NYC Woman Accused of Driving Through BLM Protesters Rejects Plea Deal

#1
Caculator

Caculator

No sane person wants to live on planet of the apes
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Messages
3,214
Likes
4,024
#1
from BB
A New York City woman accused of driving her BMW through 50 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters in 2020 rejected a plea deal and will stand trial, the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.
Fifty-three-year-old Kathleen Casillo appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court this week after being accused of driving into the individuals amid the protest taking place at the intersection of 39th Street and Third Avenue on December 11, 2020, the outlet said.

“Casillo, of Howard Beach, Queens, has claimed the demonstrators had come up to her car and called her ‘a white privilege b**ch’ before banging on the vehicle,” the report stated.
She explained to officers at the time she felt panicked and hit the gas as they began banging on the vehicle and attempting to open the doors. Damage to the BMW sedan was visible in pictures of the occurrence, the article continued:
She was offered a deal which would have seen her complete six days community service, and have her license suspended for a year, but turned it down, meaning a jury will now decide the matter. Casillo was issued no more than a desk appearance ticket for the incident and was released only hours after her arrest. Her 29-year-old daughter was also in the car at the time, but was not charged.​
In addition, Casillo was charged with reckless assault in the third degree in February. She is scheduled to return to court on January 28.


The protest march began in Times Square and was supposed to bring attention to a hunger strike by immigration detainees inside a jail located in New Jersey, the Associated Press (AP) reported in December 2020.
BLM protesters were seen outside the court room Wednesday “as they awaited justice for Casillo’s actions,” the Mail article read.
She was captured on camera allegedly driving through the demonstration in 2020 that resulted in at least nine protesters being hurt.
Video footage showed the moments before the incident occurred:

“Last year on Dec. 11, Kathleen Casillo drove her car at top speed through a crowd of human beings. I was one of those human beings—I never saw her coming,” Roque Rodriguez said.
However, Casillo claimed she was the victim in the incident, and drove away once protesters started attacking her vehicle as she tried to drive down a public street.

She got too sweet of a plea deal, NYC didn't want this going to a Jury trial.
 
#2
#2
Caculator said:
from BB
A New York City woman accused of driving her BMW through 50 Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters in 2020 rejected a plea deal and will stand trial, the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.
Fifty-three-year-old Kathleen Casillo appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court this week after being accused of driving into the individuals amid the protest taking place at the intersection of 39th Street and Third Avenue on December 11, 2020, the outlet said.

“Casillo, of Howard Beach, Queens, has claimed the demonstrators had come up to her car and called her ‘a white privilege b**ch’ before banging on the vehicle,” the report stated.
She explained to officers at the time she felt panicked and hit the gas as they began banging on the vehicle and attempting to open the doors. Damage to the BMW sedan was visible in pictures of the occurrence, the article continued:
She was offered a deal which would have seen her complete six days community service, and have her license suspended for a year, but turned it down, meaning a jury will now decide the matter. Casillo was issued no more than a desk appearance ticket for the incident and was released only hours after her arrest. Her 29-year-old daughter was also in the car at the time, but was not charged.​
In addition, Casillo was charged with reckless assault in the third degree in February. She is scheduled to return to court on January 28.


The protest march began in Times Square and was supposed to bring attention to a hunger strike by immigration detainees inside a jail located in New Jersey, the Associated Press (AP) reported in December 2020.
BLM protesters were seen outside the court room Wednesday “as they awaited justice for Casillo’s actions,” the Mail article read.
She was captured on camera allegedly driving through the demonstration in 2020 that resulted in at least nine protesters being hurt.
Video footage showed the moments before the incident occurred:

“Last year on Dec. 11, Kathleen Casillo drove her car at top speed through a crowd of human beings. I was one of those human beings—I never saw her coming,” Roque Rodriguez said.
However, Casillo claimed she was the victim in the incident, and drove away once protesters started attacking her vehicle as she tried to drive down a public street.

She got too sweet of a plea deal, NYC didn't want this going to a Jury trial.
Click to expand...
Cant tell if blue font, but she was the one that turned down the deal.

Video would make or break this case. Imo it sounds pretty bad to go forward thru a crowd rather than reverse, but she could legit be panicked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#4
#4
LouderVol said:
Cant tell if blue font, but she was the one that turned down the deal.

