Somebody get Ms. Labelle into some Anger Management Classes!

[mark speck]

Bottom line...she needs to get help!

Best,

Mark

[jobeterob]

Throwing water in someone's face is definitely an assault. Words together with actions can constitute a criminal assault. And it certainly can constitute a civil assault. As the article states, a complaint was made to the police. Generally, police won't act on these rather menial matters.....and they didn't; no arrests were made.

But Patti opened herself up here.......and she got sued as a result. This is the kind of tomfoolery Michael Jackson engaged in when sleeping with young children. Act in these fashions as a celebrity, and you are a huge target and you should expect consequences.

The public often thinks these people have a lot of money; and as most of us know, a few of them do have a lot of money. Many of them don't.

These people obviously saw Patti as a target and she was foolish enough to provide them with some ammunition; involving a child endeared her to even more people.

[StuBass1]

Wow...This is like an edition of The National Enquirer...like the good old days LOL...Bottom line [[in only my own humble opinion) is that Patti LaBelle [[terrific singer), much like Naomi Campbell [[hot model who somehow came to mind) are a couple of arrogant, ego driven divas who if you massage their egos will love you to death, but if you fail to acknowledge their egos will try to tear your heart out...I'm just sayin...

[carlo]

You would think that someone who is 67 years old would know better than to react in such a hostile way? The problem with many of these divas is that they think they're above everyone and everything, including the law, and that they can do what they want without consequences. It's almost a way of living for them. Not cool.

Supposedly when diabetics have low blood sugar, there is the tendency for them to have major mood swings/anger issues. This could have been the case, but it's still no excuse.

[luke]

True thats why I think it's impt to slow down before finding Patti guilty, though I did read another article today that explained things more fully[[NY Daily News) and it does seem from that that Miss Patti really lost it and her entourage had to intervene and get her in car. It said she took a swing at the woman. It also said they didnt decide to file suit until they read about other lawsuit about her behavior at that airport and they wanted to validate this stuff unacceptable.

[carlo]

While I still find her behaviour unacceptable, I doubt that these people are going to get any money out of Patti. Throwing water in someone's face is considered assault and if you're trying to charge towards someone, that's considered a threat and form of violence. In the eyes of the law, she could have gotten in trouble...BUT I doubt the lawsuit will be successful. The plaintiffs would have to prove that their child has some sort of emotional damage that is a direct result of this incident. They allege that their baby is having problems with strangers, loud noises and cannot sleep through the night due to this incident. As Juice already mentioned, the defense is going to say, "What baby does not have problems with strangers, loud noises and sleep?" End of case.

I took a law class in University and I am by no means an expert, but this is probably how it's gonna go down.

[midnightman]

Throwing water in someone's face is definitely an assault. Words together with actions can constitute a criminal assault. And it certainly can constitute a civil assault. As the article states, a complaint was made to the police. Generally, police won't act on these rather menial matters.....and they didn't; no arrests were made.

But Patti opened herself up here.......and she got sued as a result. This is the kind of tomfoolery Michael Jackson engaged in when sleeping with young children. Act in these fashions as a celebrity, and you are a huge target and you should expect consequences.

The public often thinks these people have a lot of money; and as most of us know, a few of them do have a lot of money. Many of them don't.

These people obviously saw Patti as a target and she was foolish enough to provide them with some ammunition; involving a child endeared her to even more people.

I agree. It's real unfortunate. I can understand she may have been stressed out but yeah all this could've been avoided. Same with the incident with the cadet. I don't think it's really more of a rush to judgment than it really is that there's a pattern forming around Patti losing her cool. I think the suits she's got against her would be settled sooner or later though to avoid further scrutiny.

[midnightman]

While I still find her behaviour unacceptable, I doubt that these people are going to get any money out of Patti. Throwing water in someone's face is considered assault and if you're trying to charge towards someone, that's considered a threat and form of violence. In the eyes of the law, she could have gotten in trouble...BUT I doubt the lawsuit will be successful. The plaintiffs would have to prove that their child has some sort of emotional damage that is a direct result of this incident. They allege that their baby is having problems with strangers, loud noises and cannot sleep through the night due to this incident. As Juice already mentioned, the defense is going to say, "What baby does not have problems with strangers, loud noises and sleep?" End of case.

I took a law class in University and I am by no means an expert, but this is probably how it's gonna go down.

That's why I just said that this suit will be settled. Maybe both suits would be settled but the cadet one is hanging in the balance but this one I could see a quick settlement.

[BobC]

What proof do you have that either of these two victims "obviously saw Patti as a target?"

