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

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-07T19:05:47-0600

Black man acquitted of stabbing white man by Portland jury — after victim said the N-word following the attack

Howard claimed he only used the racial slur after being stabbed, but Edwards testified that the victim called him the word the moment he saw him.

nypost.com

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15356455/portland-jury-acquit-black-man-stabbed-white-victim-racial-slur.html

Use of racist slur by wounded man in Portland’s Old Town stabbing spurs jury to acquit

The man with the stab wound picked a racist fight, a defense attorney argued.

www.oregonlive.com

A Portland, Oregon, jury has cleared a black man of assault charges for stabbing a white man — after it was revealed that the victim said the N-word after the attack.

Gary Edwards, 43, was found not guilty of second-degree assault after knifing Gregory Howard Jr., 43, on July 7, KPTV reported.

Edwards admitted to stabbing Howard Jr., but claimed it was in self-defense after the victim had used racial slurs, Oregon Live reported.

Both men are homeless and have lengthy rap sheets.

There is no audio on the video, but Edwards’ defense attorney, Daniel Small, told the jury his client was approaching Howard to see if he would trade his knife for cigarettes.

(I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this approach doesn't look like a guy who's looking to initiate a friendly bartering transaction)

“The defendant is not scared for his life. He didn’t retreat, he sauntered up — and he sauntered away after he stabbed someone. The defendant created the situation,” prosecutor Katherine Williams told the jury.

Edwards, who was acquitted on Oct. 31, has previous convictions for attempted second-degree assault in 2021, and was sentenced to three years in prison for a separate stabbing at a Portland light rail station in May 2020.

Note to self: Don't get victimized in Portland, juries will look for any reason to let the perp off the hook if certain "conditions" are met.

Delvianna · 2025-12-07T20:06:32-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
A Portland, Oregon, jury has cleared a black man of assault charges for stabbing a white man — after it was revealed that the victim said the N-word after the attack.

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...

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-07T20:28:44-0600

Delvianna said:
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...

Well, I think it highlights the scenario of when reductio ad absurdum becomes a reality for certain ideas held in high esteem (not exactly shocked that this concept manifested in Portland... if there's a dumb reason to let someone off the hook for a crime, it's a safe bet to suggest that a place like Portland will be at the vanguard)

Now, to be clear, am I a fan of the N-word or any other racial slur? The answer is a resounding "NO".

But prudence and rationality dictates that someone saying something out of anger after being the victim of a stabbing (or even before the stabbing that matter, "mean words" don't justify physical violence) doesn't excuse the crime.

If I drove over to East Cleveland tonight, and robbed a corner store a gun point, the owner of the store saying "honkey" or "cracker" wouldn't lead to an acquittal of the crime in the eyes of a jury with 2 brain cells to rub together.

...and that demonstrates how an ideological capture becomes a threat.

The right to be tried in front of a jury of our peers is supposed to be a benefit or "check" on institutional power and biases. What happens when a city is so overrun by idiots, that it ends up having the opposite effect. Where the best jury you can muster up comes up with the "genius" idea that a former convicted stabber should get off the hook for yet another stabbing crime because the victim said something mean after they got jabbed in the shoulder.

Where you're seeking justice from the person who harmed you and the judge has an ideological bent, and the jury is this:

Chesterton · 2025-12-07T21:06:04-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
The right to be tried in front of a jury of our peers is supposed to be a benefit or "check" on institutional power and biases.

One of the many problems with multiculturalism is that finding peers becomes increasingly harder.

Belk · 2025-12-08T07:56:22-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Black man acquitted of stabbing white man by Portland jury — after victim said the N-word following the attack

Howard claimed he only used the racial slur after being stabbed, but Edwards testified that the victim called him the word the moment he saw him.

nypost.com

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15356455/portland-jury-acquit-black-man-stabbed-white-victim-racial-slur.html

Use of racist slur by wounded man in Portland’s Old Town stabbing spurs jury to acquit

The man with the stab wound picked a racist fight, a defense attorney argued.

www.oregonlive.com

A Portland, Oregon, jury has cleared a black man of assault charges for stabbing a white man — after it was revealed that the victim said the N-word after the attack.

Gary Edwards, 43, was found not guilty of second-degree assault after knifing Gregory Howard Jr., 43, on July 7, KPTV reported.

