Jason Lewis who killed Karon Blake convicted of manslaughter

[Anonymous]

Jason Lewis who killed 13 year old car thief Karon Blake is convicted of land but not second degree murder.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/split-verdict-reached-after-dc-man-killed-13-year-old-he-suspected-of-car-break-ins/3696034/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jason Lewis who killed 13 year old car thief Karon Blake is convicted of land but not second degree murder.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/split-verdict-reached-after-dc-man-killed-13-year-old-he-suspected-of-car-break-ins/3696034/

pretty messed up. there's a crew going around breaking into cars in the dead of the night. to me its like he should have had this guy teaching him in school.

[Anonymous]

This is probably the right outcome. On the news last night they said that Lewis had been shot at first, so I thought it was a no-brainer that he was within his rights to return fire. But this report makes it sound like the gunshot was a fabrication at trial with no support or evidence (he never mentioned it to dispatch or the police, or anyone until he got on the stand). If I were on the jury I probably would have come to the same conclusion - didn't act with malice aforethought but the shooting was intentional and illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the right outcome. On the news last night they said that Lewis had been shot at first, so I thought it was a no-brainer that he was within his rights to return fire. But this report makes it sound like the gunshot was a fabrication at trial with no support or evidence (he never mentioned it to dispatch or the police, or anyone until he got on the stand). If I were on the jury I probably would have come to the same conclusion - didn't act with malice aforethought but the shooting was intentional and illegal.

Legally, I'm not sure it makes sense. Either self defense applies or it doesn't. And if self defense doesn't apply, then why not second degree? He shot at the kid. The gun didn't go off by itself, he didn't shoot into the sky. And the kid was running towards him, the police confirmed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the right outcome. On the news last night they said that Lewis had been shot at first, so I thought it was a no-brainer that he was within his rights to return fire. But this report makes it sound like the gunshot was a fabrication at trial with no support or evidence (he never mentioned it to dispatch or the police, or anyone until he got on the stand). If I were on the jury I probably would have come to the same conclusion - didn't act with malice aforethought but the shooting was intentional and illegal.

Legally, I'm not sure it makes sense. Either self defense applies or it doesn't. And if self defense doesn't apply, then why not second degree? He shot at the kid. The gun didn't go off by itself, he didn't shoot into the sky. And the kid was running towards him, the police confirmed that.

You're confusing elements of the crimes (2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter) with defense to the charges (self defense). Self defense clearly did *not* apply or he would not have been convicted of either. Someone running toward you doesn't excuse deadly force. If the jury believed he had been shot at by the person in the car, he would likely have been excused but that seems not to have been a convincing argument since he changed his story at the last minute. The jury found that the crime rose to the level of manslaughter (unlawful, intentional shooting) but not 2d degree murder (malice aforethought).

[Anonymous]

JFC. 12 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JFC. 12 years old.

He was 13 years old and in 6th grade. Already riding around in a stolen car, breaking into cars at 2am. Poor kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC. 12 years old.

He was 13 years old and in 6th grade. Already riding around in a stolen car, breaking into cars at 2am. Poor kid.

If he hadn't done it already, it was only a matter of time before this "kid" hurt someone. This was a violent criminal in the making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC. 12 years old.

He was 13 years old and in 6th grade. Already riding around in a stolen car, breaking into cars at 2am. Poor kid.

If he hadn't done it already, it was only a matter of time before this "kid" hurt someone. This was a violent criminal in the making.

You make it sound like he deserved to die.

Shame on you. I wish for terrible things to happen to you this week for thinking like that. May someone you love die or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC. 12 years old.

He was 13 years old and in 6th grade. Already riding around in a stolen car, breaking into cars at 2am. Poor kid.

If he hadn't done it already, it was only a matter of time before this "kid" hurt someone. This was a violent criminal in the making.

You make it sound like he deserved to die.

Shame on you. I wish for terrible things to happen to you this week for thinking like that. May someone you love die or something.

good job now you’re awful too!

[Anonymous]

I think people’s anger about this is because it feels like they’re coming down hard on this guy, who is kind of the end of the line, but not doing anything about all the missed opportunities and failures along the way that means gangs of 12 year olds are out driving stolen cars in the night.

I trust the court and jury to decide if this was manslaughter, but aggressive vigilantes seems like a small DC problem where kids stealing and car jacking cars is a much bigger problem with a much higher body count. That’s why people are angry, because they feel like the attention is on the wrong problem, not because they want teens to be shot.

The way the mother lets herself off the hook in her quotes is insane to me. I would kill myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people’s anger about this is because it feels like they’re coming down hard on this guy …

(snip)

[F]ailures along the way that means gangs of 12 year olds are out driving stolen cars in the night.

