Sources: Men Arrested Trying To Repaint Bedford Bike Lane
Call to Ban Carriage Horses, Close Stable
Video: Sad Subway Rant
Giuliani Takes Job As Security Consultant For Rio Olympics
Co-ed Dorm Rooms Coming To Columbia
The case of the mugging victim who killed a man he thought mugged him—but was actually just a bystander—is now with the jury. In January 2008, Maurice Parks was mugged by a group of attackers, who also stabbed him. Parks, experienced in martial arts, managed to chase them off but then ran into a man he thought was part of the attack and plunged his own knife into him; Flonarza Byas, who was stabbed 15 times, died. During closing arguments, the Daily News reports that prosecutors described Parks as a "judge, jury and executioner," bent on seeking revenge, while defense lawyer Anthony Ricco said Byas tragically walked into "a very dangerous situation." Ricco also claimed Parks didn't intend to kill, especially since he was on the phone with 911 (audio); Ricco mocked, "I'm gonna commit intentional murder, but let me get the police on the phone first. Hello, 911 ... hold on, let me commit this intentional murder."
Jury Decides Fate Of Mugging Victim Who Killed Bystander
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (17) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
the cops have busted the block of canal street near pearl paint.
I talked to them and they said that
[more]
How can you not intend to kill someone, and then stab the person 15 times?
Just throw the dude in jail already.
It's murder.
GUILTY! Even if it wasn't an innocent bystander he's still not justified stabbing to death one of the attackers after the fact.
Guilty, friend. Look, if you're experienced in martial arts, knock his ass down and sit on him until the police arrive. But for pity's sake, don't stab him 15 times!
http://gothamist.com/2008/01/11/after_four_men.php
It's interesting to see how changed the responses to this are, from those on the initial Gothamist article where commenters mostly cheered Parks on for defending himself, many stating what a shame it was that all four men involved weren't also killed.
His response seems like overkill, yes - 15 stab wounds? But he had just been stabbed in the stomach himself, brutally mugged, and thought this man was one of the men who did it. Who could claim they wouldn't do any different in that situation, if physically able? They attacked him, he defended. It's extremely sad that he killed an innocent man. But not malicious, and not intentional.
"It's interesting to see how changed the responses to this are, from those on the initial Gothamist article where commenters mostly cheered Parks on for defending himself"
Most of the comments to that post were written before the "update" was made, revealing that the person killed was a bystander and not a participant in the initial mugging. The question up to that point was whether he was still justified in killing one of his attackers even though so much time had passed. That changed, obviously, once it was clear that the victim was just that.
Wrong. It's not defending yourself when you're attacking an innocent. Once the attack is over, it's not defense, it's retribution. And unfortunately, this dimwit went after the wrong guy, probably because he was humiliated.
"Once the attack is over ... "?
Did somebody wave a white flag? Was there an announcer on scene to call the rounds? I'm not trying to say that how this turned out is anything less than a horrific tragedy, but Parks defended himself against the people actively mugging him, unfortunately including the man who stepped in - to help or by accident - and ended up dead. It would be retribution if he had been mugged and then later discovered the identities of his attackers, sought them out, and stabbed them. But he defended himself during a fight. I'd hardly say that even pursuing them when they began to lose that fight constitutes vigilante justice.
The whole situation is incredibly sad. But Parks hardly deserves to serve for murder.
"I'd hardly say that even pursuing them when they began to lose that fight constitutes vigilante justice."
You might say it doesn't. NYS law says different.
On the other hand, there is an affirmative defense to a murder charge (that is not a defense to a manslaughter charge), if the defendant was under emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. Up to the jury to decide whether that was the case.
Maybe the law should read that you can kill anyone within 500 feet of you getting mugged. Since emotional disturbance is always arbitrary.
"Parks defended himself against the people actively mugging him, unfortunately including the man who stepped in - to help or by accident - and ended up dead."
Uh... no. You clearly haven't followed this story.
The man who was killed didn't "step in" during the attack. Parks defended himself against his attackers, who left the scene. Parks called 911 to report the incident. While he was on that phone call Byas approached, and Parks stabbed him.
The killing did not occur while anyone "was actively mugging him."
Most people don't die quickly from slab wounds. It's no surprise to find someone stabbed over a dozen times. If the victim tried to protect himself with his arms, then the defensive cuts on his arms can count as stab wounds.
He had _just_ been stabbed and robbed himself and was not thinking rationally. He's guilty of some level of murder, but there are large mitigating circumstances. I'm with ak's post on this one.
guilty: second degree murder.
...prosecutors described Parks as a "judge, jury and executioner...
Self Defense is not murder. Maurice Parks had no way of knowing the innocent bystander was trying to help him. It's tragic, yes. Guilty of murder? Not likely—the 911 call is reasonable doubt.
"Guilty of murder? Not likely—the 911 call is reasonable doubt."
A person is guilty of second degree murder in NYS when "with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person."
That simple. The 911 call brings no reasonable doubt into the picture. Doubt of what? The only question was whether he intended to kill the person he stabbed 15 times.
"Self Defense is not murder."
Under NYS law, it certainly can be. All that factor, when it's the case, brings is an affirmative defense to the charge. But self defense (legally in this case, deadly physical force) isn't a defense under circumstances where the defendant could have simply retreated. So, since he was armed with a knife and the person he killed was unarmed... what prevented him from retreating, instead of killing?
If the jury puts emotion aside and looks at the letter of the law, he could certainly be convicted. The only way I can see that not happening is the "emotional disturbance" defense I mentioned above. His defense lawyer, from the news reports, is angling for that -- he'd just defended himself from a mugging in which he was at fear for his life.
What the content of the 911 call might be useful for is to help jurors evaluate that. Not a reasonable doubt argument, but: based on that call, was he "emotionally disturbed"?
Its sad
the victim turned someone else into a victim
its murder regardless..would have been different had it been one of the actual attackers..hopefully they see that he was under emotional stress etc and lower his sentence. I don't think he should just go away clean though..you gotta remember folks this other guy was innocent too.