Posted on 11/10/2005 12:02:05 PM PST by JZelle
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A judge threw out a manslaughter charge against a young man who fatally stabbed a teenager who allegedly attacked him because he is gay.
Municipal Judge Gerard Kosinski also ordered 21-year-old Lucas Dawson, an aspiring singer, released from jail.
Dawson told police that seven people began taunting him, chasing him down and beating him as he walked to catch a bus Oct. 29. He said he pulled out a small knife and waved it, but when Gerald Knight, 17, punched him, he stabbed him in the chest.
Knight died within the hour.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
Dawson called police after the attack and led them to the knife. Assistant District Attorney MK Feeney praised him for turning himself in to police, but said a jury should decide if his actions were self defense. She had not decided if she would appeal.
The day before the attack, Dawson had performed in front of the "American Idol" judges, his family said. He was eliminated after the third round.
A good result supporting the right to self-defense. It would not have been this way in England.
Nothing to see here.
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of self-defense.
Seems like a clear act of self defense, I see no reason for this to go to a trial. I respect the DA's decision to persue it, but I think he did so more to politically pander than true need for a jury trial.
How do you know it was a good result? A jury never even got to hear the case. You are hearing one side only.
Sounds like self-defense to me.
This isn't politics. The dead guy should be entitled to a fair hearing of the evidence before his death is deemed his own fault.
The judge probably looked at all of the evidence and decided that the state could not make its case.
For it to be dismissed at such an early state probably means that the evidence of self-defense is overwhelming.
Probably? So you just trust the judge on this? I don't. Liberal judges have an agenda. There is way too little evidence from this story for me to say that the judge was fair. I think the dead guy shouldn't be so quickly and easily blamed for his own death.
Insufficient data to make a determination...
The legal system tends to favor the defendant in situations like this. We don't force defendants to go through a trial if it is clear that the prosecution will not be able to make its case.
Liberal judges have an agenda.
Do we know whether this judge is a liberal?
There is way too little evidence from this story for me to say that the judge was fair.
It's not really important whether the judge was fair to the dead guy. Our system is designed to protect the rights of the defendant.
I think the dead guy shouldn't be so quickly and easily blamed for his own death.
Legally, a homicide did occur here, it was just justified.
So basically a gay guy can cry, "but they were making fun of me" and have a free pass to murder.
It sounds to me like the prosecutor thought a crime had been committed and the judge dismissed it anyway. And I hardly think we would all be facing juries over the slimmest of allegations just because of this. There is a dead guy here. How about always needing reasonable proof of self defense whenever you kill someone.
This case seems to go well beyond that:
Dawson told police that seven people began taunting him, chasing him down and beating him as he walked to catch a bus Oct. 29. He said he pulled out a small knife and waved it, but when Gerald Knight, 17, punched him, he stabbed him in the chest.
This guy was attacked by a mob of people, not just called names.
Prove it. That's all I am asking for. The only proof I read is from the guy who did the stabbing.
The only thing you know is what the AP story is telling you. If you want proof from a wired story you're arm chairing it, and badly I might add. :-)
Ah, you're forgetting how our courts work. It's not the defendants duty to prove that the dead guy attacked him first, it's the prosecutors job to prove that the dead guy did NOT attack him first. Our legal system (theoretically) begins with the assumption that the defendant is telling the truth and is innocent. Guilt must be proven to attain a conviction.
If there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, the fact that we only had his word on this isn't enough to usurp his innocence. He would have walked anyway.
Of course, this article is a bit light on details. There were six other people there...what were their stories?
No newspaper story contains all the evidence. There's no way to make a judgment based on a news story. You have to see and hear what the judge saw and heard.I would guess there's testimony from at least some of the other six people for one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.