Mistrial declared for Harvard student

[positivelyal]

The saga continues...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/12/15/jury_deadlocks_da_vows_3d_trial_for_pring_wilson/

For those not aware of the background on this one, check these threads:

http://spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15618

http://spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12545

http://spyderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12245

Just for the record, although I live here in Colorado Springs, I don't know him or his family. And I can't say I've followed the case closely, just the major announcements like this one.

[David Lowry]

That's tough. He did it out of "self-defense" but the other guys were unarmed. Then again maybe he felt his life was threatened. Then he lied afterwards.

I am not sure where I would stand on that one. I would have to had been there.

[sal]

Thanx for the input.

sal

[The Mastiff]

A third trial is state harassment. If the defendant was wrong he would be in the prison system already with the trial over. 3rd trials are for cases where jury tampering or misconduct forces it. This should be unconstitutional.

If you can't get a guilty verdict but want to make an example you use the near endless resources of the state ( I know it's a commonwealth) to punish them just like this. It's nothing new. Each trial probably cost the defendant 100,000 dollars in legal fees, and other costs. A top flight attorney will demand a 100,000$ retainer, or more.

You still scare the snot out of law abiding citicens this way. It's almost better than a conviction in some ways. Joe

[merciful]

1: Win the fight
2: Lose the knife
3: Lose the clothes

[Michael Cook]

:spyder: A good lesson here is don't commit any action you can't articulate in court. :spyder:

[merciful]

Another good lesson is that the government isn't going to take care of you, but sure will try to hang you if you do it yourself. Best to just stay inside, watch TV and eat chips.



:spyder: A good lesson here is don't commit any action you can't articulate in court. :spyder:

[KaliGman]

1: Win the fight
2: Lose the knife
3: Lose the clothes

4. Get caught
5. Go to prison for 1st degree murder or maybe sit on death row for a few years.

[KaliGman]

:spyder: A good lesson here is don't commit any action you can't articulate in court. :spyder:

Bingo--You got it in one.:D

[merciful]

Both of those depend on the efficiency of local law enforcement (and while I have little doubt of your proficiency and that of your agency, I have plenty about my locals); second, I can't see how not having a knife and not having any blood on one would increase one's chances of going up. Third, hanging pre-mediated murder on a record-free, law-abiding guy who got jumped in the street would be a real bitch: at least in this country.


4. Get caught
5. Go to prison for 1st degree murder or maybe sit on death row for a few years.

[feeny]

I just read the relevant threads about this case - my first time hearing of it.
Very sad story - and poignant for those that train bladecraft and/or carry blades.

It tells me that people carrying blades should study bladecraft - if and only if to understand the gravity of what carrying a blade really is - to learn the difference between cut a little vs. cut a lot and ultimately, to learn by training experience - that if it ever comes out for real - someone will get seriously hurt if not killed.

The biggest lesson I have out of bladecraft is that of gravity - and that lesson teaches me that if I have a knife on me in a SD situation, it is only for the most dire of situations. That means I cant run, I fear for my life or the life of loved ones, and I have had no part in instigating any conflict.

Bladecraft has taught me to use everything I can to avoid conflict - not to use a blade to assist with conflict.

I believe people regularly carrying blades should learn this lesson of gravity.

[merciful]

Yup. I cross a lot of streets to avoid what looks like guys who could take anything the wrong way.


That means I cant run, I fear for my life or the life of loved ones, and I have had no part in instigating any conflict.

[feeny]

Yup. I cross a lot of streets to avoid what looks like guys who could take anything the wrong way.

I would say, yes, thats perfectly right. Especially if you have the technology and technique about you to end up killing one of them if they take it the wrong way.

[merciful]

It's the only way to think. Any sort of confrontation has to be viewed as a last resort. A few years ago, a guy outside a club here crossed the street when he saw a girl shoved by a guy and popped him one in the mouth; the "victim" stumbled, banged his head on the curb, and died. Result? Manslaughter. Good intention, bad luck, bad result.

Also, I'm no longer really young and I've never had any footspeed.


I would say, yes, thats perfectly right. Especially if you have the technology and technique about you to end up killing one of them if they take it the wrong way.

[Grey Mullet]

If the Harvard student had not started out with a lie, maybe they would have believed what he said later. I read somewhere that he initially claimed he was only a witness.

I do not think the other points against him add up to much. I don't see how the prosecution could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Ironically, the chest thumping testimony of the other guy seemed to be some of the best evidence for the defense.

[JspyEDC]

Every morning when you leave the house, clip-it EDC attached, you have a responsibility to keep your composure and use proper judgment should a situation arise that would call for action in defense of potential harm to your person. You also have the responsibility and right to come home that night to your family in one piece.

[A. Stanton]

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.

[Michael Cook]

Bladecraft has taught me to use everything I can to avoid conflict - not to use a blade to assist with conflict.

:spyder: The number one rule of self-defense I teach all my students is to stay out of bars. :spyder:

[KaliGman]

Both of those depend on the efficiency of local law enforcement (and while I have little doubt of your proficiency and that of your agency, I have plenty about my locals); second, I can't see how not having a knife and not having any blood on one would increase one's chances of going up. Third, hanging pre-mediated murder on a record-free, law-abiding guy who got jumped in the street would be a real bitch: at least in this country.

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.

[KaliGman]

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.

Unless he has received some bad street advice or watched too many movies, the main reason a street rat carries super glue is probably to try to to get high by huffing it. It often takes only a fraction of a finger or palm print to give sufficient identification, and super gluing your whole hands is a pretty silly tactic. In addition, the glue can come off, sticking to an object and leaving a perfect print for the police, right there in the glue. It can also wear off.

[David Lowry]

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.

[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.


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.

[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]

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.


There are new laws in my country expressly forbidding carrying of any blade in premises licensed to serve alcohol -

[gunmike1]

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]

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]

Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/22/2012022.htm

[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]

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