Video would make or break this case. Imo it sounds pretty bad to go forward thru a crowd rather than reverse, but she could legit be panicked.
Click to expand...
If protesters approached her aggressively, acted violently, and attempted to open doors, she should be found innocent. Agree with you it would have been optimum to reverse but in the moment it is hard to think so clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33, Carl Pickens, 1vol8 and 5 others
#5
#5
About time for people to stand up to this. Why accept a plea deal and "guilt" when you did nothing wrong? There is damage visible to the vehicle, the people were attacking her- why is nobody from the mob of animals on trial? Why is the victim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, joevol33, AirVol and 9 others
#6
#6
ButchPlz said:
About time for people to stand up to this. Why accept a plea deal and "guilt" when you did nothing wrong? There is damage visible to the vehicle, the people were attacking her- why is nobody from the mob of animals on trial? Why is the victim?
Click to expand...
The board lawyers (bored lawyers???) will be along eventually to explain her thoughts and intentions with their mystical powers granted by the ABA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, NorthDallas40, Carl Pickens and 3 others
#7
#7
McDad said:
The board lawyers (bored lawyers???) will be along eventually to explain her thoughts and intentions with their mystical powers granted by the ABA.
Click to expand...

Ha.

Actually I wonder if the test is objective, ie not whether she was in fear, but rather whether a reasonable person in her shoes at the time would be in fear.

Is there video? That will tell a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and hndog609
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Ha.

Actually I wonder if the test is objective, ie not whether she was in fear, but rather whether a reasonable person in her shoes at the time would be in fear.

Is there video? That will tell a lot.
Click to expand...
It’s on YouTube under her name + queens
 
#10
#10
McDad said:
The board lawyers (bored lawyers???) will be along eventually to explain her thoughts and intentions with their mystical powers granted by the ABA.
Click to expand...
We can draw a reasonable inference as to what her state of mind at the time was, and how a normal person should have reacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#13
#13
ClearwaterVol said:
If you hit people that weren't attacking your car. You deserve some consequences.
Click to expand...

If people are blocking the road with their bodies , they deserve some consequences.What was the lesson our mommas taught us about playing in the road ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Ha.

Actually I wonder if the test is objective, ie not whether she was in fear, but rather whether a reasonable person in her shoes at the time would be in fear.

Is there video? That will tell a lot.
Click to expand...

If I had video that put context to the action then hell no I wouldn't have taken a plea deal.

In a similar manner that use of force in self defense in often (really really often) misrepresented "I was scared!" is NOT a valid deadly use of force claim. From TN Code:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

I can only assume similar requirements would need to be met in this case.
 
#16
#16
LouderVol said:
Cant tell if blue font, but she was the one that turned down the deal.

Video would make or break this case. Imo it sounds pretty bad to go forward thru a crowd rather than reverse, but she could legit be panicked.
Click to expand...
.
 
#17
#17
hndog609 said:
If I had video that put context to the action then hell no I wouldn't have taken a plea deal.

In a similar manner that use of force in self defense in often (really really often) misrepresented "I was scared!" is NOT a valid deadly use of force claim. From TN Code:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

I can only assume similar requirements would need to be met in this case.
Click to expand...

the force must also be directed at the person causing the reasonable belief.
 
#19
#19
ClearwaterVol said:
the force must also be directed at the person causing the reasonable belief.
Click to expand...

That would (or will) be an interesting discussion. For the sake of argument let's assume it is established that the actions of trying to escape were reasonable. How does one separate this member of a "mob" from another? I would imagine the defense would be some variation of "If you're in the street when an attack on a motorist takes place then you're a participant."

I believe in the context this occurred being in the street at all would already have been a criminal act, correct?
 
#21
#21
hndog609 said:
That would (or will) be an interesting discussion. For the sake of argument let's assume it is established that the actions of trying to escape were reasonable. How does one separate this member of a "mob" from another? I would imagine the defense would be some variation of "If you're in the street when an attack on a motorist takes place then you're a participant."

I believe in the context this occurred being in the street at all would already have been a criminal act, correct?
Click to expand...

You don't get to run down people for standing in the street. It does make for an interesting discussion. The video will tell all. I imagine juries would have sympathy for this woman making conviction difficult.
 
#24
#24
ClearwaterVol said:
You don't get to run down people for standing in the street. It does make for an interesting discussion. The video will tell all. I imagine juries would have sympathy for this woman making conviction difficult.
Click to expand...

That's not the scenario I presented. If it turns out the person just swerved around and went Grand Theft Auto on the extended crowd that's not going to go over well. If (and remember this is predicated on the perceived threat to her being ruled reasonable) she takes the quickest egress available then it's an impossible standard to give anybody between point of threat and safety some pass for being where they, quite literally, have no legal right to be.

If there's video that will really be what makes or breaks the case. If she passed on that plea deal she is (or was convinced) that evidence supports her exoneration.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top