Prosecutors Increase Assault Charge To Murder After Elderly Victim Dies Four Months After Attack


An assault case in New York has been upgraded into homicide after the elderly victim of a vicious punch to the face died months after an alleged attack by Richard Springer, 29, outside of a Queens deli.  Eve Gentillon of Jamaica died Saturday, four months after the assault.

She allegedly saw Springer fighting with a deli employee.  Springer had been discovered trying to steal beer and Gentillon told him to stop hitting the employee.  He responded by punching her in the face, causing her to hit the pavement and suffer a head injury.

Springer was  charged with robbery and assault in the case and was ordered to undergo a mental health exam.

Now the medical examiner has concluded that the  cause of death was complications from traumatic brain injury from blunt impacts. That makes the assault a homicide.  It does not matter that another person might have survived the blow.  You take your victim as you find her when you spontaneously attack a victim for merely objecting to a beating of another person.

53 thoughts on “Prosecutors Increase Assault Charge To Murder After Elderly Victim Dies Four Months After Attack”

  1. I’m so sorry to hear that. Ms Gentillon should have benefitted from the two shields of her age and her gender. We’re supposed to raise our boys to never hit a lady, and to respect their elders. And if you don’t like what an elderly lady has to say, then you vote with your feet, never your hands.

    Shame on Richard Springer, an embarrassment to men.

    1. She likely wasn’t a lady. Just an old woman. A woman is something one is; a lady is something one earns. Most do not.

      1. I’m not arguing with your assertion that the status of lady is earned, as indeed it is. But my personal code has always been to treat a woman like a lady unless and until she proves she is not.

        But what do I know. I only became a gentleman when by an act of Congress I became a Naval officer as well.

    2. He’s not an ’embarrassment to men’. He’s just another urban problem.

      1. Informality is relentless these days. That effects the conduct of the young, who engage in effrontery that would have been unusual in 1975 much less 1945 (I’ve been addressed by my first name unbidden by juveniles a quarter my age). The thing is, the older generations created this world and participate in this in their own way.

        1. I completely agree. I have six grandchildren, five by two of my daughters are being taught manners and respect. The other, whose mom chose to be “his friend” is 19, a bum, still lives at home and mooches off mama pal. He has trouble with the law and finds no reason to leave home, except to buy pot. Sad.

  2. If I understand New York law, it’s a murder charge because he was engaged in what’s defined as a robbery at the time he struck her. In another circumstance, that would be defined as 1st degree manslaughter per the state Penal Law. I suspect he’ll be allowed to plead to that.

    Some blockhead will indubitably raise the matter of Eric Garner on this thread. Police officers are licensed and privileged to arrest people, which is what they were doing when they tackled him. Also, a 1st degree manslaughter charge would have been inapposite because the police were not attempting to injure Garner. So, the question would turn on whether the police knowingly disregarded a risk to Garner or failed to perceive a risk an ordinary person would have seen beforehand.

  3. This is why God made rifles. Hopefully the dead person has a relative with a sense of justice. And a rifle.

    1. I hate to have to be the one to break it down for you like this, but god doesn’t make rifles, gun manufacturers do.

  4. There is certainly no easy way to deal with crazy people like Springer …. but it is scary to see how many people casually say …. kill him … give him a dirt nap …. I have dealt with a number of prosecutors …. and mostly they seem really bent

    1. You mean it’s scary to find out you’re wrong about, among other things, there being no easy way to deal with “crazy” people like Springer. Because there certainly is an easy way to deal with people like him. Since “crazy” people like Springer can kill even in prison, and serving a five year sentence for grand theft or being a prison guard should not be a death sentence, there is one, very easy way to put “crazy” people like Springer in a position where they can never kill again.

      You’re just simply refusing to acknowledge reality. Reality is what you truly find scary. “Bent” is undoubtedly your word for describing realists.

    2. Toss him in prison for 20 years. If he’s an issue for the guards or the other inmates, put him in solitary. What’s so difficult about that?

      1. Solitary doesn’t solve all the problems. Prison staff still has to interact with the inmate. The staff has to feed the prisoner. If the prisoner chooses (many don’t) they get an hour a day in a rec yard, lest the prison system fall afoul of various court rulings r.e. cruel and unusual punishment. So the guards have to move them once a day back and forth from their cells and the rec yard. Prison systems have to provide them with medical care. That means moving them from their cells to the infirmary. Depending on their condition they have the prison may have to transfer them to a less secure facility. But they remain dangerous. And either way they’re a thread to the medical types in addition to the guards.

