Posted on 05/31/2012 8:25:13 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
Despite ‘Castle Doctrine,’ defendant is convicted in slaying
A PHILADELPHIA JUDGE said Wednesday he was convinced that a disabled, retired Marine was being attacked in the moments before he fatally stabbed a man last October, but he concluded that the stabbing was still a criminal act rather than self-defense.
Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner then convicted Jonathan Lowe, 57, of voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime. The judge found him not guilty of the more-serious charges of first- and third-degree murder.
Lowe, who wears a pacemaker and has survived two strokes and two heart surgeries, could face up to 12 1/2 to 25 years in prison when Lerner sentences him Aug. 16.
The case underscores how uncertain the claim of self-defense can be, even in a state that revised its "Castle Doctrine" last year to give an individual the right to use deadly force in self-defense anywhere in which a person has a legal right to be. The revised law also eliminated the duty to retreat before using that force. Lowe’s case was featured in March in a Daily News article about the revision of that doctrine.
The voluntary-manslaughter conviction means that Lowe committed the stabbing under provocation but that his actions were unreasonable, or imperfect self-defense, Lerner said.
"There are some unanswered questions in my mind about what happened here," Lerner said. "We will never know exactly how this incident began, and I don’t think we will ever know, 100 percent, when the stabbing began."
During the two-day nonjury trial, Lowe and his attorney, Samuel C. Stretton, argued that he acted in self-defense on the evening of Oct. 1, 2011, when he was jumped by Loren Manning Jr., 51, and at least two other men on Cecil B. Moore Avenue near Bouvier Street.
"When he had his hands around my neck, I pulled out my knife and started stabbing him," Lowe testified Wednesday.
Stretton noted that Lowe stayed at the scene and cooperated with police, believing himself to be the victim.
Stretton said case law barred him from introducing Manning’s 18 criminal convictions at trial because Lowe wasn’t aware of them and most of them were too old, the most recent from 2002. According to court records, Manning was awaiting trial for allegedly knocking out a woman’s teeth while robbing her two years ago Thursday.
Assistant D.A. Carolyn Naylor argued this week that Lowe had been the aggressor.
Lowe testified that he used a small, quick-open knife to stab Manning after being knocked to the ground and choked during a robbery attempt.
Two Temple University students said Manning was chasing Lowe and trying to hit him with a metal pole before he caught him. Manning then pinned Lowe to the ground, they said.
But both students said they did not see Lowe stab Manning while the two men were on the ground, nor after Manning got up and quickly collapsed from four stab wounds in his neck, thigh and back.
Naylor seized on inconsistencies between the testimonies of Lowe and the students, including where the stabbing took place. She argued that before the students came upon the struggle, Lowe stabbed Manning from behind before both men ended up on the ground.
She noted that two stab wounds were in Manning’s back. She also said Lowe showed intent to kill with malice because after Manning fell mortally wounded, Lowe taunted him and even tried to stab him some more.
I read about the wheelchair in another article. Didn’t see it in this one.
Philadelphia judges are the worst! Getting a trial moved there is like winning the lottery if you are a plaintiff, especially for medical malpractice cases.
Lerner = the judge
Isn't this reasonable doubt - thus not guilty?
The more I think of it, the more I think you might have a point.
Burning at the stake might not play well on youtube. The ice-hole might be much more internet-friendly.
I assume by ice-hole you mean feet-first, so we get to witness a slow freezing death, no muss, no fuss.
I bet that video would get 5 million views while it was still live.
The moral of the story is that you can’t defend yourself in a Leftist jurisdiction. This is just another reason why blue counties, cities and states will become bluer and the red counties and states will become redder.
This is not a surprise as American courts favor the criminal element in our society.
any city run by rats is not a place to live, let alone retire.
Not so sure with this one. I guess the best way to describe it could be called the “five shot laws”.
A man with a legal gun chances on a street robbery. He pulls his gun and fires a round into the air to break it up, but this results in the two robbers leaving their victim and charging at him. So he fires one round into each of them. Then he realizes that one of them cheated on him with his wife, so he calls him a “SOB”, and puts another round in him. Then the last one gets up and charges him again, so he shoots him again.
