Mistrial declared for Harvard student

Discuss Spyderco's products and history.
Fred Sanford
Member
Posts: 5736
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

#21

Post by Fred Sanford »

A. Stanton wrote:I followed this case closely during the first trial on Court TV. Basically, a car load of thugs rolled up on the accused while he was walking home. There were two males and one woman. The males both had criminal records--hence the reason for the second trial, they didn't tell the jury this. Furthermore, the male driving had a suspended license and was carrying super glue. While testifying, the court asked him why he was carrying super glue. His response was, "To keep a band aid on his hand." The reason why criminals carry super glue is to mask their finger prints while committing crimes. In addition, after his buddy got shanked, they drove in a round about fashion to a hospital in another neighborhood, because they knew they would have trouble justifying why they were in up scale neighborhood. The driver thought he would be hassled by the police. This loss of valuable time probably caused his buddy's death more than anything else.
I am glad the accused has the money and resources to fight his bogus conviction.
I'm going to have to agree with you on all counts.

I really wish that this was not going to a third trial. I think that is just wrong.
"I'm calling YOU ugly, I could push your face in some dough and make gorilla cookies." - Fred Sanford
merciful
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:16 pm

#22

Post by merciful »

You may well be right: your points are well worth consideration, at the very least. God forbid I have to hurt some guy, but if I do I guess I'll stick around for awhile.
KaliGman wrote:If you try to conceal a self-defense situation and then get brought up on charges, it is very hard to convince a jury or a judge that you were innocent of wrongdoing and were defending yourself. If you were innocent, why did you run and hide? There are many cases known to me where someone was convicted of murder rather than manslaughter or being found innocent because they did some silly stuff like you suggest.

As for police efficiency. This one happened in the street. Let's say it happens to you on the street. Who else saw it? Did anyone video it? Was it near a traffic camera, security camera, etc.? If someone saw it, do you really think that someone is not going to come forward and finger you when that Crimestoppers or other such police tactic comes out and offers $1,000 or more for information on the crime (and most jurisdictions will for a death). Amateurs usually leave a lot of evidence behind and the "crimes of passion" and "fight" type killings usually are solved. It's the drug related and career criminal ones based on monetary gain that are harder to solve--witnesses are intimidated, the guys sometimes know enough to clean up after themselves effectively, etc.
Those who give up their freedom for safety will soon find that they have neither.[SIZE="-1"][/size]
feeny
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:40 am

#23

Post by feeny »

There are new laws in my country expressly forbidding carrying of any blade in premises licensed to serve alcohol - although Im not sure how this is compatible with a steak knife that comes with steak in same aforementioned licensed premises....
...but I do believe that our new laws say that to be caught carrying a blade in such places is an offense with a maximum 4 year jail penalty. Sounds stiff - but it seems that the authorities over here are precisely pointing a finger at those who carry either whilst under the influence or around those who might be under the influence...
merciful
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:16 pm

#24

Post by merciful »

That's just too much. That would prevent me from having a knife on me while having lunch during a workday in the hard end of town. Lunch isn't the issue, of course, but the walk home might be.
feeny wrote:There are new laws in my country expressly forbidding carrying of any blade in premises licensed to serve alcohol -
Those who give up their freedom for safety will soon find that they have neither.[SIZE="-1"][/size]
User avatar
gunmike1
Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:14 am

#25

Post by gunmike1 »

A. Stanton wrote:I followed this case closely during the first trial on Court TV. Basically, a car load of thugs rolled up on the accused while he was walking home. There were two males and one woman. The males both had criminal records--hence the reason for the second trial, they didn't tell the jury this. Furthermore, the male driving had a suspended license and was carrying super glue. While testifying, the court asked him why he was carrying super glue. His response was, "To keep a band aid on his hand." The reason why criminals carry super glue is to mask their finger prints while committing crimes. In addition, after his buddy got shanked, they drove in a round about fashion to a hospital in another neighborhood, because they knew they would have trouble justifying why they were in up scale neighborhood. The driver thought he would be hassled by the police. This loss of valuable time probably caused his buddy's death more than anything else.
I am glad the accused has the money and resources to fight his bogus conviction.
I agree. My daughter was born right around the time of the original trial, so in my 3 weeks off I watched just about the entire trial on Court TV. I thought the defendant got jobbed because they wouldn't let the criminal past of the other guys come into play, and obviously an appeals court agreed. Taking this to another trial is just plain wrong, IMO. Not to mention the fact of how they portrayed the Spyderco he was carrying as some evil weapon.

I grew up in a city where there is an extremely high crime rate and a few people I know got shot or stabbed. I have also seen people get jumped and beat so bad by bare hands that one recieved brain damage, so there could have been dire consequences if this kid didn't defend himself. Lying and trying to cover up the events never helps, but I chalk it up more to being a scared kid who was drunk than a truly bad person. Not a great excuse, but the juror who's opinion never waivered is the most pertinent point: was the kid scared for his life and making a decision to defend his life at the moment he got jumped? If no one saw the cousin of the kid who got stabbed and was joining into the fight, he is a BIG, bad looking dude. It's hard to think I wouldn't have pulled out a pocket knife to attempt to defend myself in that situation with two thugs trying to beat me into a pulp.

Mike
Grey Mullet
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:07 am

#26

Post by Grey Mullet »

feeny wrote:There are new laws in my country expressly forbidding carrying of any blade in premises licensed to serve alcohol - although Im not sure how this is compatible with a steak knife that comes with steak in same aforementioned licensed premises....
...but I do believe that our new laws say that to be caught carrying a blade in such places is an offense with a maximum 4 year jail penalty. Sounds stiff - but it seems that the authorities over here are precisely pointing a finger at those who carry either whilst under the influence or around those who might be under the influence...
What country?
feeny
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:40 am

#27

Post by feeny »

Grey Mullet
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:07 am

#28

Post by Grey Mullet »

I'd like to crack on Australia, but with all the nonsense going in in the US lately I have no business pointing fingers.
feeny
Member
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:40 am

#29

Post by feeny »

Heh. Well, the trouble with is, in my view, that there are no good collective answers to individual responsibilities....
Post Reply