(“[The defendant] rushed from his car and began punching [the plaintiff] in the head and face....”). In contrast, Croley involved an assault that was much less extreme, sustained, and violent. In that case, the defendant did not batter or verbally abuse the plaintiff; he pulled the plaintiff to the ground and placed a foot on his chest. Croley, 759 A.2d at 686, 696. The officers’ conduct in this case was much more extreme and prolonged. Indeed, Officers Callahan and Wiedefeld were so engaged in their attack that a uniformed police officer responding to the scene had to physically pull them off Mr. Bamidele. Thus, unlike the defendant’s comparatively mild conduct in Croley, the intensity of the officers’ attack here manifested an intent to injure Mr. Bamidele. Cf. King, 626 A.2d at 884 (<HOLDING>). While the sheer violence involved in the
holding that defendants unprovoked assault demonstrated his intent to engage in deliberate violence against the plaintiff holding that where the violence against the victim and the trespass to her property combine in a continuing unbroken sequence of events both the crime of assault and the crime of robbery are ongoing during the assault holding that assault resulting in bodily injury under  111b is a crime of violence holding defendants admission that he threatened his victim and cut her with a knife contained in his statement of defendant on plea of guilty filed in washington state court conclusively demonstrated his second degree assault conviction qualified as a crime of violence holding that police in responding to a domestic violence call were not justified in engaging in a warrantless entry because the assault was over and there was no real danger that the assault was about to resume