Summary
A 24-year-old man, Daniel Schmidt, was arrested after allegedly disrupting a voting line and assaulting an election judge in Orland Park, Illinois.
Schmidt reportedly attempted to skip the line, ignored repeated instructions to wait, and punched an election judge who tried to stop him, knocking off their glasses.
Other patrons restrained him until police arrived, at which point Schmidt resisted arrest. He faces multiple charges, including aggravated battery against a person over 60 and resisting arrest.
Why does it makes a difference if the person is over 60? Shouldn’t aggravated battery be aggregated battery no matter who the victim is?
Same reason it makes a difference whether the victim is a child, an elderly person is more likely to suffer long-term and more adverse effects from an assault.
go on …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident
its significant that the assaulter was 24 and the victim is over 60. Now granted he was lucky that pole worker was not my brother or David ‘The Rock’ Nelson.
A pole worker is something…different. You’re thinking of a poll worker.
Same for an erection judge ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
on hindsight I should have said election judge.
Personally I’m glad to see that so many states make a distinction (hopefully with harsher consequences) for battery against older people, because of all the stories I’ve seen this week about magats punching old people. I haven’t seen any stories about them punching the ones who would be able to put up a fight, funny how that works.
You can hit someone 30 in the chest and it turns out they have a health condition and they die of heart failure, you can hit someone 61 that works security that will then kick your ass. In the end hitting people is wrong no matter who gets hit and should come with the same consequence no matter who gets hit.
Because the elderly are a vulnerable population like children.
You never know the health condition of people, hitting someone is hitting someone is hitting someone.
That’s reductive. Give them any definition you like but you have to accept that children and the elderly are different than people aged, say, 18-60.
As I mentioned in another comment you can hit a 30 years old in the chest not knowing they have a heart issue and they will die on the spot, you can hit a 60 years old that works security that will kick your ass. Hitting someone is wrong no matter who it is and should lead to the same consequences no matter who it is, if that means making consequences harsher if the victim is 18 to 59 then so be it.
Basically you don’t want to accept that some classes require protection under this odd “everyone is the equal” thing.
For something like that? Hell yeah everyone is equal and punishment should be the same, you hit someone you don’t know the damage you’ll do, you deserve all the shit no matter who you hit.
But hitting an 85 year old or a 12 year old is just the same as hitting a 35 year old, per your argument.
The consequence of doing it should be the same, yes
I suspect the main purpose of those laws was to handle the increasing problem of elder abuse.