Philly former Marine convicted for self-defense
Clint dropped off this link from the Philadelphia Inquirer about 57-year-old former Marine Jonathan Lowe who was convicted of manslaughter by a judge for defending himself with a knife despite Pennsylvania’s “Castle Doctrine”.
“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.
Yeah, I just don’t know how the judge arrived at that decision. Lowe was attacked by at least three men according to the article, and he gets slammed in court. Unless there’s something else the Inquirer isn’t reporting other than the judges’ statement that he has questions about what happened. Seems to me if he was unsure about the events, he’d have to rule in favor of the defendant.
Category: Legal
That Homeland Security bulletin has finally paid out in spades…
So a judge, a lawyer, decides the meatsack’s history isn’t germaine to the case.
The legal term is “Railroad.” It’s the hallmark of kangaroo courts.
We need judges who are not lawyers.
Lawyers defer to lawyers, and prefer such odd contortions of logic that prevent them from knowing simple things like right and wrong.
*sarcasm*
I’m certain The executive Power will step in (AG, e.g.) and correct this infamy .
“When he had his hands around my neck, I pulled out my knife and started stabbing him,” Lowe testified Wednesday.
This is manslaughter? There are no words.
Welcome to o fuck a baaa ville. Social justice is not blind and fair to military persons.
I am puzzled why, according to the article, it was a non-jury trial. WTF is that? He was on the street, not inside his home so the lefty leaning judge considered the victim’s military background (but not the assailant’s multi-page rap sheet) and assumed he was the aggressor. The victim has had two strokes and two heart surgeries, so he is not likely to have been the instigator! I would appeal this so fast and get it before a jury and different judge.
I have to believe that this verdict will be overturned upon appeal. I read the article earlier and was just gobsmacked at the outcome of this trial.
And the defendant did have the choice of having a jury or just the judge. Why he chose just the judge is beyond me.
I read awhile back that in our culture, we fear bladed weapons more than guns. They are seen as offensive, not defensive weapons, while we view guns as both. Perhaps a subconscious, unrecognized fear guided the judge’s ruling.
When will judges stop legislating from the bench?
Actually, I can understand that the background of the aggressor didn’t matter – when you have someone coming at you, attacking you, it really DOESN’T matter – all you need to know is that someone is threatening to do you bodily harm and is following through on that threat.
Lowe should have been given a medal for taking this serial criminal off the streets. THAT is where the history of the dead guy should come into play.
So, when someone is attacking you, this judge thinks that you need to select what you defend yourself with more carefully? Would a nearby rock have been OK? How about a baseball bat??
Since this judge seems to think that defending yourself against three attackers is not permissible, would it have been OK had there been four attackers?
“There is no greater indictment of judges than the fact that honest people are afraid to go into court, while criminals swagger out its revolving doors.” – Thomas Sowell
What is the definition of “arms” in our Second Amendment?
Is it synonymous with any weapon with which one ‘arms’ oneself?
Or is it only referring to a firearm?
What if the firearm were not chemical, but activated by electricity?
And I still believe that no judge in America should ever be a lawyer. There’s too much at stake just knowing right from wrong to leave anything at all to a lawyer.
Philly is in Pennsylvania. Apparently being offended allows you to attack someone without consequences in that state.
http://news.yahoo.com/penn-judge-muslims-allowed-attack-people-insulting-mohammad-210000330.html
I guess the judge here found that Lowe did something to offend his attackers. Perhaps Lowe was asked to “loan” his attackers some money and refused.
?No. 9:
The U.S. Constitution (Article. III.) makes it VERY EASY for Congress to re-do The Judiciary (national level) — IF THEY WISH TO .
My question is the judge elected or appoionted(Federal), I suspect the judge is elected and this is his last term.
Remind me not to visit Philadelphia because I always have a side-arm and K-bar in my Explorer. Although I guess you can shoot someone before they can get close enough to get their hands around your throat…oh, wait, I’m a Marine so I guess I’m already guilty.
It’s only a guess, but Lowe might have passed on a jury trial assuming that a judge would decide the case according to law whereas a jury might see the thugs as their neighbors and decide the case based on sympathy.
@16 – The state of Pennsylvania has repeatedly slapped Philly down when the mayor and city council thought they could make rules superseding state firearms laws. In addition, Pennsylvania has reciprocity agreements for concealed carry with several other states, so depending on where you’re from you might already be legal here. And yeah, the whole point of having a firearm is not letting the bad guys get close enough to put their hands on you.
One word question: Race?
I live in Philly and let me tell you, there are so many activist judges. Additionally the city has had to been dragged kicking and screaming over the states actual carry laws and time and again they try to squirm around it.
The transcripts of the trial would be an interesting read. I cannot fall on my sword until I see evidence of injustice. If the story as presented is factual, then he got the high hard one without lube. I am also curious regarding his options for appeal.
To those of you wondering why he chose the judge over a jury is a very valiant question. You first must understand he is a former military person. As a former military person you are instilled with trusting the system to work out for you in the end. If you want to read a bone-chilling, vivacious, and truthful account about the current condition of our veterans and how they are treated by the system then read this article from ZeroHedge:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-economic-abuse-veterans-america#comment-2543268
Loren Manning was 51 ytrs old & still jumping people? Aren’t you getting a little up there in years for that sort of activity? What? No new scams to perpetrate or stealing food stamps or maybe old ladies social security checks? C’mon man,
jumping people is dangerous entry level criminal work. Chances of getting shot or stabbed to death against a Hard Target is like 90%, and now look where you are – under 6 ft of dirt, and getting chewed on by worms. Think White Collar jobs man-not tangling with a grumpy former Marine. Too late for you Loren.