Bully Fatally Stabbed, Killer Walks Free

[Alick]

I agreed with this ruling until I read that he stabbed the bully 12 times. I'm all for self defense in these kind of situations, and I understand that the kid was hurt, and acting under anger, but stabbing someone that many times is way past the point of it being classed as self defense. The only reason to stab someone that many times is to truly make sure that they won't be getting back up again.

[lil weasel]

Please, I merely Summarized the subject and broke down the relative points of contention.

I personaly carry and have for the past 45 years.

I have had the State Municipal Police Academy training on use of force law, where and when, for my Jurisdiction.

 

The quotes above were response to his, "Nice job of completely misunderstanding my point".

Edited January 8, 2012 by lil weasel

[Saggy]

 

8) Why didn’t the District Attorney appeal?

Usually the prosecution doesn't appeal unless they believe there's a reasonable chance of an overturn (successful appeal). Chances are, given the nature of the situation, the ruling would be upheld by an appellate court. Appeals are quite costly, so the D.A. isn't going to push for an appeal if there's minimal chance for a successful appeal.

Yep. I've actually seen manslaughter charges tried successfully on much loftier circumstances than this, but I think there's also a little bit of the judge's wishes to mitigate the damage done to both lives. Plus if I'm correct, you can't try a lesser charge on the appeal, so they kind of lost that chance to begin with...

 

Really though, you people need to come off the "12 times is so much to stab" someone bullcrap. Seriously, go get a butter knife and have at your tree. Twelve times is nothing, especially considering that most of them were probably just shallow pokes. You people need to realize life isn't the movies, where one decisive stab leads to victory.

 

I'm not arguing that it was a proportionate reaction. However, there's really not a lot that says, "If you have to defend yourself, you have to choose a proportionate weapon." Besides, when it comes to these matters... Weapons are equalizers. There was a reason he needed it. The guy was probably stronger, bigger, etc. It is a disproportionate reaction, but that is exactly what the victim needed to defend himself.

 

 

The part of this that bothers me is that this attack is supposed to be seen as some kind of acceptable boyhood trauma. Like, "Oh, a punch to the back of the head is nothing." That's total bullsh*t and I know a lot of people with life-long injuries from bar fights. Would you like to live your life with a crushed orbital or detached retina's? I know one guy that has brain damage from a bar fight. Simple fistfights are not trivial. You also should take into account the difference in development here... Even in a bar fight situation where there is a large man vs a small man, they're generally both fully grown men--the developed male anatomy is better at handling trauma. When you're talking about teens vs teens, the differences in development can lead to some extremely outmatched beatdowns.

 

Besides that though, think of it in this way... (Pretty extreme I know) What if they were trying to rape him? How much do you think that would have hurt him? Couple of stitches on the off chance the bully didn't spit on it first? Yeah it doesn't sound pretty, but really, a bit of an anal fissure is nothing compared to a fractured jaw, permanent vision loss, collapsed lung, ruptured spleen, etc. Yet would any one of you for a second have a problem if he had stabbed the attacker if he was trying to sexually assault him? I really doubt it, yet because this attack is somehow seen as modest or trivial this young man's actions are supposed to be seen as completely out of hand.

 

I'm willing to agree that his choice of defense was disproportionate, but you cannot hold the victim responsible for what happens to the assailant in the maylay, and weapons are called equalizers because the threat is already disproportionate. Some might still argue that twelve stabs is going too far but I think that's bullsh*t. I guess that's going to be the difference in a lot of people's views, but I think that anyone who has been around real world violence will understand twelve stabs is really not that significant. Most of them were probably shallow pokes, and the entire dozen were probably part of the first initial flurry. I'd be surprised if the whole attack lasted much more than a second.

 

I do think it's a shame that the young man couldn't have found anything better than a knife though. Realistically though, if he were to have chosen a rock or a club or something, it could have been just as injurious. Short of a firearm there's not a lot of choices he had that were going to be that much more or less lethal than the other, and when you consider how difficult it really is for a teen in the U.S. to get ahold of a firearm, one might even see the knife was a conservative choice. Seems to me though that he probably could have got his hands on some pepper spray, but at the end of the day, the victim is not required to have researched the best way to defend themselves, it's frankly not their responsibility.

 

It's really tragic the other young man died... I mean, I'm not one of the people that thinks, "Oh, he deserves it, he shouldn't have been doing that." I mean, so he was bullying the kid, lots of people were bullies... That doesn't mean he deserves to die, but he tried his luck. I think for people to say, "Oh, twelve stabs is too much," or, "Oh, a punch to the head isn't anything," is totally unfair and ignorant of the real fear and plight that the victim was going through. No one should be patting him on the back of giving him a medal, but to charge him criminally would just be wrong.

 

I do understand those that worry this might somehow set a precedent... Mostly I hate the spin on it, that it is somehow a cowardly victim taking vengeance on his bully. I think that's a stupid way to look at it, and I would have a problem with that being the precedent too. Realistically though, all this does is reinforce the precedent that you have the right to use force to defend yourself.

[Icarus]

8) Why didn’t the District Attorney appeal?

Usually the prosecution doesn't appeal unless they believe there's a reasonable chance of an overturn (successful appeal). Chances are, given the nature of the situation, the ruling would be upheld by an appellate court. Appeals are quite costly, so the D.A. isn't going to push for an appeal if there's minimal chance for a successful appeal.

Yep. I've actually seen manslaughter charges tried successfully on much loftier circumstances than this, but I think there's also a little bit of the judge's wishes to mitigate the damage done to both lives. Plus if I'm correct, you can't try a lesser charge on the appeal, so they kind of lost that chance to begin with...

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada, for example, let's say you were charged with second-degree murder, but a judge (and jury) found you guilty of manslaughter and you appealed the verdict and the appeal court ordered a new trial, you start fresh in that you will be re-charged with second-degree murder, not manslaughter. There are some cases where people will not bother to appeal their conviction, but rather, the length of the sentence they get because if they have a successful appeal on the grounds of the conviction, it's a new slate and they're taking their chances.

 

Granted, this all hinges on if the appellate court gives you leave to appeal.

[sivispacem]

The quotes above were response to his, "Nice job of completely misunderstanding my point".

Well as K^2 did a fantastic job of summarising my points, and yes, you did completely misunderstand me.