Edwards admitted to stabbing Howard Jr., but claimed it was in self-defense after the victim had used racial slurs, Oregon Live reported.

Both men are homeless and have lengthy rap sheets.

There is no audio on the video, but Edwards’ defense attorney, Daniel Small, told the jury his client was approaching Howard to see if he would trade his knife for cigarettes.

(I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this approach doesn't look like a guy who's looking to initiate a friendly bartering transaction)
View attachment 374146

“The defendant is not scared for his life. He didn’t retreat, he sauntered up — and he sauntered away after he stabbed someone. The defendant created the situation,” prosecutor Katherine Williams told the jury.

Edwards, who was acquitted on Oct. 31, has previous convictions for attempted second-degree assault in 2021, and was sentenced to three years in prison for a separate stabbing at a Portland light rail station in May 2020.

Note to self: Don't get victimized in Portland, juries will look for any reason to let the perp off the hook if certain "conditions" are met.

This looks a lot like Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Got anything showing the acquitted because of the slur? It is implied by the news posts but we both know sensationalism sells.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T08:08:00-0600

Belk said:
This looks a lot like Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Got anything showing the acquitted because of the slur? It is implied by the news posts but we both know sensationalism sells.

The Oregon local paper makes mention of:
An Old Town stabbing case ended in defeat for Multnomah County prosecutors once jurors learned the wounded man had been videoed uttering a racist slur in the struggle’s aftermath.

Prosecutor Katherine Williams recounted the altercation differently, saying it was irrelevant what the wounded man said after the fact and that Edwards was always “in control” during the altercation.

“The defendant is not scared for his life. He didn’t retreat, he sauntered up — and he sauntered away after he stabbed someone,” Williams told the jury. “The defendant created the situation.”

Here's a non paywalled version of that article

MSN

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

That particular defendant also had 2 prior assault charges on his record, one of which was also for an erratic stabbing on a transit platform.

And even the dude's appointed defense attorney said that it was that it was the "most relevant evidence" that helped his case.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T08:14:00-0600

Chesterton said:
One of the many problems with multiculturalism is that finding peers becomes increasingly harder.

In this case it's Portland, so I don't know how much the multiculturalism plays a factor in this one, unless we're counting the "Hipster scene" as it's own culture lol.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-08T08:14:25-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
The Oregon local paper makes mention of:
An Old Town stabbing case ended in defeat for Multnomah County prosecutors once jurors learned the wounded man had been videoed uttering a racist slur in the struggle’s aftermath.

Prosecutor Katherine Williams recounted the altercation differently, saying it was irrelevant what the wounded man said after the fact and that Edwards was always “in control” during the altercation.

“The defendant is not scared for his life. He didn’t retreat, he sauntered up — and he sauntered away after he stabbed someone,” Williams told the jury. “The defendant created the situation.”

Here's a non paywalled version of that article

MSN

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

That particular defendant also had 2 prior assault charges on his record, one of which was also for an erratic stabbing on a transit platform.

And even the dude's appointed defense attorney said that it was that it was the "most relevant evidence" that helped his case.

Now all you have to do is show that the guy was paid by George Soros and your argument will be complete.

Belk · 2025-12-08T08:23:01-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
The Oregon local paper makes mention of:
An Old Town stabbing case ended in defeat for Multnomah County prosecutors once jurors learned the wounded man had been videoed uttering a racist slur in the struggle’s aftermath.

Prosecutor Katherine Williams recounted the altercation differently, saying it was irrelevant what the wounded man said after the fact and that Edwards was always “in control” during the altercation.

“The defendant is not scared for his life. He didn’t retreat, he sauntered up — and he sauntered away after he stabbed someone,” Williams told the jury. “The defendant created the situation.”

Here's a non paywalled version of that article

MSN

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

That particular defendant also had 2 prior assault charges on his record, one of which was also for an erratic stabbing on a transit platform.

And even the dude's appointed defense attorney said that it was that it was the "most relevant evidence" that helped his case.

OK. That still does not substantiate the claim the jury acquitted because of this. Looks like more culture warrior rage bait to me.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T08:25:37-0600

BCP1928 said:
Now all you have to do is show that the guy was paid by George Soros and your argument will be complete.

What does Soros have to do with anything?

In fact, even if one was of that conspiratorial ilk who likes to blame "Soros backed prosecutors", I don't think it would fit with this case given that the prosecutor was trying to do the right thing and built an entirely reasonable case of this one.