[carlo]

Here is a message posted on Patti's Official Facebook page:


Thank you all for the love and support! Unfortunately at this time Ms. LaBelle has been advised not to comment. Please see statement released from Ms. LaBelle’s close friend and lawyer, Allen Arrow. “Patti LaBelle has been a client and a dear friend for more than 40 years. Above all else I can say with complete certainty that she is a loving mother and a caring human being who adores children. This incident, which occurred over a year ago, began because Patti was concerned about the safety of a very young child who was left unattended. It is being handled through the courts and we are confident that once the facts are revealed, the outcome will be in Patti’s favor. Unfortunately, this is another case of individuals and their attorney targeting someone who is in the public eye. Their claim for purported damages and personal injury is frivolous on its face.”

[Roberta75]

Here is a message posted on Patti's Official Facebook page:


Thank you all for the love and support! Unfortunately at this time Ms. LaBelle has been advised not to comment. Please see statement released from Ms. LaBelle’s close friend and lawyer, Allen Arrow. “Patti LaBelle has been a client and a dear friend for more than 40 years. Above all else I can say with complete certainty that she is a loving mother and a caring human being who adores children. This incident, which occurred over a year ago, began because Patti was concerned about the safety of a very young child who was left unattended. It is being handled through the courts and we are confident that once the facts are revealed, the outcome will be in Patti’s favor. Unfortunately, this is another case of individuals and their attorney targeting someone who is in the public eye. Their claim for purported damages and personal injury is frivolous on its face.”

Typical lawyer speak. He all but called her Mother Teresa. LOL

Roberta

[skooldem1]

Its safe to say that whoever these people were, they LIVED in the same building as Patti did. So I doubt they need her money and saw her as a target. In fact, they may have more money than her. LoL.

[marv2]

Here is a message posted on Patti's Official Facebook page:


Thank you all for the love and support! Unfortunately at this time Ms. LaBelle has been advised not to comment. Please see statement released from Ms. LaBelle’s close friend and lawyer, Allen Arrow. “Patti LaBelle has been a client and a dear friend for more than 40 years. Above all else I can say with complete certainty that she is a loving mother and a caring human being who adores children. This incident, which occurred over a year ago, began because Patti was concerned about the safety of a very young child who was left unattended. It is being handled through the courts and we are confident that once the facts are revealed, the outcome will be in Patti’s favor. Unfortunately, this is another case of individuals and their attorney targeting someone who is in the public eye. Their claim for purported damages and personal injury is frivolous on its face.”

This is exactly what I said earlier. Thank you Carlo.

[skooldem1]

Calling a mother a f*cking C*nt in front of her child is really showing love for the kids.

[jillfoster]

Well, Julie Chen and the talking heads on The Talk were discussing this just now, and damn near all of them know Patti personally and are trying to cover her butt. Stupid Perez Hilton makes a comment that it's a lawsuit to try and get money... not ONE of them mentioned the fact that the lawyer is doing it for free, and the mother has emphatically stated that any money will be donated to charity. that, my friends, is what you call SPIN.

[marv2]

Calling a mother a f*cking C*nt in front of her child is really showing love for the kids.

Well, what did the woman call Patti?

[jillfoster]

Well, what did the woman call Patti?

I think he was making the point that Patti should not use such language in front a child.

[marv2]

I think he was making the point that Patti should not use such language in front a child.

Yes and I agree. I am just curious to know if the woman also used profanity. I mean it did occur in New York City yes? It is highly probable that Ms. Monk could have also used profanity.

[jillfoster]

Well. Marv, you know how those New Yorkers are! LOL

[marv2]

Well. Marv, you know how those New Yorkers are! LOL

You are Gosh Darn right I know how US New Yorkers are, that is why I find it hard to believe that Ms. Monk only said "damned business"! LOL!

[marv2]

Well, Julie Chen and the talking heads on The Talk were discussing this just now, and damn near all of them know Patti personally and are trying to cover her butt. Stupid Perez Hilton makes a comment that it's a lawsuit to try and get money... not ONE of them mentioned the fact that the lawyer is doing it for free, and the mother has emphatically stated that any money will be donated to charity. that, my friends, is what you call SPIN.

Oh sure the lawyer is taking the case for free [[It's Patti LaBelle after all LOL!) ,but I can promise you that if there is any kind of monetary settlement, he will ask and get his customary 33% from it. That is how it is done here.

[soulster]

The use of colorful language is not the issue. It's the throwing water on someone that's the issue. That's assault.