(snip)

That’s why people are angry, because they feel like the attention is on the wrong problem, not because they want teens to be shot.

This describes me, a 30-year resident of the District and lifelong Dem voter.

My never-say-out-loud thoughts drift toward wishing that we could return to the time when the state could more easily remove kids like the deceased from his obviously sick home/parent and place him in a demonstrably healthier environment like Boys and Girls Town in Omaha or Hershey School

I personally know one such young man, moved from Baltimore at 11. Transformative for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the right outcome. On the news last night they said that Lewis had been shot at first, so I thought it was a no-brainer that he was within his rights to return fire. But this report makes it sound like the gunshot was a fabrication at trial with no support or evidence (he never mentioned it to dispatch or the police, or anyone until he got on the stand). If I were on the jury I probably would have come to the same conclusion - didn't act with malice aforethought but the shooting was intentional and illegal.

Legally, I'm not sure it makes sense. Either self defense applies or it doesn't. And if self defense doesn't apply, then why not second degree? He shot at the kid. The gun didn't go off by itself, he didn't shoot into the sky. And the kid was running towards him, the police confirmed that.

You're confusing elements of the crimes (2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter) with defense to the charges (self defense). Self defense clearly did *not* apply or he would not have been convicted of either. Someone running toward you doesn't excuse deadly force. If the jury believed he had been shot at by the person in the car, he would likely have been excused but that seems not to have been a convincing argument since he changed his story at the last minute. The jury found that the crime rose to the level of manslaughter (unlawful, intentional shooting) but not 2d degree murder (malice aforethought).

I wasn't confusing elements, I was writing about both. Self defense seems reasonable here. The kid was running towards him and when the kid got to him, realistically, what was the kid going to do? Ask for a cup of sugar? But if self defense did not apply, as apparently the jury found it did not, then the facts support 2nd degree. He shot at the kid, intending to hit him and stop him. This wasn't like Rust where there was no intention to shoot. It seems like the jury was mad that the kid died but sympathetic towards the homeowner so they split the difference and picked the lesser of the two charges. That may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't feel like justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably the right outcome. On the news last night they said that Lewis had been shot at first, so I thought it was a no-brainer that he was within his rights to return fire. But this report makes it sound like the gunshot was a fabrication at trial with no support or evidence (he never mentioned it to dispatch or the police, or anyone until he got on the stand). If I were on the jury I probably would have come to the same conclusion - didn't act with malice aforethought but the shooting was intentional and illegal.

Legally, I'm not sure it makes sense. Either self defense applies or it doesn't. And if self defense doesn't apply, then why not second degree? He shot at the kid. The gun didn't go off by itself, he didn't shoot into the sky. And the kid was running towards him, the police confirmed that.

You're confusing elements of the crimes (2nd degree murder vs. manslaughter) with defense to the charges (self defense). Self defense clearly did *not* apply or he would not have been convicted of either. Someone running toward you doesn't excuse deadly force. If the jury believed he had been shot at by the person in the car, he would likely have been excused but that seems not to have been a convincing argument since he changed his story at the last minute. The jury found that the crime rose to the level of manslaughter (unlawful, intentional shooting) but not 2d degree murder (malice aforethought).

I wasn't confusing elements, I was writing about both. Self defense seems reasonable here. The kid was running towards him and when the kid got to him, realistically, what was the kid going to do? Ask for a cup of sugar? But if self defense did not apply, as apparently the jury found it did not, then the facts support 2nd degree. He shot at the kid, intending to hit him and stop him. This wasn't like Rust where there was no intention to shoot. It seems like the jury was mad that the kid died but sympathetic towards the homeowner so they split the difference and picked the lesser of the two charges. That may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't feel like justice.

Perhaps the jury was concerned that the video from Lewis’ surveillance camera was missing data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people’s anger about this is because it feels like they’re coming down hard on this guy …

(snip)

[F]ailures along the way that means gangs of 12 year olds are out driving stolen cars in the night.

(snip)

That’s why people are angry, because they feel like the attention is on the wrong problem, not because they want teens to be shot.

This describes me, a 30-year resident of the District and lifelong Dem voter.

My never-say-out-loud thoughts drift toward wishing that we could return to the time when the state could more easily remove kids like the deceased from his obviously sick home/parent and place him in a demonstrably healthier environment like Boys and Girls Town in Omaha or Hershey School

I personally know one such young man, moved from Baltimore at 11. Transformative for him.

+1

The quote from his mother that he was ‘the man of the house’ is telling.