.

In the end, instances of parents, spouses, other relatives etc. refusing to let police search homes for a suspect with out a warrant and lying about whether suspect "S" is in the home are probably very common. Yet, charges are very rare.

The rarity of charges is probably based on the difficulty in proving that serious crime suspect "s" was truly in the home at the exact time when the police came by and inquired.

There may also be another softer concept at work. Totalitarian regimes of any socio political ideology make turning in spouses, relatives etc. an expectation. But, the expectation that say, parents turn in a daughter has never really been part of the US social contract.

As a result, I bet many proscecutors shy away from such charges unless the circumstances are truly egregious.

I agree, especially when family/friends didn't witness the crime, it's human nature for them to believe their loved one is innocent. And we're not talking about months, just a few days more or less makes no difference to police or a system where it takes months, even years for a case to be heard in court.

It's up to the adult facing charges to turn themselves in, that's what actually carries weight with the court, such as in setting bail conditions, or sentencing.

 

[sds71]

Lauren Pazienza indicted in fatal shove of beloved NYC voice coach