[Roberta75]

The use of colorful language is not the issue. It's the throwing water on someone that's the issue. That's assault.

Throwing water can be considered an assault. [[see below) Even worse is lunging at another person to punch or hit them regardless of whether you were restrained in time or not.

A battery is any physical contact with another person, to which that other person has not consented.

An assault is basically an attempt at a battery.

Throwing water on someone can be considered an assault and battery in both criminal and civil cases. In either case a person has to prove they were assaulted.

Many times cases of assault turn on whether the threatened harm was "imminent," meaning how soon was the threatened thing supposed to happen. In a confrontation, this is the difference between someone about to hit you now versus someone who says they will hit you tomorrow.

The fear of an assault must also be "reasonable." This means that if you were threatened with a water gun and you knew it was a water gun it is probably not "reasonable" for you to fear it.

Secondly, the person has to prove there was battery. The battery must have also been "intentional." This means that the person meant to throw something [[like water) or meant to swing their arm.

Remember that legally the harm does not have to be intended for the victim. Merely doing an intentional act is enough to commit a battery. It could be intended for a particular person or the person victimized could be totally random.

A criminal assault and battery is when a person is prosecuted by the district attorney's office for committing an assault and battery against a victim. If you are facing criminal charges, you are in criminal court and need a criminal defense lawyer.

A civil assault and battery involves the victim suing the person who committed the assault and battery against them to recover damages for their injuries. If you want to sue someone for your assault and battery injuries, or are being sued by the victim for money, you are in civil court and need an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Source[[s):
Legal Match Law Library

[Roberta75]

"An assault can be committed without a battery and battery can occur without an assault preceding it. For example, swinging at someone and missing is an assault but not a battery. Striking someone from behind, without his or her knowledge, is a battery but not an assault. Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitites an assault. Shaking a fist at another person, lunging at someone in an effort to attack and swinging an axe at another person are actionable assaults."

Source[[s):
Legal Match Law Library

[marv2]

*Dead* this post made my day LMAO!

I'm just saying.......hehehehehehehehe!

[jobeterob]

It is trite law to a lawyer that words and actions without any contact constitute an assault. Yelling, throwing water and gesticulating, wildly or otherwise, are an assault.

Patti will likely buy this off too........but not for much money.

She just needs to get back in control of herself so this doesn't happen.

[BobC]

I am not saying anybody's lying because I wasn't there. It is certainly true that wealthy people are often targeted because they have money, but it is also true that often wealthy people act like idiots. I do, however, have a problem with people stating as fact that this Monk woman is lying and out to get money. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But let me ask you all this--if I had come on this forum a year ago and said Patti sicced her entourage on an unsuspecting cadet, beat him bloody, and then Patti posed for photographers right next to the boys blood--would you have called me a liar? YES. Nobody would have believed it. Thank God for videotape.

[marv2]

It is trite law to a lawyer that words and actions without any contact constitute an assault. Yelling, throwing water and gesticulating, wildly or otherwise, are an assault.

Patti will likely buy this off too........but not for much money.

She just needs to get back in control of herself so this doesn't happen.

If that be the case, then close to 65% of New Yorkers are assaulting each other weekly here! LOL!!!!

[marv2]

I am not saying anybody's lying because I wasn't there. It is certainly true that wealthy people are often targeted because they have money, but it is also true that often wealthy people act like idiots. I do, however, have a problem with people stating as fact that this Monk woman is lying and out to get money. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. But let me ask you all this--if I had come on this forum a year ago and said Patti sicced her entourage on an unsuspecting cadet, beat him bloody, and then Patti posed for photographers right next to the boys blood--would you have called me a liar? YES. Nobody would have believed it. Thank God for videotape.

No, my first question would have been: "well what did that cadet do to make Patti and them upset?"

[loveblind]

Calling a mother a f*cking C*nt in front of her child is really showing love for the kids.

Too funny...Sadly the truth!

[smark21]

The best case scenario for Patti would be that this was an unfortunate confrontation between a tempermental diva and a woman with a litigious streak and a victim complex. Lord knows, NYC has plenty of tempermental divas and people who like to play victim and file law suits.

[luke]

And again, they didnt file suit until they read about the suit and felt this kind of behavior needed to stop. That does say something about their intent.

[BobC]

Marv you aren't suggesting that beating someone bloody because they upset you is okay, are you?

[marv2]

Marv you aren't suggesting that beating someone bloody because they upset you is okay, are you?

Where did I suggest that?

[BobC]

No, my first question would have been: "well what did that cadet do to make Patti and them upset?"

