A man was continuing on 54th Street when he noticed two white men, who seemed, by all accounts, to be 45 or 50 years of age, pulling on a youthful "shaded kid", whom he didn't have a clue. The man had almost pulled the little youngsters pants off and he was crying. Remaining unaware of what had unfolded between the three men and making no request of anybody, he just came there and pulled one of the white men from the little youngster, hitting him on the head. The white man's correct kneecap was harmed. It was just later on that the man discovered that the 2 white men were cops who weren't in uniform and they were helping a capture. The preliminary court sentenced him for the third degree. On offer, the Appellate Division held that one isn't "criminally at risk for the Suchattack in an exhaustive round of questioning on the off chance that he goes to the guide of another whom he erroneously, however sensibly, accepts is as a rule unlawfully beaten, and along these lines harms one of the evident assaulters." The case was engaged by the Court of Appeals of New York (www.lexisnexis.com)

The people vs Young case happened in 2005. The issue was whether any person, acting in goodwill, intervening in the struggle of two people who are doing their lawful work to arrest a person can be charged with the assault? This was the main point on which the court debated the matter and young was charged. In this case, the case ruled in the affirmative and argued that young could be charged with the assault.

The court held that the criminal defendant, which is, in this case, was young, can be charged with the assault when their action is guided by the intention to cause harm to another's body irrespective of the fact that the action is carried out due to mistake or any other fault (www.casebriefs.com).

The appraisal of the opinion of the court reveals many points. Firstly, it shows that the intention has nothing to do with the action of the person. It is the action of the person that will decide the ultimate direction of the charge rather than intention. Irrespective of whether the person acts in good intent, it has nothing to with the judgement of the court.

Secondly, the opinion of the court shows that it is the ground reality or action of the person that should be the most important factor in deciding any case. As young, no doubt was guided by good intentions, and acted to give bodily damage to the persons, he should be charged with assault. Ergo, the real action of a person has the most instrumental role in deciding the fate of the case.

It can be said that the decision of the court was apt in many ways. If the court had acquitted the young, it would have set a bad precedent for the future. In any case, the court could not judge the intention of any person which is not a tangible or palpable feature. So, by allowing the intention to decide cases, it would have created ways for the people to exploit the law and argue that their intention was in the public good. In fact, such a judgment would have boosted the confidence of criminal gangs as they would have found a legal way to circumvent the law. So, if viewed in the longer –term, it can be said that the opinion of the court was apt and logical as it minimized the chances for the law to become a tool at the hands of people.


  • Law School Case Brief. (n.d.).
  • People v. Young. (n.d.)

Are you Busy And Want Someone To Write Your Essay: Than Avail Our Essay Writing ServicesCompose My Essay

Also Read: 4th, 5th and 6Th Road