Imagine a city in chaos, and a police officer’s career shattered—yet the attacker walks free with just a slap on the wrist. This is the story of Shaborn Banks, a protester convicted of assaulting an NYPD lieutenant during a 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstration, whose light sentence has sparked outrage among law enforcement and everyday New Yorkers.
On July 15, 2020, amid the turbulent aftermath of George Floyd’s tragic death in Minneapolis, Banks struck NYPD Lt. Richard Mack during a protest on the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to injuries that forced Mack into early retirement after 26 years of service.
The incident unfolded on a day of raw tension, with protests gripping New York City and turning violent at times. Banks was part of a crowd clashing with police on the Brooklyn Bridge, and his actions directly contributed to the assault on Lt. Mack.
Fast forward to 2025, and Banks faced trial for his role in the attack. He was convicted of third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, but cleared of heavier felony charges and a weapons possession count by Judge April Newbauer.
Prosecutors in Manhattan pushed hard for a one-year prison sentence—the maximum for the charge—but the judge opted for leniency. Banks received just 50 hours of community service, a decision that left many in law enforcement shaking their heads.
Judge Newbauer justified the light sentence by stating that prosecutors failed to prove Banks caused serious physical injury to Mack. She called the 50 hours of service with a public servant group a “fair resolution,” but fairness seems in short supply for some.
Compare this to the other defendants in the case—Chanice Reyes got six months in jail in 2024, and Quran Campbell was handed a two-year prison term in 2023. Why the glaring disparity for Banks, whose defense claimed he only struck Mack after being hit first?
Banks’ lawyer, Ron Kuby, argued another defendant caused the worst of Mack’s injuries, including a fractured orbital socket. From a conservative standpoint, this excuse feels like a dodge—participating in a violent act shouldn’t come with a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Lt. Mack, speaking outside the courthouse on Monday, didn’t hold back his frustration with the ruling. “Even if this guy caused minor injuries, as the judge claimed … There is no such thing as misdemeanor assault on a police officer. There is only felony assault on a police officer,” Mack said.
“For the judge to say that he committed misdemeanor assault on me, that is a repugnant verdict,” Mack continued. Let’s unpack that—when a career officer, disabled by an attack, calls a verdict repugnant, it’s a signal the system might be prioritizing progressive leniency over justice for those who protect us.
Mack’s injuries weren’t just a bruise; they ended a 26-year career of service to New Yorkers. Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Austin Minogue noted in court how Banks’ actions on that chaotic day brought Mack’s long tenure “to a violent and graphic halt.”
Judge Newbauer acknowledged the tragedy of Mack’s situation, but her ruling leaned heavily on technicalities over impact. If the evidence didn’t show Banks caused the worst injury, does that erase the broader harm of joining a violent act?
For conservatives, this case isn’t just about one protester or one officer—it’s about a justice system that seems increasingly soft on crime when the victims wear a badge. We’re not calling for vengeance, but for balance; a 50-hour wrist slap feels like a mockery when a man’s livelihood is destroyed.
Let’s keep the pressure on for accountability in cases like these—Lt. Mack deserved better, and so do the officers still walking the beat. New York can’t afford to signal that assaulting police comes with minimal consequences, especially in an era where law and order already feel under siege.