I'm not saying you were suggesting that--I was just asking based on the above comment.

[marv2]

No, my first question would have been: "well what did that cadet do to make Patti and them upset?"

I'm not saying you were suggesting that--I was just asking based on the above comment.

Well then let me clarify. I would expect that if a situation like what you described occurred that there would have to have been some provocation involved. Meaning that the provocation could have been in the form of some type of physical contact or provocative verbal exchange. To sit here and pretend that fights or physical altercations never occur when there is a verbal exchange would be disingenuous. I have been around some of roughest people and the roughest areas in this country in my time and have seen all sorts of confrontations, fights and general human mayhem, hehehehehe.... so it would not surprise me that a beat down erupted from an arguement. Is it right? no! Does it happen? Definitely! Do I condone it as being okay? Of course not, BUT, I have seen it happen from Five Points in Denver to the Red Light District of Boston, from the East Side of Detroit to Bed-Sty in Brooklyn and all other points in between LOL! [[special shout out to Camden, NJ!). That is what I meant. My first question would not be "when did the cadet hit Patti LaBelle or members of her entourage....". My first question would be "what happened? What did the cadet DO [[to provoke such a response)".

[blueskies]

I think Patti is having some mental health/physical issues. I hope she gets some help and things in control. A 67 year old woman spewing that kind of language out of her mouth for the general public isn't too classy. I've been a fan since the "junk man" days and have been very disappointed in her behavior of late. Enough has happened that I don't think this is an isolated incident. I'm a fan and wish her well.....but, Patti, take some responsibility for your behavior. Yea, there are people out there that are going to push your buttons....just be classy and walk away.

[skooldem1]

Well then let me clarify. I would expect that if a situation like what you described occurred that there would have to have been some provocation involved. Meaning that the provocation could have been in the form of some type of physical contact or provocative verbal exchange. To sit here and pretend that fights or physical altercations never occur when there is a verbal exchange would be disingenuous. I have been around some of roughest people and the roughest areas in this country in my time and have seen all sorts of confrontations, fights and general human mayhem, hehehehehe.... so it would not surprise me that a beat down erupted from an arguement. Is it right? no! Does it happen? Definitely! Do I condone it as being okay? Of course not, BUT, I have seen it happen from Five Points in Denver to the Red Light District of Boston, from the East Side of Detroit to Bed-Sty in Brooklyn and all other points in between LOL! [[special shout out to Camden, NJ!). That is what I meant. My first question would not be "when did the cadet hit Patti LaBelle or members of her entourage....". My first question would be "what happened? What did the cadet DO [[to provoke such a response)".

What kind of logic is that? That's like saying Pedro must have had a reason to knock Mary Wilson upside her head? As long as there is a "reason", its ok?

[Roberta75]

From the Houston Chronicle. The comments are not very kind. Ouch!!!

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011...acas-with-tot/

[BobC]

oh...my...GOD. I am in shock that Patti alleging that crap about the cadet. I agree with the posters--I think Patti is certifiably crazy and needs to be put away.

[marv2]

I think Patti is having some mental health/physical issues. I hope she gets some help and things in control. A 67 year old woman spewing that kind of language out of her mouth for the general public isn't too classy. I've been a fan since the "junk man" days and have been very disappointed in her behavior of late. Enough has happened that I don't think this is an isolated incident. I'm a fan and wish her well.....but, Patti, take some responsibility for your behavior. Yea, there are people out there that are going to push your buttons....just be classy and walk away.

I also tend to think she may be experiencing some health issues. She is the last surviving member of her immediate family and her health has always been a delicate situation.

[marv2]

What kind of logic is that? That's like saying Pedro must have had a reason to knock Mary Wilson upside her head? As long as there is a "reason", its ok?

It's not suppose to be logical . It is what has been going in the REAL WORLD since before either of us were born. Do you think folks go around with rule book in their pockets? You think everyone considers the law and the consequences if you break it before they act? Nah..........! If that were true you wouldn't have so many folks incarcerated today.

Mary and Pedro? LOL!!!!

[marv2]

oh...my...GOD. I am in shock that Patti alleging that crap about the cadet. I agree with the posters--I think Patti is certifiably crazy and needs to be put away.

Well did my clarification help you understand what I was saying originally or not? It takes time to type a response to you BobC.

[skooldem1]

It's not suppose to be logical . It is what has been going in the REAL WORLD since before either of us were born. Do you think folks go around with rule book in their pockets? You think everyone considers the law and the consequences if you break it before they act? Nah..........! If that were true you wouldn't have so many folks incarcerated today.

