Man acquitted of stabbing by Portland jury — after victim said slur following the attack

[BPPLEE]

I

The defense claims it was also before the attack. Although it shouldn't matter, the victim was about as unsavory as the stabber (previously convicted of child rape, but the jury would not have heard about this during the trial). According to the article, the victim continued to use the slur while telling the police his side of the story. Juries do judge the victim.

I would say that the jury didn't care because it was a couple of homeless guys but I don't think that's the case considering where it happened

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Ac

AFTER the attack? So... Someone stabs you and you call them a racial slur because well.. you were stabbed... but because of that the assailant gets acquitted??! What in the world!? People are nuts...

Actually if you read more. The guy stabbed him in self defense. After the guy made racial slur.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ac

Actually if you read more. The guy stabbed him in self defense. After the guy made racial slur.

That's what he claims...he also claims that he was approaching in (what appears to be an aggressive attack stance) to attempt to trade the knife for cigarettes.

If we're being honest, given the guy's previous criminal record of stabbing, and roughing up store clerks. In all likelihood, it was probably more of a "give me those smokes!" (holding the knife to imply "or else")


...but even if we operate on the assumption that the defendant's statements on that were 100% accurate, I would hope you're being facetious here. Someone yelling a slur from 20 feet away as a person is moving towards them with a brandished weapon wouldn't be justification for assaulting them with said weapon. (especially in an open-air environment in a state that establishes a duty to retreat)

 

[BPPLEE]

If

That's what he claims...he also claims that he was approaching in (what appears to be an aggressive attack stance) to attempt to trade the knife for cigarettes.

View attachment 374221


If we're being honest, given the guy's previous criminal record of stabbing, and roughing up store clerks. In all likelihood, it was probably more of a "give me those smokes!" (holding the knife to imply "or else")


...but even if we operate on the assumption that the defendant's statements on that were 100% accurate, I would hope you're being facetious here. Someone yelling a slur from 20 feet away as a person is moving towards them with a brandished weapon wouldn't be justification for assaulting them with said weapon. (especially in an open-air environment in a state that establishes a duty to retreat)

If this is a duty to retreat state the jury really screwed up on this one

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If this is a duty to retreat state the jury really screwed up on this one

From the article I linked earlier, they don't have a "stand your ground" law like some of the more gun-friendly states do.

However, even if a state has no duty to retreat, this still wouldn't apply since he was the one who moved in on the other guy. If you're actually afraid of an unarmed person (in an open-air environment with ample opportunity to exit the situation), typically you don't move 20-feet toward them in an attempt to "trade a weapon for cigarettes", and then calmly walk away after stabbing them in the shoulder.


I think people have been tripping over themselves to grasp at any straws they can to create some sort of benefit of doubt for a jury making a clearly poor (perhaps ideologically motivated) decision on this one.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That's what he claims...he also claims that he was approaching in (what appears to be an aggressive attack stance) to attempt to trade the knife for cigarettes.

View attachment 374221


If we're being honest, given the guy's previous criminal record of stabbing, and roughing up store clerks. In all likelihood, it was probably more of a "give me those smokes!" (holding the knife to imply "or else")


...but even if we operate on the assumption that the defendant's statements on that were 100% accurate, I would hope you're being facetious here. Someone yelling a slur from 20 feet away as a person is moving towards them with a brandished weapon wouldn't be justification for assaulting them with said weapon. (especially in an open-air environment in a state that establishes a duty to retreat)

I bet there's an uber-radical leftist somewhere saying, man, I'm glad he got that pack of smokes, and knifed that fascist nazi.