The judge says that, with the first round you broke a city law against gun discharge in the city limits, a small fine. The second and third shots were okay, because you were at risk. But the fourth round was in anger, after you recognized the robber, so that is attempted murder. Yet the fifth round is okay again.
Same event, same gun, different outcomes.
In this case after the Marine had been attacked and responded appropriately, there is a glitch.
“But both students said they did not see Lowe stab Manning while the two men were on the ground, nor after Manning got up and quickly collapsed from four stab wounds in his neck, thigh and back.
“...before the students came upon the struggle, Lowe stabbed Manning from behind before both men ended up on the ground... (The) two stab wounds were in Manning’s back. She also said Lowe showed intent to kill with malice because after Manning fell mortally wounded, Lowe taunted him and even tried to stab him some more.
In this country you will be lucky to get a fair trial, if:
You are a white male and the victim is in the protected class. Minority or female.
You are or have a military background.
You use any weapon in a major city that is controlled by liberals.
In these cases there is no justice or system.
In this country you will be lucky to get a fair trial, if:
You are a white male and the victim is in the protected class. Minority or female.
You are or have a military background.
You use any weapon in a major city that is controlled by liberals.
In these cases there is no justice or system.
Consider the situation in a close quarters combat: If Manning was lying on top of Lowe, attempting to strangle, it is likely that Lowe could not strike at any part of Manning except his back in a wraparound blow. Thus, there were wounds in Manning’s back, but he was not necessarily stabbed from behind as the fishwrap prose would lead you to believe...
I’m wondering what might happen if some guy with a knife or gun tries to rob me and I somehow manage to kill him with just judo techniques or by punching him. I’d guess that at least some of these DAs we read about would try to charge somebody for that.
My thought on self-defense is that once you are attacked, anything that YOU think is necessary to defend yourself is OK and reasonable. YOU are the man on the spot.
If the law wants to go after you, it is up to them to PROVE, beyond reasonable doubt, that you went maliciously after the bad guys once YOU were out of danger.
Good question is just what benefit are these cesspools to the country.
Warning shots are a no no. Even in TX they can bring jail time.
I’ve been thinking about this since I wrote that, and he might be able to use the “old man” defense.
“Never pick a fight with an old man. If he’s too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.” - John Steinbeck
There is some logic to this. An old, disabled man has minimal strength to defend himself, so cannot “give quarter” to an attacker, because if he does so, the attacker may recover enough to continue his attack, but the old man will be exhausted.
So an attacker who attacks an old man cannot reasonably expect a “fair fight” or even an adequate defense from the old man. In truth, they are probably counting on it not being a fair fight.
So when the old man does fight back, the court cannot assign “fair fight rules”, after the fact. A lethal defense, even stabbing in the back, should be considered as legitimate.
I highly doubt that. A Marine in a wheel chair killing an attacking robber would have been national news simply because of its novelty. Yet this article is the first I've heard of this case.
According to this earlier article by the same author, Lowe was returning home after 10pm from a fish fry at a friend's house in North Philadelphia. He was attacked by three men at Cecil B. Moore Avenue and Bouvier Street. Have a look around. Doesn't look too wheel chair friendly. Actually, doesn't look too friendly, period.
Mr. Lowe deserves our gratitude for taking out some trash. There can be no doubt the world is a better place without Loren Manning in it.
[ possession of an instrument of crime. ]
So that covers knives now too....
IOWs any use of an object to defend yourself from violent predators becomes another felony they can charge you with.
When you are being robbed, raped, beaten and/or killed do not shoot evil glances at your attackers or your eyes will become "instruments of crime." (probably a hate crime too)
Judge Benjamin Lerner is lily white.
Don't read very well do you? This was speculation on the judges part, not facts. He was speculating that this could have happened as the witnesses didn't "see" the cripple stab the assailant. As to two of the stab wounds being in the back that is easy enough to do while being strangled, you simply reach around the guy, who is very close to you choking you to death, and stab him.
As for the Marine attacking the a**hat first why would a guy in a wheelchair attack someone?
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.