It was a moment that instantly went viral over the July 4th weekend. Hot dog eating champion Joey Chestnut was caught on camera choking a protester during the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest. But could he be in trouble?
The Incident: A Protester, a Chokehold, and 63 Hot Dogs
The annual Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July Hot Dog Eating Contest at Coney Island, New York, is a beloved American tradition, usually filled with fun, excitement, and impressive feats of gastronomy. This year, however, the competition took a surprising turn. Joey “Jaws” Chestnut, aiming for his 15th win, was suddenly confronted with an unexpected interruption.
Joey Chestnut competing in the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest
A masked animal rights protester, donning a Darth Vader mask and holding a sign reading “Expose Smithfield’s Death Star” (a reference to Smithfield Foods, the meat supplier for Nathan’s), jumped onto the stage. Chestnut, without missing a beat or a bite, reacted immediately.
Videos of the event show Chestnut grabbing the protester in a chokehold and wrestling him to the ground. The crowd’s cheers are audible as the altercation happens. Remarkably, Chestnut continued eating as if nothing had happened, ultimately securing his 15th victory by consuming 63 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes.
Joey Chestnut holding a protester in a chokehold
Legal Ramifications: Criminal Charges vs. Civil Liability
While TMZ reported that police detained three individuals and charges were pending, the question remains: could Chestnut face legal repercussions for his actions?
Former prosecutor and trial attorney Bob Bianchi, also a Law & Crime Network host, offered his legal insights on the situation. Bianchi highlighted the importance of considering the context and the “rule of reason” when evaluating a potential criminal case. He suggested that Chestnut, confronted with a masked individual charging towards him, might have reasonably perceived a threat to his safety.
The use of the term “chokehold” was also a point of contention for Bianchi, who stressed the need for accurate terminology when describing the incident. He noted that the video didn’t clearly show whether Chestnut’s actions restricted the protester’s airway or blood flow, which are key elements in defining a true chokehold.
While acknowledging the seriousness of placing one’s arm around another person’s neck, Bianchi emphasized that prosecutorial decisions often hinge on the extent of injuries sustained. In this case, the apparent lack of serious injuries to the protester weakens the possibility of criminal charges against Chestnut.
When considering civil liability, such as a lawsuit from the protester alleging violation of his First Amendment rights, Bianchi pointed out the importance of damages. He explained that a successful civil suit typically requires demonstrating both liability and significant injury. Since the protester didn’t appear to sustain substantial injuries, the likelihood of a successful lawsuit, and a lawyer’s willingness to take on the case, seems low.
Public Reaction: Chestnut as an Unlikely Hero
Despite the potential legal complexities, the court of public opinion appears to be firmly on Chestnut’s side. Social media users have hailed him as a hero, praising his swift action and unwavering focus on the competition. The incident has sparked a debate about the limits of protest and the right to self-defense, with many supporting Chestnut’s decision to neutralize the perceived threat.
The incident, while unexpected and disruptive, ultimately highlights the unpredictable nature of live events and the various interpretations of acceptable behavior. Whether Chestnut’s actions were justified or excessive will continue to be debated, but one thing is certain: his 15th victory at the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest will be remembered for more than just hot dogs.