Mary and Pedro? LOL!!!!

Spousal abuse is funny to you?

[marv2]

Spousal abuse is funny to you?

No abuse is funny to me. Torture isn't funny to me either along with a long list of things. I laughed at your reference to Mary [[wilson) and Pedro [[Ferrer) because they have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion and also for the fact that they divorced over 30 years ago!

What I am trying to get you to understand is that out in the World you can receive bodily harm just by using the wrong words with the wrong person[[s) and it does not matter if it is wrong or right, whether you condone it or not at any particular moment. My advice is to defend yourself if you can or get out of harm's way to the best of your ability, then sort out the legal issue later!

[jobeterob]

Something isn't right for Patti Labelle; there's too much of this going on; she is either in personal grief or she is not understanding she should not be opening herself up to this kind of trouble; she needs to start understanding "no comment" "I hear nothing" "I see nothing" "I'm not involved" "This is not my issue" "This is not my fight".

New Yorkers sue Patti LaBelle over fracas with tot

Scene from surveillance video of incident at Bush in March 2011. [[Bush Intercontinental Airport / HPD)

Patti LaBelle [[Michael Perez)
Singer Patti LaBelle was accused Monday of screaming obscenities at a toddler and throwing a punch at the child’s mother outside a Manhattan apartment house, according to the New York Daily News.

Lawyer Sam Davis, representing Kevin and Roseanna Monk, said the Monks’ daughter Genevieve was scampering around the lobby of an apartment building in which LaBelle was a temporary resident, when the star “yelled” at Roseanna Monk about “letting your kid run around like that.”

He said LaBelle … then started “screaming at my client, throwing water from a bottle at the mother’s face and the baby’s face.”

… [[Then) LaBelle, “tries to take a swing” at his client, he said.

LaBelle’s entourage then shoved her into a black car and the baby violently threw up all over her mother, Davis said.

One of LaBelle’s representatives declined to comment, while two others did not return calls.

Davis told the Daily News that the Monks decided to sue when they read about an incident in Houston in which LaBelle’s entourage were accused of assaulting a West Point cadet.

The cadet, Richard King, 23, is suing LaBelle, her assistants, a taxi dispatcher and the Bush Intercontinental Airport, saying he suffered a concussion in the March 11 incident, which he contended was unprovoked.

LaBelle is countersuing King, claiming the Houston man started the fight by punching her son in the face, using racially and sexually offensive language, and trying to force his way into her car.

[skooldem1]

No abuse is funny to me. Torture isn't funny to me either along with a long list of things. I laughed at your reference to Mary [[wilson) and Pedro [[Ferrer) because they have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion and also for the fact that they divorced over 30 years ago!

What I am trying to get you to understand is that out in the World you can receive bodily harm just by using the wrong words with the wrong person[[s) and it does not matter if it is wrong or right, whether you condone it or not at any particular moment. My advice is to defend yourself if you can or get out of harm's way to the best of your ability, then sort out the legal issue later!

You can't get me to understand anything when it comes to bullies, or people that abuse others. Regarding Mary and Pedro, I purposely mentioned their physical altercations- and it doesn't matter if it were yesterday or 30 years ago. You have developed a pattern of almost siding with the aggressive/abusive party in altercations, almost blaming victims. I was looking for an answer from you to gauge whether or not this is truly your mindset, or if its only reserved for people you like.

[jobeterob]

Bingo...............

[marv2]

You can't get me to understand anything when it comes to bullies, or people that abuse others. Regarding Mary and Pedro, I purposely mentioned their physical altercations- and it doesn't matter if it were yesterday or 30 years ago. You have developed a pattern of almost siding with the aggressive/abusive party in altercations, almost blaming victims. I was looking for an answer from you to gauge whether or not this is truly your mindset, or if its only reserved for people you like.

Aiight! Go on out there and get your ass kicked. I've tried to offer you understanding and friendly advice. I've done my Civic duty for today. It is now all on you as you make your way out in the real World!

Oh and for the record, I am not siding with anyone. Just the facts man, just the facts!

[skooldem1]

Man, really? all that double talk and not really answering the question? Not working with me. When you read that Pedro punched Mary in her face, did you want to take the time to find out what MARY did to make him so mad and lose his cool? Did you want to find out what Mary did to provoke this abuse? When you heard that there was some sort of altercation between Diana and Mary at M25 did you ever wonder what in the world could have made diana lose her cool on stage and "touch" Mary? What is your moral compass?