Assault knife

[jcr]

"[Defendant] had a Spyderco military folding knife in his pocket and he was ready and willing to use it."

And why not? Only his head was getting bashed in by multiple assailants.

Tried for murder, convicted of manslaughter (6-8y), retrial because dead-guy assailant's violent past was excluded (to make him appear an innocent angel). Deadlocked mis-trail. He'll have to defend, again.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14856194/detail.html

 

[hminsky]

The thing that stinks about the trial, from what I read in the news, is that in the first trial they wouldn't let the defense lawyers bring up the nasty criminal record of the guy who was killed (and his friends), according to the theory that "the defendant couldn't have known about their record when he met them". What is the point of having a jury (or judge) if they cannot see all the facts? If the facts are such that knowning them would bias someone judging the case, then maybe they are relevant....

 

[Erebus]

Yea cause after all when you are trying to judge if someone was defending themselves from a violent attack, the fact that the person committing the attack has a long history of violence is completely irrelevant.[/sarcasm]

 

[drgrant]

One of the things this guy has going against him was the fact
that he was sloshed when it happened. Should drunk people be
able to defend themselves? Yes..... I'm not arguing that.... the
problem is it makes him appear about 100x worse out of the
gate. There's no dodging around the fact that being intoxicated
has at least some notional of irresponsibility or negligence, or that
his judgment could have been impaired. He also appears to have
been involved in escalating the conflict (verbally). of course a lot
of that is hearsay- the dead guy's friends could basically have
colluded to distort the facts and sticking to that rap the whole way
through. It's a tough road to hoe when you have 2 witnesses
on the BGs side, and only one witness on the other side. (the
defender) whose credibility is at least a little compromised because
he was sloshed.... not a fun legal situation there.

It does suck that they won't allow the record to be exposed. IMO
it should almost be law that the jury IS presented with those
facts, especially considering they're basically a matter of public
record anyways.


-Mike

 

[jcr]

no dodging around the fact that being intoxicated
has at least some notional of irresponsibility or negligence

It has been [properly] drummed into our head regarding driving drunk -- but, we agree, one should still be able to defend onesself.

An amazing thing in most states but Massachusetts is the demonization of a flolding knife. And, who knew, the military uses folders.

And lastly regarding impaired driving. There was a recent ridiculous acquital of a guy who took Ambien, and then decided to drive Boston to Lowell. He killed a tire changer on I-93 in full view of wife and children -- the deceased was on the passengeri side of the car pulled off to the right side of the road. Defendant, negligent driver (who happened to be a lawyer himself) claimed that he didn't know that taking Ambien would cause him to fall asleep at the wheel.

He went with the "sleep driving" defense, and it worked -- long after the drunk driving defense fails.

Apologies for the off topic rant.

 

[fubar]

Ambian Defense is legit. .... Why , one of our wonderful Kennedy's sideswiped a police car while driving on Ambian. .... Or maybe it's not "Ambian Defense" but rather : " I am a Kennedy. I get to kill at least one person driving under the influence , don't I ?"

Re: Topic - people aren't really supposed to defend themselves with tools in Mass. It's totally uncool. And Knives ? They are scary , and messy. I believe that there is a direct correlation between gun control & knife violence = if people can not arm themselves with pistols they will carry a knife ; criminals or citizens.

 

[Another_David]

This case has been discussed here before. It's a good example of what NOT to do in a self defense situation:

Don't be drunk
Don't engage in arguments with strangers
Don't act as an aggressor, make an attempt to retreat
Don't deny being involved

This defendant managed to do these all, which is why he's being prosecuted to the fullest extent.

 

[Twigg]

All the more reason to stay the hell out of Cambridge, the entire Boston area, and yet another reason to move to a free state.

 

[Jose]

All the more reason to stay the hell out of Cambridge, the entire Boston area, and yet another reason to move to a free state.

Move two states west. You'll love it.

 

[Jaxon]

Move two states west. You'll love it.

It is boring there, however.

 

[Jose]

It is boring there, however.

Two states over from Mass is PA, right? Ohio is third due west.

What one does for fun changes during life. Some time ago I would have thought that living near a shitload of people was fun. Now, not so much.

 

[Twigg]

Move two states west. You'll love it.

At least I've got my wife thinking about this now.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Move two states west. You'll love it.

I spent a few years in the Buckeye State. Too far from the beach.

 

[gene]

Massachusetts love to make their criminals seem like run of the day citizens. This is one more example of how are justice system is screwed up. The DA should just drop this case because he doesn't deserve to be conviced and one all the facts are known about the hoodlum, he never will.

 

[Jose]

I spent a few years in the Buckeye State. Too far from the beach.

Having grown up in the Caribbean, I don't find any beaches north of the Carolinas too attractive