        In addition to the multitude of reasons why prisoners get to leave their cells, there’s one very good reason why prison staff must enter their cells. Security. Prisoners have nothing but time on their hands, and the worst of the worst spend their time trying to devise ways to harm or kill the guards. So every once in a while the guards have to shake down their cells for contraband.

        Yes, they can get things smuggled in, and make improvised weapons. They have nothing better do with their time. Except maybe run a criminal enterprise. In the mid-2000s the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood were convicted of charges related to the fact that despite being incarcerated in the Secure Housing Unit at Pelican Bay state prison, the securest of maximum security prisons in the Kali system (and that’s no joke) they were able to run a nationwide Heroin trafficking ring. Consequently they were able to order hits on rivals or informers inside and outside the prison system. I believe the end result was that the defendants got one or two more life sentences piled onto the life sentences they were already serving, which just made them laugh.

        No, the death penalty exists for a reason. I can not and do not condone it as a means to “send a message,” i.e. to deter others. Nor as a means of retribution. But only if murderers continue to pose a threat even if they’re imprisoned. Then the death penalty is an act of self-defense.

        1. The number of prison and jail employees killed in a typical year is in the single-digits, and some of the perps are not being held for murder or on suspicion of murder. There are reasons to execute people. Protecting staff is not one. Sloppy inept security procedures are not a reason to execute anyone either. Sloppy and inept security procedures are a reason to improve security (by shutting down prison workshops where they get the tools to make weapons, putting troublesome inmates in solitary, cutting out unmonitored communications, and cutting visits down to near zero if necessary.

          Here we’re talking about a stand-alone homicide committed in circumstances where you’d likely look in vain for an intent to use lethal force. The robbery in question was over a can of beer. This isn’t the last circumstance in which you’d apply a capital sentence. It’s the second-to-last. Save the firing squad for people who commit multi-victim homicides, for serial killers, and for bills which incorporate heinous felonies in addition to homicide.

          1. I never said that if I were king of the world the death penalty would be common. Admittedly it would rarely be applied. But it would be available.

          2. “Of all U.S. workers, correctional officers have one of the highest rates of non-fatal work related injuries”.
            -Corrections Today, Nov
            /Dec. 2013.
            Ideally, inmates don’t have access to firearms, and officers can summon help before getting stomped to death or fatally stabbed.
            So mortal injuries to staff are maybe a dozen a year, on average.
            Inmate on inmate violence claims more lives, but assaults on, and injuries to, correctional officers are common.

            1. My simple rule would be, if you kill, to to prison. Kill or attempt to kill again, death sentence.

              Simple, no?

  5. The murder charge is not appropriate, regardless of the fact that this mutt is scum. That is how Zimmerman got off. Zimmerman is scum, should be doing at least twenty years for stalking, creating an altercation, and killing a youth. All it takes is one stupid prosecutor like Angela Corey. The appropriate charge is first degree manslaughter. The mutt should be given the maximum. Charging him inappropriately leaves the opening for him to get off after he claims self defense or something ridiculous as that. The objective here is to get the dirt off of the street so he won’t hurt anyone else.

    1. That is the objective. But the cost of housing & feeding him is $60,000 plus a year.
      It amazes me that the most of the Left, has no problem exterminating the child in his mother’s womb.
      But taking out the scum of the earth is a major no no.

        1. There is no murder charge. According to news reports, the NYPD, not the prosecutor, reclassified the incident to homicide, a category that includes both murder and manslaughter.

          And that is absolutely appropriate, as Turley explained in the intro. In fact, it would be appropriate if springer had been convicted of assault and served time and Gentillon had died after that. See NY CPL 40.20(2)(d):

          A person may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based upon the same act or criminal transaction unless:
          . . .

          (d) One of the offenses is assault or some other offense resulting in physical injury to a person, and the other offense is one of homicide based upon the death of such person from the same physical injury, and such death occurs after a prosecution for the assault or other non-homicide offense; . . .

          Point to desperatelyseekingsusan

    2. The murder charge is not appropriate, regardless of the fact that this mutt is scum. That is how Zimmerman got off. Zimmerman is scum, should be doing at least twenty years for stalking, creating an altercation, and killing a youth.

