It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

He stabbed man 61 times, but acquitted of murder

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

He stabbed man 61 times, but acquitted of murder


www.suntimes.com

Joseph Biedermann fatally stabbed his Hoffman Estates neighbor 61 times last year.

On Friday, a Cook County jury acquitted him of first-degree murder, buying his claim that he was defending himself against an unwanted sexual advance, his mother confirmed Saturday.

Biedermann, 30, killed Terrance Michael Hauser, 38, early on March 5, 2008, in the Barrington Lakes apartment complex on Hassell Road, where they lived in separate units.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.advocate.com
joemygod.blogspot.com
www.chicagonow.com



Mod Edit: Altered thread title to reflect actual article headline.
Please review link: Breaking Alternative News guidelines


[edit on 7/27/2009 by maria_stardust]




posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Apparently Biedermann testified that the man, Michael Hauser "had a medieval dagger and a broadsword" that he "held against my throat."

I've never heard of the "gay panic" defense before, but this is supposedly written into the law books as a legitimate defense route. It was used in the Matthew Shepard case unsuccessfully.

Should this case be reviewed?



www.suntimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It should be reviewed and this nut-job should be sent to the grey-bar hotel, where he have a real reason to experience "gay panic". What ever happened to the days when were something like this to happen the guy would have blasted the gent and walked away?

This is right up there with the twinkie defense.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Gay panic? I think this guy just killed a gay guy and is using this as a excuse. Which is rediculous in the first place..

Also I never understood guys that think gay people are always hitting on them. I'm straight myself and have lived near san francisco my whole life for christ sakes and I have never been hit on! It might be because I'm always with my wife and kid, but still I've never been hit on! Maybe I'm ugly too, who knows? lol

Still though this is a REDICULOUS reason to get off of the hook for MURDERING another human being.

This guy should BURN. Unfortunately the scumbag won't. What a wonderful justice system we have... yeah, right.

If I was ever "hit on" I would politely tell them to stop and that I'm not gay, if they persist I'd tell them not so politely to stop, if they still persist I'll hit them! Not freaking kill them though, jees!


[edit on 27-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Is there a defense for straight women killing because of an unwanted sexual advance too?
Because if so there would be an awful lot of dead straight men around.
What a pathetic excuse.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Wasn't this a First 48 episode on A&E?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Hang him.

The world used to be a lot different place when there were public hangings. Of course, I guess back then they would have hung the gay guy.

Ok, so that's not going to work. But yeah, 61 times. I've followed this case for a couple weeks and it's very disturbing. It basically says it's ok to kill someone for being gay as long as you say they were hitting on you.

I suppose women should be allowed to kill all those drunk guys at the bar that keep hitting on THEM....

Barbaric.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GeechQuestInfo
 


If it was, the guy just got acquitted.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I think that the line between self-defense and belligerence is crossed after the first couple of stabbings, even if he was the "victim" of a sexual advancement. Acquitting a man that stabs someone 61 times on account of self-defense is completely a failure in the US justice system.

Reminds me of the OJ case, only OJ didn't stab someone 61 times. No, he kept it within a few stabbings like a good sportsman would.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


No kidding. I never would have made it out of high school alive. The folks who sat on this jury should be ashamed of themselves -- or at least the ones who voted to acquit



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
61 stabs is cold brutal murder straight up. 100%.

Look at the reality. Picture yourself stabbing someone in self defense.

Around stab 2 to 4, you are done. Self Defense accomplished.

Around stab 15-20, it is more like pure rage and extremely brutal, as your probably stabbing a flopping body.

Around stab 30-ish, he is most likely cold dead. And you are now repeatedly stabbing a corpse in a horrific way.

By stab 61, we know your a complete psychopath. There is no question at all.

61 times, just think about it.

There is something clearly wrong here. This guy is a cold cold brutal killer.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


No kidding. I never would have made it out of high school alive. The folks who sat on this jury should be ashamed of themselves -- or at least the ones who voted to acquit


I believe only 1 person has to vote to acquit, for it to be a hung jury.

Correct me if I am wrong.

But ya for sure, I would be calling mistrial here. But doesn't double jeopardy protect the crazy guy from re-prosecution?

[edit on 27-7-2009 by muzzleflash]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I'll tell you that if I were the prosecutor, I would come right back at this low-life with a charge of a hate crime. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in hate crime laws, but if it was on the books and I could use it to go after him, I'd do it



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I'm not sure that everyone here is looking at all the facts revealed in the article.

The man was acquitted of first-degree murder, which is only right if the jury found that he did not in fact commit first-degree murder. In most states, I believe the jury cannot find guilt of a lesser crime, like manslaughter or second-degree murder.

What the jury ruled on was the fact that the murder was not premeditated. They also apparently agreed that the use of deadly force was justified as the victim was said to have threatened the defendant, although I'm not clear on that count myself.

This is why prosecutors are so careful about how they charge someone alleged to have committed a crime.

If the jury cannot find beyond reasonable doubt that a person committed the crime they are charged with, they have to acquit.

If you have to lay the blame on anyone, it should be the prosecution.


reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I believe that the number of stab wounds is irrelevant, except that it does show that the act was one of passion. In law enforcement parlance, I believe they call it overkill.

[edit on 2009/7/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
It may be irrelevant to our screwed up failure of a justice system.

But in terms of Right and Wrong. You can tell this is psychopathic.

This is like me shooting a guy with 8 clips full of bullets. Makes no sense.

Each strike is a calculated attack. It burns calories, requires energy, hell I know I would be tired around stab 8. No matter how pissed I was.

He clearly was butchering a dead corpse after 30-40 stabs.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


With all due respect, muzzleflash, I'm not sure that you understand the term psychopathic and I don't think that you are judging on the basis of the facts as they were presented to the jury.

Besides, mutilating a corpse would be a different crime. One that he was not charged with.

I don't know what happened. I only know what the article said and having served on a grand jury for three months, I had a chance to learn a lot about how the system works.

It's not perfect, but the way it is goes a long way toward keeping the prosecution honest.

In this case, the prosecution should have charged the defendant with a lesser charge.

He'd probably be in prison by now.

[edit on 2009/7/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeasahtheseer
Also I never understood guys that think gay people are always hitting on them. I'm straight myself and have lived near san francisco my whole life for christ sakes and I have never been hit on! It might be because I'm always with my wife and kid, but still I've never been hit on! Maybe I'm ugly too, who knows? lol


Yep the wife and kids would do it, basically I'm not gay either but I have had an upbringing that means I am polite and usually interested in all people and what they have to say - add to that a few sales jobs and I do have a tendency to be naturally interested in what people have to say.

When I find my self on my own talking to a guy who comes out and says he is gay I basically set the line in the sand.... 9.9 times out of 10 it's something to laugh about.

But that 1 in a 100 can get pretty creepy - and to be honest I have not been in the above situation 100 times but I have felt uncomfortable more than once - Now I know that's because of the way I tend to wonder away from the herd and talk to strangers - that's because I am confident enough in my self to handle most 'everyday' situations...

But (and this is a huge but) there are people of any sexual persuasion who really wont let the line drop - Some times saying * off don't get through... I can personally vouch for one person who would of hit the floor while I was on my toes had things been slightly different.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ironspy
 


There was an episode of Squid Billies like this.. where the main character said "He was given' me the eye!" And he got let go free off his warrant.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
This definately doesn't sound like a case of self defense, stabbing someone 61 times is overkill and not usually what someone does when attempting to defend themselves from and escape a rapist. What it sounds like to me is pure rage. Not rage over what someone attempted to do to him, but rather what someone did to him.


The jury in Biedermann's case found the claim of self-defense reasonable, in spite of testimony that Biedermann never called 911 from the apartment, did not want to go to the hospital for his own injuries, and refused to call police when his girlfriend asked him to. He made no mention of any sexual assault to officers who interviewed him at the hospital.



You wake up, and the friendly neighbor is now brandishing a dagger and trying to sexually assault you.


Sounds more like when he woke up the neighbor had already, or was in the act of sexually assualting him. I think that would have drove him into a rage that would lead him to stab the guy 61 times. Could be he's too embarressed to tell people that he was raped by another man.

edit to add link....

www.chicagonow.com...

[edit on 7/28/2009 by chise61]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Was the dead guy making a pass at him, or trying to "force" the issue.

I have no problem with gay dudes (some of the best smoke I ever bought was from gay people) but if someone ever tries to pry open my Hershey highway forcibly I may be forced to cripple or kill them.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join