- this guy has a history of doing this
- the video footage shows he wasn't in any physical danger, he approached and initiated the conflict while menacingly carrying a knife, and then calmly sauntered off after he stabbed the guy
- any words the victim may have said are irrelevant as that doesn't create a justification for use of force

That all sounds like a pretty standard prosecution approach, and one that in most other jurisdictions, would have been an open & shut case given that there was video evidence of him in the act.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T08:30:39-0600

Belk said:
OK. That still does not substantiate the claim the jury acquitted because of this. Looks like more culture warrior rage bait to me.

If both the prosecutor and the public defense attorney are both suggesting that was the key factor, I'm not sure what else can be provided.

But I'm willing to entertain alternative theories as to potential rationales for letting this guy off the hook. Can you think of any good reasons why this guy should have been acquitted?

The guy is on video approaching the other guy while menacing wielding a knife, initiates a conflict, stabs him in the shoulder, and then casually saunters off.

As far as "rage"...well, yeah, people should be more than a little miffed at the premise that someone can stab someone and get away with it.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-08T08:31:08-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
What does Soros have to do with anything?

Isn't he head of the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy American values?

ThatRobGuy said:
In fact, even if one was of that conspiratorial ilk who likes to blame "Soros backed prosecutors", I don't think it would fit with this case given that the prosecutor was trying to do the right thing and built an entirely reasonable case of this one.

- this guy has a history of doing this
- the video footage shows he wasn't in any physical danger, he approached and initiated the conflict while menacingly carrying a knife, and then calmly sauntered off after he stabbed the guy
- any words the victim may have said are irrelevant as that doesn't create a justification for use of force

That all sounds like a pretty standard prosecution approach, and one that in most other jurisdictions, would have been an open & shut case given that there was video evidence of him in the act.

So the jury was part of the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy American values but you are going to exonerate George Soros.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T08:36:23-0600

BCP1928 said:
Isn't he head of the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy American values?

So the jury was part of the cultural Marxist conspiracy to destroy American values but you are going to exonerate George Soros.

Like I told the other poster.

If you have any reasonable rationales for why this guy should've been acquitted, I'm all ears.

...but given the facts of the case, it sounds to me like a jury that has been conditioned to think "racism is the worst thing a person can engage in, even worse than a stabbing", and a judge that allowed a piece of information to be introduced that should've really been struck based on relevance due to the high potential for poisoning the well.

Belk · 2025-12-08T08:37:56-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
If both the prosecutor and the public defense attorney are both suggesting that was the key factor, I'm not sure what else can be provided.

But I'm willing to entertain alternative theories as to potential rationales for letting this guy off the hook. Can you think of any good reasons why this guy should have been acquitted?

The guy is on video approaching the other guy while menacing wielding a knife, initiates a conflict, stabs him in the shoulder, and then casually saunters off.

As far as "rage"...well, yeah, people should be more than a little miffed at the premise that someone can stab someone and get away with it.

I didn't see anyone suggest it was a key factor, they just addressed it as a part of the trial.

As far as other good reasons, yes I can think of many. Namely that the evidence was somehow lacking or there were other issues in the trial these news stories are not mentioning.

But let me ask you this. Would you acquit based simply on someone using a slur? If not why do you assume that others would find this a reasonable stance to take?

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T09:01:47-0600

Belk said:
I didn't see anyone suggest it was a key factor, they just addressed it as a part of the trial.

Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

I'd say that "most relevant" would count as "key" by contemporary definitions.

Belk said:
As far as other good reasons, yes I can think of many. Namely that the evidence was somehow lacking or there were other issues in the trial these news stories are not mentioning.

There's video evidence covering the lead-up, the actual event, and the aftermath, and the identities of the people in the video aren't in dispute as far as I know.

Some additional info from a different source:
Police body-camera video later recorded Howard using the N-word as officers intervened. Howard insisted he only said it after being stabbed. Edwards, however, testified that the slur came the moment Howard spotted him, and that he reacted.

“What other than racism could explain why Mr. Howard perceived hatred, animosity and aggression from a complete stranger?” defense attorney Daniel Small argued to jurors.

