http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/now-trending/Pinkberry-co-founder-sentenced-to-seven-years-for-beating-homeless-man-250432311.html




Young Lee, the co-founder of the popular Pinkberry frozen yogurt chain, has been sentenced to seven years in prison for beating a homeless man with a tire iron in 2011 because he felt “disrespected.”

Judge Henry Hall addressed Lee in court Friday and called the attack "horrendous" and "fairly merciless,” according to the Los Angeles Times.



Lee, 49, had been convicted last year for beating Ronald Bolding in East Hollywood, Calif.



“Prosecutors said Bolding was panhandling by a 101 Freeway ramp when Lee pulled up in his Range Rover,” the Times reports. “Lee became angry when Bolding flashed a tattoo to people in the car -- including Lee's fiancee and other women -- showing a stick-figure couple having sex. Lee drove off but returned with another man and beat Bolding.” The attack continued until a group of citizens intervened. Lee also allegedly threatened a witness.



Bolding reportedly suffered a broken arm and several cuts to the head. The Times reports he has filed a personal injury lawsuit against Lee, seeking damages for the attack.



The other assailant, who is believed to now be in Korea, has not been identified.



Surprisingly, Lee himself was once homeless. “Cameron Keys, described as a longtime friend of Lee's, told the judge Lee had been homeless about a decade ago while he battled drug and alcohol addictions,” the Times reports.



At Lee’s sentencing Friday, the judge handed down the maximum sentence, saying, “”What this case boils down to at the end of the day is nothing more or nothing less than a savage attack on a defenseless person.”



Lee co-founded the yogurt company in 2005 but is reportedly no longer involved with Pinkberry.

Was his male passenger named Who Flung Poo?

A homeless background can turn some people into raging idiots but far more often it actually impresses humility to the point of low self worth. In that case what is most likely is that this attacker was personally offended by the panhandler in an escalating fashion, ie. when he pulled over the panhandler becomes verbally aggressive towards a reasonable request (don't do offensive behaviour in public, it's unlawful behaviour), at that point however Lee showed his own lack of education by stepping outside the confines of what could've been, up until this point a lawful, citizen's arrest under the provisions of state law (for offensive behaviour in public, or for committing trade upon a public causeway again unlawful, or for creating an obstacle on a pedestrian walkway, again unlawful).

He could've lawfully restrained the panhandler if he became physically aggressive, and could've held him under arrest for public indecency and vagrancy until police arrived, and handed him over to them even restrained, and not broken a single law.

What he did was fall back into his own homeless experience and become aggressive himself. It's like he forgot about being civilized. Then pursuing this panhandler at a later time to commit a premeditated battery is just plain psychotic.

I think this Lee sounds like a megalomaniac. Betchya his wife wears sunglasses and tries to cover her face a lot. His children seen and not heard, etc.

But I've no doubt the panhandler contributed to the initial altercation with as much aggression as anybody, even a psychotic weasel you still have to fire up to get him going to all the trouble of coming after you. It's kind of a case of karma for both of them, I don't think I'd have great sympathy for either.

the details don't mention an 'initial aggression' just an offensive act OUTSIDE the car, with the defendant INSIDE His car

before leaving and RETURNING with someone else to beat the man

just seems like the driver flipped over being offended with premeditated act of aggression, intimidation, and violence

not rational or legal

Done deal. Lee is now a ward of the state.

Next!!

I really disagree! he had no right to detain or restrain
this homeless person on the facts stated! he brandished a cool
tattoo! there is no specifics to any lewd or indecent exposure
from what i read!! also the fact of panhandling in these places

along the road is common, and if it is so illegal there would BE
no one doing it! the fact you stated again the attacker should
of detained him or restrained the panhandler under a citizens
arrest!! well to me this is called false imprisonment and
kidnapping holding some person against there will for
a short time as a minute constitutes the crime of both
stated above !!!like the judge stated he attacked a
harmless person trying to get a little beer money, and i
think this guy had other issues and took it out on the begger
anyone married for a long period has to deal with all kinds
of disrespectful acts and this is not how we react to them
because you end up in prison with bubba or divorced TURBO

You can detain someone for a Criminal Act under the Citizen's Arrest-Statute,but not for a Misdemeanor!
That's Bullpoop!

Citizen's Arrest for a Misdemeanor?
Holy Moly!

You can't explain law to the entitlement crowd. The whole concept of law to them is what can the government steal for them and laws should be passed to restrain the rights of people according to their narrow view of life, the life of privileges and entitlements.

But you are right, the homeless man had a right to do whatever he desired, including being lewd and lascivious. The only remedy under law is the to call the police for an investigation report and the filing of a law suit. And in reality calling the police is normally a waste of time except to have a record of the event.

No one may place hands on another nor in any way violate his property unless it is needed to restore the peace, that includes the police.

That may be true in Switzerland, but not in common law, the basis for the action. In common law the only time physical intervention is allowed is to keep the peace or protection of property. Otherwise, a warrant is to issue to effect arrest, the purpose of the sheriff, serve warrants.

In the US, there is no such thing as a "Citizen's Arrest", just a myth. The process in law requires someone with "arrest power", the sheriff to serve a duly court authorized warrant for detainment. The "citizen" can swear out the warrant before any magistrate, justice of the peace or sheriff.

However, the citizen does have the right as conservator of the peace to lawfully restrain an individual that has or is about to committed harm to property or person and hold for someone with arrest power to arrive. That is not a "citizen's arrest" but as a conservator of the peace.

You try it here,you might get into all sorts of Trouble!
Law here is pretty much as it is in the US!
Can't,as a Citizen go and arrest someone after the fact!
You do have that Bountyhunter-thing in the US though!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest_in_the_United_States

seems your Supreme Court has upheld Citizen's Arrests even for Misdemeanors,as if you hadn't enough Agencies with arresting Powers!

Where is there a Supreme Court decision upholding citizen's arrests? Definitely not in that wiki article.

And citizens have no arresting powers what so ever but may under certain circumstances detain an individual while waiting for the sheriff, but the citizen is under full liability for their actions up to and including the intended arrestee using deadly force in defense.