      Every once in a while you have to remind everyone that you are (1) utterly ignorant but (2) given to shooting off your mouth anyway.

    3. The media and the left lied about Zimmerman a lot. I see they continue to lie about him.

      He wasn’t convicted of anything because he did none of the things you said. You’re simply trafficking in lies To be authentically leftist means to lie, traffic in lies, and believe lies and reject truth. Case in point:

      “Actors quit L.A. ‘Ferguson’ play, question writer’s motives

      …Veteran actor Philip Casnoff hadn’t read the full script yet when he arrived for the first rehearsal of “Ferguson,” a play chronicling the shooting of Michael Brown by a Missouri police officer.

      Casnoff thought he knew what the play, set for a four-day staged reading starting Sunday at the Odyssey Theater, would be about: the wilderness of testimony the grand jury navigated while investigating the day Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot the unarmed 18-year-old. Casnoff presumed a variety of viewpoints, the fog of truth.”

      There was no “fog of truth.” The play was based on grand jury testimony, and the witnesses (who actually saw what happened; some people claimed to be witnesses but were forced to admit that they couldn’t actually see anything from their admitted location) were remarkably consistent.

      “…”It felt like the purpose of the piece was to show, ‘Of course he was not indicted — here’s why,'” Casnoff said. He said that after he learned who the play’s author was, Casnoff, who describes himself as “very liberal, left-wing-leaning,” thought, “Whoa, this is not the place for me to be.”

      Through testimony taken from grand jury transcripts, the play ends with a witness telling a prosecutor that Wilson was justified in killing Brown. The audience is then supposed to vote on whether Wilson should have been indicted.

      The cast members who quit questioned the motivations of the playwright, Phelim McAleer.

      McAleer, a conservative filmmaker and journalist from Ireland now living in Marina del Rey, said he’s just interested in the truth.

      “The truth is the truth. If it doesn’t fit in with their beliefs, they need to change their beliefs,” said McAleer, who declined to say whether Wilson should have been indicted but said his research shows the hands-up claim is bogus. “All the people who testified that he had his hands up, it was pretty much demolished in grand jury testimony.””

      The playwright’s motivation was no doubt to demonstrate the poet Jonathon Swift was right. “Falsehoods fly, while the the truth comes limping along behind.”

      We’re going to see some more leftist lying in the near future. Sen. Cruz has sponsored legislation to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. To support the allegation he is relying on evidence introduced by the government against defendants in at least two trials that I’m aware of. Both trials resulted in convictions. In both trials the defendants didn’t even contest the evidence that Cruz is relying on.

      But now the Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR is telling the media that this evidence has been discredited. Of course, they’re simply lying. As judge Jorge Solis confirmed in this order…

      while the government should have introduced the list of unindicted co-conspirators under seal as it was not a product of an adversarial proceeding, CAIR (along with the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust who also petitioned to have their names struck from all public documents) belonged on that list. The government, the judge ruled, had amply proven the ties between Hamas and CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT. Hamas of course being simply the Gazan branch of the Brotherhood.

      So of course CAIR is lying about the evidence somehow having been magically been discredited. The only reason CAIR exists is to front for the MB, specifically for the Gazan branch of the MB. CAIR was created, it was proven at trial, at the request of Hamas officials. They have to lie; their existence is at stake. But lying is what they do for a living, so it isn’t as if they’re doing anything out of the ordinary for them.

      And naturally the media is simply repeating CAIR’s talking points. They’re not journalists; they’re DNC propagandists. It isn’t as if they couldn’t find out the truth. But they don’t want to. They are entirely comfortable with lying. Because they’re leftists, and that’s what leftists do.

  6. I am outraged that thus website is so screwed up.

    Please fix it or remove me from your e-mail list.

    1. Remove yourself, bro. It’s as easy as it was to join in the first place. FFS.

  7. I wonder what Vanguard would say if the victim were his sister, mother, grandmother, or wife?

    1. That …. I am sorry to say ….. is a really lame argument. Sad if your moral compass is connected to your relatives. I am sorry you feel that way.

        1. It’s not an argument, it’s a rhetorical question. Vanguard made an inane remark. He doesn’t merit better responses than he’s received.

          1. Quibble, if you must. Whatever you want to call it, it’s bullsh*t.

            (Many of the round-the-clock commenters, here, could benefit from a change of scenery.)

            Carry on.