Edwards has past convictions including attempted second-degree assault in 2021 and served a three-year sentence for a separate stabbing at a Portland light-rail station in 2020. Another case against him, a fourth-degree assault charge involving a store clerk, was dismissed earlier this year due to a lack of available public defenders.

But you did touch on something interesting, you mentioned "additional details that these news stories aren't mentioning".

Are news media silos perhaps a bit of an issue here? Where if there's a story that ends up being somewhat unfavorable for an outlet's ideological bent, they ignore it and won't touch it with a 10 foot pole?

Belk said:
But let me ask you this. Would you acquit based simply on someone using a slur? If not why do you assume that others would find this a reasonable stance to take?

I personally would not, but there's a variety of public polling (that we can discuss if you like) that would suggest that there are other people who would.

Here's a very recent poll conducted by Harvard

Gen Z believes political violence may be justified in these instances—Poll

Nearly four in 10 Gen Zers believe political violence may at times be justified, according to a new poll.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/when-students-say-violence-is-justified-democracy-trembles/

One of the most disturbing findings from the Buckley Institute’s 2025 national college student survey is this: 39 percent of students agree with the statement, “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.”

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, "Violence is an appropriate response to hate speech" is not some fringe far left view.

Given the demographic make-up of Portland (it's a city that skews pretty young (median age is 34), and very left -- compared to many other major US cities), it's not wild to think that you could end up with a jury that's leaning in the direction of "violence is excusable against someone who's being a racist".

BCP1928 · 2025-12-08T09:14:48-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

I'd say that "most relevant" would count as "key" by contemporary definitions.

There's video evidence covering the lead-up, the actual event, and the aftermath, and the identities of the people in the video aren't in dispute as far as I know.

Some additional info from a different source:
Police body-camera video later recorded Howard using the N-word as officers intervened. Howard insisted he only said it after being stabbed. Edwards, however, testified that the slur came the moment Howard spotted him, and that he reacted.

“What other than racism could explain why Mr. Howard perceived hatred, animosity and aggression from a complete stranger?” defense attorney Daniel Small argued to jurors.

Edwards has past convictions including attempted second-degree assault in 2021 and served a three-year sentence for a separate stabbing at a Portland light-rail station in 2020. Another case against him, a fourth-degree assault charge involving a store clerk, was dismissed earlier this year due to a lack of available public defenders.

But you did touch on something interesting, you mentioned "additional details that these news stories aren't mentioning".

Are news media silos perhaps a bit of an issue here? Where if there's a story that ends up being somewhat unfavorable for an outlet's ideological bent, they ignore it and won't touch it with a 10 foot pole?

I personally would not, but there's a variety of public polling (that we can discuss if you like) that would suggest that there are other people who would.

Here's a very recent poll conducted by Harvard

Gen Z believes political violence may be justified in these instances—Poll

Nearly four in 10 Gen Zers believe political violence may at times be justified, according to a new poll.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/when-students-say-violence-is-justified-democracy-trembles/

One of the most disturbing findings from the Buckley Institute’s 2025 national college student survey is this: 39 percent of students agree with the statement, “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.”

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, "Violence is an appropriate response to hate speech" is not some fringe far left view.

No, it is the ancient legal principle of "fighting words doctrine."

ThatRobGuy said:
Given the demographic make-up of Portland (it's a city that skews pretty young (median age is 34), and very left -- compared to many other major US cities), it's not wild to think that you could end up with a jury that's leaning in the direction of "violence is excusable against someone who's being a racist".

How is that different than the view that violence against suspected drug smugglers clinging to the remains of their wrecked boat is an act of Christian virtue?

Belk · 2025-12-08T09:14:55-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Defense attorney Daniel Small said the most relevant evidence was recorded later, when security officers heard the wounded man shouting the racist slur and captured it on their body cameras as he described the incident.

I'd say that "most relevant" would count as "key" by contemporary definitions.

OK. So the defense thinks it relevant. Though no context as to how. Point conceded as far as the defense is concerned.

ThatRobGuy said:
There's video evidence covering the lead-up, the actual event, and the aftermath, and the identities of the people in the video aren't in dispute as far as I know.

Some additional info from a different source:
Police body-camera video later recorded Howard using the N-word as officers intervened. Howard insisted he only said it after being stabbed. Edwards, however, testified that the slur came the moment Howard spotted him, and that he reacted.

