Councilwoman Who Bit Officer Has Charges Dropped After ‘Healing' Course
A Brooklyn judge took the crime out of a bite on Tuesday, dismissing a felony case against a New York City councilwoman who had attacked a police officer during a protest against a proposed homeless shelter.
According to the office of Brooklyn's district attorney, Eric Gonzalez, the charges were dropped after the council member, Susan Zhuang, completed a course in restorative justice under a diversion program that offered alternatives to traditional prosecution.
'It was based on the wishes of the victim and the defendant's willingness to make amends,' said Oren Yaniv, a spokesman for Mr. Gonzalez. 'This is exactly what restorative justice is meant to do — address harm, foster understanding and support a path forward.'
Ms. Zhuang, a conservative Democrat who in 2023 ran on a law-and-order platform as a political newcomer, left a bloody bite mark on the arm of Deputy Chief Frank DiGiacomo after a confrontation during a shelter protest last summer in Bensonhurst.
Ms. Zhuang, who had pleaded not guilty, said she was trying to help a woman who had fallen to the ground next to barricades during the demonstration.
'I was protecting 81-year-old grandma,' Ms. Zhuang said at a news conference a day after the altercation.
Ms. Zhuang did not immediately return a phone call. Her lawyer, Jerry Goldfeder, declined to comment.
According to the district attorney's office, Ms. Zhuang met with the deputy chief once as part of the process that led to the dismissal of her charges. Mr. Yaniv said the diversion program had 'created space for dialogue, accountability and healing.'
The Police Department declined to comment.
Despite the disconnect between Ms. Zhuang's pro-police platform and the biting episode, she appears to be on a glide path to re-election this year in Brooklyn's first majority-Asian council district. She has no Democratic or Republican opponent, and is backed strongly by a long list of pro-Beijing 'hometown' associations that can make or break candidates for elective office in South Brooklyn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Columbia University activist facing deportation should be freed
Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil rally outside the federal courthouse in Newark on March 28, 2025. (Reena Rose Sibayan for New Jersey Monitor) A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Columbia University activist detained for partaking in pro-Palestinian protests cannot be held by the federal government over allegations that his presence in the United States undermines the nation's foreign policy interests. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued the order Wednesday but gave federal prosecutors until Friday at 9:30 a.m. to ask the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to step in. It's unclear if the activist, Mahmoud Khalil, will be released Friday if the government does indeed appeal. 'This is the news we've been waiting over three months for. Mahmoud must be released immediately and safely returned home to New York to be with me and our newborn baby, Deen,' Noor Abdalla, Khalil's wife, said in a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of New York. 'True justice would mean Mahmoud was never taken away from us in the first place, that no Palestinian father, from New York to Gaza, would have to endure the painful separation of prison walls like Mahmoud has.' If it stands, Farbiarz's ruling, which comes on the heels of a previous decision that said the government's push to deport Khalil was likely unconstitutional, could deal a blow to the Trump administration's efforts to deport dissidents. Khalil was arrested by immigration authorities in March and has been held in Louisiana since. He's fighting two cases to fend off his deportation — one in Louisiana and one in New Jersey, because he was being transferred through Elizabeth Detention Center when his attorneys first filed a petition for his release. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed Khalil supports terrorist group Hamas and called his presence in the country a national security risk. Rubio has cited a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's deportation. Farbiarz noted in his Wednesday ruling that the government could argue that Khalil would have been detained anyway because he inaccurately filled out his lawful permanent resident application, which can be a basis for removal under very rare circumstances. But that argument won't work, he said. 'Lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omission' Khalil is accused of, the judge wrote in the 14-page filing. Khalil, whose wife and newborn son are American citizens, has not been charged with any crime. He was among the first university students who were picked up by immigration authorities targeting pro-Palestine activists. Some students who were detained under similar circumstances have been released but still face deportation. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. 'Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture,' the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. 'By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
