Many failed parts of your argument, but I will start here. The fact you even use "should," once again says the PTB did not consider Hewitt's act to be as morally offensive as the whining over Serena. No action taken. That speaks volumes about the PTB, and calls the standing and any future action against Serena into serious question. I would say her attorneys need to take a serious look into a possible legal reply, as this all-out campaign against her--while Hewitt was allowed to continue penalty free--smells of something else.
As I have said already, it
was an embarassment and worse. The only, albiet still inadequate, explanation for not taking action would be if, there was a specific rule specifically prohibiting the making of racially charged remarks, and/or a "catch all" rule, such as "conduct detrimental to the game of tennis" in the Player's Code of Conduct in place at that time. I don't know.
However, introducing this sad episode as a comparison to the incident in question, is a red herring in this instance. Morally reprehensible acts do not in and of themselves violate Criminal statute. If a crime is committed and the motive for and there is probable cause to believe it was motivated by or intentionally targeted the victim or location because of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation it now, in NYS, elevates the particular Crime committed, to what is commonly refered to as a Bias Crime, "aggravating" the underlying crime and in general raising the degree and associated penalties/punishment on level, i.e. a B Misdemeanor to an A, and A Misdemeanor to an E Felony, E Felony to D, and so on. However, the underlying Criminal section
must be violated.
As reprehensible as Hewitt's comments were, no matter how his words proved a window to his soul exposing his upbringing, character or rather, lack thereof for what it is, it MAY NOT have violated any existing rule pertaining to Player Conduct at that time and that MAY very have been the flimsy hook upon which the anemic “final verdict” regarding his conduct was hung. However, those comments did not violate any Law, no Crime, no Petty Offense. Hewitt’s opinion, though clearly motivated by hate is, to this day, protected by the over-riding right to Free Speech and Expression held so dear in this country as incomprehensible as the application of that axiom and who gets wrapped in the cloak of its protection may appear to be at times.
As such this being interjected into a conversation of Serena's conduct is at best apples and oranges, at worst, motivated by something, which smells of something similar to what you allude to in the opening words of your post. Assuredly, there are some voicing opinions on the matter motivated by varying degrees of hate, for Serena herself, or worse for her gender or race.
However even taking that into account, there is no comparison between Hewitt's and Serena's conduct, other than Hewitt's comments being directed at race and Serena being that race.
Sorry, but the intent must be proven before any other considerations--in other words, do not put the cart before the horse. I've witnessed innumerable cases of alleged "assault" of this utterly imagined kind tossed out of court as the grounds for prosecution did not exist, otherwise you can be certain USO/USTA legal representatives would have jumped on that (to "send a message" if you can buy that), and most important, the linesperson would have pursued a legal option (or some outside legal body would have stepped up on a potentially high profile case involving one the world's most famous sports figures).
Unfortunately, these comments betray a lack of familiarity with the law, and are made either inadvertantly or intentionally in error.
a) the law violated while under the same Article, i.e., "Assault and Related Offenses" is not Assault but Menacing.
b) by remaining fixated on the term “Assault” it indicates that you have failed to understand the difference in the two sections of law and how “intent” applies to each.
Intent in Assault addresses the offender’s mental state as having CAUSED physical injury, serious physical injury or death to another person.
Intent in Menacing addresses the offender’s mental state having CAUSED another person reasonable fear of suffering physical injury, serious physical injury or death.
Menacing requires proof of the offender’s
INTENT TO INSTILL FEAR OF PHYSICAL INJURY IN THE MIND OF THE VICTIM
NOT THE OFFENDER'S
INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY.
PHYSICAL INJURY: The legal definition of Physical Injury as it defined and applies in NYS Penal Law is described in Article 10:
9. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or
substantial pain.
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN010.00_10.00.html
Think of how minimal that standard is for a moment and then realize that the People’s burden of proof is limited to the intent to cause or ultimately carry out the threat to cause the physical injury, but merely the fear of it and you see the minimal standard of the statute.
As of this day, nothing of the sort occured---for good reason, and with enough legal precedent to render such a pursuit as nothing more than pure folly.
The ONLY reason that it not being applied here is that the victim has, for reasons only she knows, elected not to make a complaint regarding the incident to Law Enforcement, at which time, by law and based on the available evidence, Law Enforcement would be compelled to act.
OTOH, without a willing complainant articulating fear, or a witness to the victim’s immediate outcry following the event willing to testify, it is impossible for Law Enforcement to act.
The legal precedent is that arrests are made and prosecutions pursued in every jurisdiction in NYS for violation of this section of law every day.
Your broad brush is dipped in ignorance of the Law and how it is applied.
Far from folly, it gets very real, very quickly for some people equally ignorant of this law as well as many others on the books. And this is not to say that Serena faced jail time. THAT is highly unlikely, and aside from Domestic Violence Cases, would be outside past practice as it applies to sentencing. In the end game she would most likely face anywhere from an A.C.O.D. to a fine to community service, like a lesson or two for a group of kids in Central Park before next year’s Open, predicated by a plea to a petty offense such as Disorderly Conduct.
What’s most disturbing about your post is your use of the phrase “nothing, of the sort occurred”.
I’ll repeat that for something to have occurred it required only that the linesperson express her fear resulting from the incident to law enforcement.
That she didn’t is the reason the offender not only owed the victim an apology but an expression of gratitude, before the first press release.
On another level words and phrases like “nothing of the sort occurred” and “pure folly” as they apply to the incident being discussed rings of a mindset nearing the bottom of a “slippery slope” which ends at “nothing happened at all”.
If you are about to dismiss my assertion on its face I would encourage you to seek the opinion of a qualified third party before doing so, then honestly and open-mindedly re-evaluate your position.
5