“What other than racism could explain why Mr. Howard perceived hatred, animosity and aggression from a complete stranger?” defense attorney Daniel Small argued to jurors.

Edwards has past convictions including attempted second-degree assault in 2021 and served a three-year sentence for a separate stabbing at a Portland light-rail station in 2020. Another case against him, a fourth-degree assault charge involving a store clerk, was dismissed earlier this year due to a lack of available public defenders.

Ok. Good to know there is video but that is not the totality of the evidence and it certainly does not override other pieces of evidence that might mitigate the circumstances.

ThatRobGuy said:
But you did touch on something interesting, you mentioned "additional details that these news stories aren't mentioning".

Are news media silos perhaps a bit of an issue here? Where if there's a story that ends up being somewhat unfavorable for an outlet's ideological bent, they ignore it and won't touch it with a 10 foot pole?

I would certainly say so. I have noticed that my more liberal news sources are going to same way some conservative ones have were they prefer narrative over facts. I try to have sources from multiple view points but it is getting harder.

ThatRobGuy said:
I personally would not, but there's a variety of public polling (that we can discuss if you like) that would suggest that there are other people who would.

Here's a very recent poll conducted by Harvard

Gen Z believes political violence may be justified in these instances—Poll

Nearly four in 10 Gen Zers believe political violence may at times be justified, according to a new poll.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.aei.org/society-and-culture/when-students-say-violence-is-justified-democracy-trembles/

One of the most disturbing findings from the Buckley Institute’s 2025 national college student survey is this: 39 percent of students agree with the statement, “If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.”

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, "Violence is an appropriate response to hate speech" is not some fringe far left view.

It may not be fringe but I don't think it is mainstream either.

ThatRobGuy said:
Given the demographic make-up of Portland (it's a city that skews pretty young (median age is 34), and very left -- compared to many other major US cities), it's not wild to think that you could end up with a jury that's leaning in the direction of "violence is excusable against someone who's being a racist".

Eh, I have a hard time finding this idea a reasonable conclusion. Admittedly I'm up in Seattle not down in Portland but I don't think we are THAT far apart in views. It just strikes me as being an unreasonable conclusion and it seems like there are much more likely reasons for why this person was acquitted then those being asserted by these articles. I would need significantly more evidence before I concede that this is a likely reason. :wave:

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-08T09:28:52-0600

BCP1928 said:
No, it is the ancient legal principle of "fighting words doctrine."

That just covers what is and isn't protected by the first amendment (though, SCOTUS has drastically narrowed its scope over time)

Meaning, what a government can charge you with, it doesn't govern the conduct of a private citizen with regards to their response to the words.

For instance, the old "fire in a crowded theater" analogy.

That directly causes a public disturbance of the peace, and the government can charge you for it without running afoul of the first amendment.

However, if a person does that, and I respond with "He just made that up to whip everyone up into a panic, and that makes me angry", and then punch him in the face, I would still be charged with assault.

So how that applies in this case:
If what the defendant said was true, and that other guy yelled the slur first (despite the video showing the defendant menacingly approaching him with knife in hand first, with the somewhat flimsy claim of "oh, I was just wanting to see if he would trade me some smokes for this knife)

But let's just assume the defendant was truthful about that.

That other guy yelling a slur, under the fighting words principle, would give the police the ability to cite/arrest him for public disturbance without violating his 1st amendment rights. It would not give the defendant the right to pursue him (closing a distance of what appears to be 20 feet) and stab him out of anger.

Even if he thought that a slur was indicative of an attack that "could" happen, Oregon has specific statutes governing use of defensive force

Understanding Oregon’s Stand Your Ground Laws: What You Need To Know | The Ashland Chronicle-Oregon

The concept of self-defense is a fundamental legal principle that provides individuals with the right to protect themselves from harm. However, navigating

theashlandchronicle.com

The impending threat has to be imminent
Responding force has to proportional
Duty to retreat is in play

The defendant ran afoul of all three of those (even if the slur was uttered before the conflict)

BCP1928 said:
How is that different than the view that violence against suspected drug smugglers clinging to the remains of their wrecked boat is an act of Christian virtue?

I can't speak for "Christian virtue"...I'd have to defer to a Christian on that.

However, that scenario (in general) isn't an apple-to-apples, because we're discussing conduct of private citizens, not a government's questionable exercising of military force against a foreign entity.

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

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads