Disparity of Force.... ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

carebear

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
4,373
Location
Anchorage, AK
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060709/NEWS/607090487

Dropped charges infuriate family
Man accused of manslaughter goes free

By ANTHONY CORMIER

[email protected]

BRADENTON -- Ervin Barfield feels dejected, enraged and absolutely helpless.

His dad is dead, the 25-year-old man once accused of killing him is free, and the prosecutors handling the case "just didn't do their jobs," Barfield said.

Prosecutors dropped charges this week against Jamaal Lambert, 25, who had been arrested on a manslaughter charge in the death of James Barfield, his 72-year-old landlord.

They said Lambert acted in self-defense when he repeatedly struck Barfield during a scuffle May 10 outside an apartment complex in downtown Bradenton, according to court records released this week.

"I really don't understand what happened or why," Ervin Barfield said last week after learning that prosecutors dropped the manslaughter count.

Lambert, who had been held in the Manatee County jail on a $250,000 bail, has been released from custody but could not immediately be reached. State records show Lambert twice spent time in prison on burglary charges.

The dropped charge was sharply criticized by James Barfield's family, who called the decision "ridiculous" and vowed to press state officials until they reconsider.

While the state attorney's office has declined to pursue the case, Ervin Barfield said he will push state and local law enforcement officials to intercede. It could be difficult to sway the state attorney's office, although Bradenton police officials are scheduled to meet with prosecutors next week.

While state charges are the responsibility of local prosecutors, the decision could be reversed at the behest of the governor or a grand jury.

"It's absurd," said Ervin Barfield, whose father died two weeks after the May 10 fight. "I mean, c'mon -- a 72-year-old man against a 25-year-old guy? I don't see where self-defense comes into it."

There was certainly a physical mismatch, as the 6-foot-7, 240-pound Lambert emerged unscathed while the 5-2, 100-pound Barfield was later hospitalized with a broken jaw, injured eye and swollen brain.

Despite the injuries, however, prosecutors said their conclusion was predicated on three factors: Barfield had a loaded gun, he made a series of racial slurs at Lambert, and a witness lied to detectives in an attempt to portray Lambert as a robber.

Prosecutors said Barfield was known to carry a loaded pistol in his truck and had previously fired it at a Latino man whom Barfield had called racist names.

Racial slurs were a major factor this time, as prosecutors believe Barfield -- who had threatened Lambert in the past -- unleashed a string of vulgarities as he chased the tenant around a parked car.


"Get off my property, you (racial epithet)," yelled Barfield, who is white.

"Don't call me that," demanded Lambert, who is black.

According to the prosecutors' report:

Barfield, who owned the apartment, was enraged that Lambert was staying at his girlfriend's home without paying rent. He then jabbed a finger at Lambert, who slapped the landlord in the face.

Barfield took a wild swing back, missed and fell to the ground. Another epithet led to another slap by Lambert until the woman Barfield had been visiting interceded.

It is this woman's testimony that could have propelled a criminal case, but it slowly deteriorated during interviews with detectives to the point that it destroyed her credibility and the manslaughter charge along with it, prosecutors said.

The woman initially told detectives that Lambert ran upstairs and handed her $1,700 in cash -- leading to a robbery charge when authorities accused the tenant of stealing the money from Barfield. When that claim was disproved, the robbery count was dropped, and her account of the fistfight soon began to unravel.

"Despite the best efforts of the Bradenton Police Department to locate witnesses," wrote Assistant State Attorney Angel Colonneso, "there are no independent witnesses to what transpired between the defendant and the victim."

What, then, of the landlord's injuries?

Neither prosecutors nor a preliminary autopsy report indicated that the fight caused Barfield's death, and the state attorney's office report said that he developed pneumonia while in the hospital.

The pneumonia, prosecutors claim, was the cause of death.

But Ervin Barfield isn't so sure. Saying that his father "looked like he had been dragged to death," Ervin Barfield was incredulous that prosecutors had labeled his father a violent, boozing racist.

The next move could be taken by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or the Bradenton police, two agencies that Barfield has consulted in recent days. Barfield hopes officials at either agency can sway local prosecutors to bring charges anew -- although he acknowledged that a change in course could be a longshot.

"Anybody who knew my father knew he could get along with everyone," Barfield said. "He was one of the nicest guys in the world. When I first heard they were going to drop the charges, I just couldn't believe it.

"All of a sudden they say they don't have enough evidence? That's just ridiculous."
 
Looks like it might be a good call by the prosecutors. Weird, but good.

Two lessons learned right off.

If you have the gun, don't be the aggressor in reality or appearance.

Don't be an obvious racist. Even if you believe that idiocy, get the buzzwords out of your language, it can only make you look bad whether you are in the right or wrong in a particular situation.
 
I agree with carebear.

Normally, I would be on the property owner's side, but he sounds like a bitter old man, that let his anger get the better of him, and got killed for it when he went up against a man who was gigantic compared to him.
 
I am amazed that it made it this far through the system. Nevermind the fact that the old man seems to have started/escalated/coninued the fight, even if you dont think the 25y.o. was justified it doesnt really matter since it doesnt really seem that his death had anything to do with the fight.


Neither prosecutors nor a preliminary autopsy report indicated that the fight caused Barfield's death, and the state attorney's office report said that he developed pneumonia while in the hospital.

It sure sounds like this over-extended himself by trying to slap someone around and died in the hospital. This is one of those rare cases where a person's bitterness actually led directly to their own demise.
 
So a crazy old guy goes around calling a giant black guy the n-word and gets slapped when he pokes him with his finger. He overexerts himself trying to return the slap and then a few weeks later he dies of apparently unrelated causes.

Where is the crime?
 
he dies of apparently unrelated causes.

But he didn't die of unrelated causes. He died as a result of one of the complications of his injuries, hence the manslaughter charge.

With that said, I am not sure the landlord isn't the bad guy in the story, presence of a gun and racial slurs aside. If the landlord had an illegal tenant, he should have gone through legal eviction proceedings.
 
But he didn't die of unrelated causes. He died as a result of one of the complications of his injuries, hence the manslaughter charge.

Noooo..... He died of pneumonia, which I don't believe is a complication of a broken jaw and a concussion. At most, Lambert might be guilty of assault, but so was Barfield. I doubt any jury would convict under those circumstances.

Under civil law, you could argue "But for" the fact that Barfield was hospitalized by Lambert's punch, he wouldn't have contracted pneumonia and died, but I somehow doubt the civil jury would be any more anxious to reward the family of a racist troublemaker than a criminal jury would.
 
There are a ton of questions I have that aren't answered in this article. Such as

Barfield, who owned the apartment, was enraged that Lambert was staying at his girlfriend's home without paying rent.

Was there a "No overnight visitors" or "no visitors with a criminal record" clause in the lease agreement? Was the rent paid up to date? If the answers are no, no and yes respectively what right did he have to tell her who could be in her apartment?

Neither prosecutors nor a preliminary autopsy report indicated that the fight caused Barfield's death, and the state attorney's office report said that he developed pneumonia while in the hospital.

This is common with the elderly. Long hospital stays result in ailments that normally wouldn't have occurred. If the kid hadn't beat him up he wouldn't have been in the hospital. He indirectly caused his death which in my book means he bears some responsibility, wether there's any legal responsibility is another issue. And that's assuming the original incident wasn't self defense.

Despite the injuries, however, prosecutors said their conclusion was predicated on three factors: Barfield had a loaded gun, he made a series of racial slurs at Lambert, and a witness lied to detectives in an attempt to portray Lambert as a robber.

Did he threaten him with the gun? Did he even display the gun? You can't knock someone around just because they had a gun. Granted he appears to have had it on him but that doesn't mean Lambert was at any risk of being shot. I would shudder to think that someone I get in a dispute with can stomp me into the ground just because I have a gun. If he didn't threaten to use it how is it a justification for slapping him around?
And since when is an insult(or many insults) justification for beating someone up? So he was a racist, so he was mean, so he may have been off his rocker, does that justify assaulting him?
And what does the third factor have to do with the assault(or lack there of) at all? If someone lies about why I beat someone up I get off free?

He then jabbed a finger at Lambert, who slapped the landlord in the face.

Jabbed a finger at him? Does that mean the finger contacted Lambert's body or not? If it did than I suppose slapping him may be a natural response. If it didn't than it sounds to me like he pointed at him.

The bottom line is, did he threaten him with the gun? I don't see a clear answer in the article. If he threatened him with the gun than by all means defend yourself. If he didn't I don't see how a 25 year old should have had any trouble getting away from a 72 year old. If you aren't in mortal danger walk away. Call the cops and tell them you have a raving lunatic chasing you around. May have even had a civil suit if he had jabbed him with a finger. Juries are typically unsympathetic when obvious racism is involved.
 
This is one of those rare cases where a person's bitterness actually led directly to their own demise.

Yeah. Usually it seems that simply BEING a bitter, mean old man buys you another 10 years.:D
 
There's really no way to tell what happened. The dead guy isn't saying. The young black guy would understandably say anything to stay out of prison. And the girlfriend has apparently said contradictory things and is discredited.

Maybe the old guy was a racist jerk who started a fight and got what he deserved. Maybe something entirely different happened. There's no way to tell. Which means there's no way to convict. Which means the DA shouldn't waste tax payer money on a trial.

Lesson learned, if you're carrying a gun and you die, you can never tell your side of the story. The other guy can say anything he wants to about how it was all your fault and he was just defending himself.

Bottom line, try not to die.
 
I know it's un-PC of me, but I really think that using a racial slur doesn't warrant the death penalty.

It also shouldn't be a factor in wether or not charges are pressed.

Despite the injuries, however, prosecutors said their conclusion was predicated on three factors: Barfield had a loaded gun, he made a series of racial slurs at Lambert, and a witness lied to detectives in an attempt to portray Lambert as a robber.

So if someone used a racial slur against me that's justification to not charge me with a related crime?

There were plenty of other reasons to not charge him, this should have NEVER been listed as one of them.

Does this mean that being insulted can be used as a defense?

"Your honor I plead not guilty on the grounds that the dude I killed insulted me."
 
It also shouldn't be a factor in wether or not charges are pressed.

It could be, if the use of racial slurs is one factor that shows why a defendant was defending himself vs. starting a fight.

However, in the case of a 100 lb. senior vs. a HUGE young man, I don't see how any language could be relevant to that. And the fact that he carries a gun IN HIS TRUCK isn't either.
 
It could be, if the use of racial slurs is one factor that shows why a defendant was defending himself vs. starting a fight.

It shows that the "victim" is definitely being verbally abusive and aggressive but it doesn't show any physical threat. If I'm on a jury I want to hear that his body or weapon was physically used with the intention of causing you harm. Or he threatened to physically harm you. I don't care if he insulted you. It's part of the story of the buildup to an assault but it isn't an assault.

Barfield had a loaded gun

They never state if it was on him or in the truck. This is very relevant information. If it's in the truck it's a non-issue. If it's on his person it's an issue but I don't believe you are justified in assaulting someone just because you are in a dispute and they are carrying. If he mentioned the gun that could be taken as a threat but there is nothing in the article to indicate that occurred.

Prosecutors said Barfield was known to carry a loaded pistol in his truck and had previously fired it at a Latino man whom Barfield had called racist names.

And what's the deal with this incident? He fired at someone that he insulted. Ok, was it justified? Did the man give him a reason to fire at him? If so than this incident means nothing to the matter at hand. If not why wasn't he charged with trying to kill someone for no reason?
 
My conclusion is that this reporter stinks at his job and really needs to focus on getting more details on future stories.

We will never know what really happened. From what is there the prosecutor is likely doing the right thing. This incident likely would never have occurred if the old man wasn't such a blatant racist. It appears that Lambert's 2 blows were a reactionary response to being poked and swung at. The fact that he slapped him and didn't close fisted blast the guy leads me to believe he didn't intend to do serious harm. Difference in size combined with age lead to the seriousness of the injuries.
 
Did he threaten him with the gun? Did he even display the gun? You can't knock someone around just because they had a gun. Granted he appears to have had it on him but that doesn't mean Lambert was at any risk of being shot.

No, but the fact that the dead man had a pistol on his person and DIDNT draw it would lead one to believe that *he* didnt feel that Lambert was threatening him with death or great bodily harm.
 
The article said the old man had a gun, and laid further credit to that by saying he was known to drive around with a gun AND had previously shot @ a hispanic man. The article also said the old man chased the young guy around a car in the parking lot, as if the young guy were trying to avoid a confrontation. Him staying w/his girlfriend is a separate CIVIL issue he as a landlord needs to take his tenant to court for like rational ppl do. As a tenent, she can have ne one over she chooses if there is no clause prohibiting it in her contract because the landlord gives up certain property when he chooses to have renters. It sounds like the old man's problem with the young guy was racial.

The racial slur is a word that is offensive language that can incite an immediate reaction, as are the previous threats the landlord made. That is NOT protected speech according to the US Supreme Court, and in many states is illegal as a public disturbance.

The landlord poking the young guy in the chest is a grevious tactical error on the old guys part, and I would have slapped him too. No one has to take that. The old guy pushed a bad situation by attempting to swing at the young man. He got slapped again. Old men can cause damage too, and no where is it written that old men are exempt from battery laws.

If the young guy really was a bad guy, he probably would have beaten the crap out of the old guy. As it was, he slapped him twice as a reaction. It sounds like the old guy picked the fight. It's not clear who the witness is, but she should face some false reporting charges for such wontonly bogus allegations.
 
The racial slur is a word that is offensive language that can incite an immediate reaction, as are the previous threats the landlord made. That is NOT protected speech according to the US Supreme Court, and in many states is illegal as a public disturbance.

Really?

So if someone calls me something offensive, I can haul off and slug him in the face, so he dies of his injuries, and that's okay?

The fact that a word is not "protected speech" (a perverse interpretation of the 1st Amendment if I've ever heard one BTW, even if SCOTUS ruled that way) doesn't mean that its use creates "protected assault and battery."
 
Armed Bear, there are numerous court precedents about "provocative language". A blow or slap has been excused in court as an accused's response to certain name-calling. That provocation does not excuse a thorough thrashing, though.

And some of us Old Farts are more fragile than we think we are. Osteoporosis, for instance; Barfield apparently had yet to do the "fall down, break a hip" thing.

:), Art
 
A blow or slap has been excused in court as an accused's response to certain name-calling

Got a list of words?

That would be good to know!

I wonder if a good law librarian could help put together a chart showing words and the levels of assault and battery they would excuse.

Something like...

"Jerk-off": Slap in face, once, medium force.
"Honky": Hard punch in gut, once.
"Beaner": Shallow stabbing, in non-vital area.
"Breeder": Uncontrollable laughter is excused, but not assault.
"Towelhead": Suicide bombing, no shrapnel. Shrapnel is aggravating circumstance and will result in prosecution.

Seriously, I wonder what the exact details look like.:cool:

(No offense meant to anyone, BTW. I do not condone racism. Some in family experienced some mild forms of racism, too, in the '30s and '40s, but the Nazis didn't really need any epithets. They just called people, "Jew," and hauled them away. And yes I do think too many Americans are pussified and have awfully thin skin, with the court's blessing.)
 
In response to armed bear...

Armed Bear, since we both live in the great state of California, let me give you an example...

You and I, for whatever reason, have a verbal altercation. Say I'm black, and u call me the n-word or something. Say I punch you in the face. In Cali, I would be guilty of PC 242, Battery. You would be guilty of PC 415(3) which states:
"Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate, violent reaction."

That section exists because of the supreme court ruling. It also applies to stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theater and whatnot. There is no such thing as absolute rights. Society has little tolerance for ppl who go around using offensive language like the old man in this scenario.

But, the young man didn't slap the guy twice because the old man called him the n-word. The old man chased the young guy, had a gun, called him racial slurs, and then poked the young guy in the chest. Then the old guy got slapped. Then, the old guy tried to punch the young guy, and got slapped again.

If you are the aggressor in the fight and you die from complications of old age because you are the aggressor, that's on you. Manslaughter really can't be charged here because I'm guessing the young guys intent was nothing more than trying to leave the situation and protect himself. If the young guy had the intent to thoroughly thrash the old guy and did so, and made no attempt to retreat, and the old guy died, that would be more in the realm of manslaughter.
 
more..

oh yeah, I forgot. Another reason for sections like PC 415 is so that someone can't provoke a battery, then hide behind law and say..."Well it's not against the law to call someone vial, hateful things." The offensive language can definately mitigate a battery charge, especially if it can be shown the batterer was very much provoked by the batteree. No foul until someone gets punched doesn't make much sense.

Armed Bear, I agree with you that in some respects Americans are pussified. But these days, more and more, someone wants to provoke a fight, then when the fight starts and they relaize they've bitten off more than they can chew, they pull a knife or gun, or call a bunch of their homies. Fair fight are really rare these days.
 
chris-

If the situation had been as you described, then you'd be right. But it did not. Not even close.

I quote:

the 6-foot-7, 240-pound Lambert emerged unscathed while the 5-2, 100-pound Barfield was later hospitalized with a broken jaw, injured eye and swollen brain.

There was no reason for Lambert to believe that Barfield's words were a genuine threat. If a huge, 240 pound man makes aggressive moves towards a 100 pound man and uses "offensive language", then the 100 pound man can reasonably construe that as a threat. When it's vice versa, as it was in this case, the 240 pound man can reasonably be expected to laugh, call the little old man something offensive, and block his weak blows.

It is no longer legal to duel when one feels insulted. Self-defense is very different from duelling.

You wrote that Barfield had a gun, but all the article says is:

Barfield was known to carry a loaded pistol in his truck

That doesn't make him a threat in the situation described, because he didn't "have a gun." If he'd have gone to his truck to get the gun, or if Lambert thought that's what he was doing, that would be different entirely. But we have no reason to believe that this was the scenario.

Did Lambert MEAN to kill him? No.

But is a little old man using a racial slur against a huge, young man remotely similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? No, it is not. "Fire" is a genuine threat. There was no reason for Lambert to feel threatened in this case, unless there is more information.

I'm not an attorney. However, I was on a jury for a case involving these issues. Both sides claimed that slurs (involving race, gender, and sexual orientation) were used by the other side. Ultimately, we decided that we had no choice but to forget about the words and try to figure out who assaulted whom first and why. It ended up a hung jury.
 
response to armed bear

since you want to quote the article, it actually says:

"Despite the injuries, however, prosecutors said their conclusion was predicated on three factors: [B]Barfield had a loaded gun, he made a series of racial slurs at Lambert,[/B] and a witness lied to detectives in an attempt to portray Lambert as a robber.

Prosecutors said Barfield was known to carry a loaded pistol in his truck and had previously fired it at a Latino man whom Barfield had called racist names.

Racial slurs were a major factor this time, as prosecutors believe Barfield -- who had threatened Lambert in the past -- unleashed a string of vulgarities as he chased the tenant around a parked car."


Who are you to make assumptions about the young guys state of mind? The law does not state that there has to be a lethal threat for a threat to be construed. That is ridiculus. The old guy became a threat when he pursued the young man, called him vulgarities, was armed with a gun and struck first.

The young man does not forfit HIS right to self defense when an old bigot chooses his course of action like the old guy did. Plus, old guys can still hit pretty hard, especially when adrenaline is factored in. Also, you're assuming the old man was a little old man. It takes some balls to chase a 6-something, 240 pound black man and call him bigoted names...Also, the young guy acted with self restraint through all this when the old man acted the way he did, and all he did was get slapped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top