    1. Note the weak-ass appeal to the nonsensical notion, “That makes you no better than them.”

      Of course we’re better than them. We don’t perpetrate this knock out game. We don’t beat up elderly ladies. By definition that makes “us” better than “them.” And if Vanguard can’t see the difference he needs to be placed under 24/7/365 surveillance.

      1. “And if Vanguard can’t see the difference he needs to be placed under 24/7/365 surveillance.”

        And those who would participate in the 24/7/365 surveillance “games” — against people like “Vanguard”, merely for his views — need to be lined up against a wall and shot. Barring that option, lock ’em all up and throw away the key. If the shoe fits.

        1. And those who would participate in the 24/7/365 surveillance “games”

          I see one of your hobbies is being stupidly literal-minded, followed up with a display of superciliousness.

          1. Yours is something like this: “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…”, said with your head in the sand, or merely with extreme ignorance, cluelessness…

            1. Don’t go anywhere, anon. Your unintended comedic value as you beclown yourself is invaluable.

      1. Only if your moral compass is so badly broken you can’t tell the difference between fatally cold-cocking some grandma and executing a career criminal who willfully committed murder.

        No, let me guess. Maybe you never had a moral compass. So either way, it’s broken or nonexistent. And you have disqualified yourself from discourse in a society that wishes to remain civil.

      2. Yours is a preposterous statement. You would find that a person making a comment, and injecting a sense of humor, to be worse than a person accused of robbery and the felony murder of an elderly person? If anything it calls your judgment into question. Perhaps you might find that professing and leaning toward a particular platform is interfering with your analysis of matters abound, that is if you chose to change your approach for the better.

          1. maybe you and he should find some other country where they let people like springer just walk around free.

          2. We’d be no better than them if we went with lex talionis – “eye for an eye” justice perhaps. Murder is murder. That being said, I’m not a fan of filling jails. So why not remove a murderer more permanently?

            Until we have a cannon for firing people out into orbit, jails work to keep murderers out of circulation. Would you rather offer this guy your spare bedroom?

            1. I don’t know how well versed you are in the history of the Bible, but Lex Talionis was actually a great step up from the traditional legal codes, such as they were, of the surrounding area. When it says “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” it means the punishment for putting out someone’s eye could be no more than having one’s own eye put out. Essentially the punishment had to fit the crime. No less, but also no more. It made everyone equal before the law regardless of social status, and it took away the ability to take personal vengeance and put the responsibility for executing justice in the hands of the governing authority.

              All this was in stark contrast to what passed for justice in the surrounding regions. Acts of personal retaliation, either by the victim or the victim’s family was condoned. The result would usually be very much more than an eye for an eye. Usually it was several lives for an eye. Even if the case was brought before a magistrate of some sort the result could easily be much more than an eye for an eye, depending on the social status of the victim versus the social status of the perpetrator.

              In the surrounding areas a slave owner could maim or kill a slave with impunity. In Israel if a slave owner killed a slave, he was to be killed. If a slave owner so much as knocked out a slave’s tooth, the slave was to be set free. Presumably this was of more value to the slave than seeing his owner have his tooth knocked out.

              It needs to be said that the Jews never had a literal understanding of Lex Talionis. They never understood it to mean that if someone maimed another, the perpetrator had to be maimed in retaliation. Simply that the punishment had to fit the crime.


              “Doesn’t “an eye for an eye” make the whole world blind?

              …According to Jewish tradition, this verse was never understood or applied literally. Rather, according to the Oral Law, this injunction is a call for commensurate monetary compensation for damage inflicted on another’s person.

              All the Biblical commentators, starting from Rashi to Targum Yonatan interpret the verse as such. This interpretation is based on a discussion in the Talmud, tractate Bava Kama 84, and in the Mechilta, ad loc…”

              I would argue that we’d still be better than the criminals if we applied Lex Talionis as the Jews did.

          3. ‘Jail-thirsty’ folks believe in deterrence, punishment, and incapacitation. People who rattle on about ‘jail-thirsty’ folks believe in striking attitudes and manufacturing more jobs for social workers.

      3. It’s a common saying meaning, lock them up forever and throw the key away.
        Not literally bury them, but put them away for life. I’m someone who opposes the death penalty and even I say this dude should be facing life. You punched an old lady in the face with all your might and she died from it. In some countries he’d be facing a machete. In others hed be so guilt wracked hed end his own life.

Comments are closed.