Thursday, October 15, 2009

Free Kevin Leonard IV

In response to my interview with 17-year-old Kevin Leonard (it can be found here) I got this interesting response:
Dear Mr. Spencer

I was somewhat disappointed in your take in the matter of Kevin Leonard titled "Collingdale teen learns lesson in Prison"). In the article you recounted how the young man Kevin Leonard stabbed another young man after he (while accompanied by several other young men) approached Leonard in what appeared to be a robbery attempt and the alleged victim in the incident (Mickal Higgins). The alleged victim claimed it to be "prank".

For the record I am retired Philadelphia Police detective and a former private investigator. As a police detective I have investigated well over three thousand criminal investigations from homicides, to robberies, to assaults, etc... too numerous to mention.

From what you described to me Mr. Leonard was the victim in the his incident. Moreover, why weren't all of the alleged "pranksters" arrested and charged with robbery? I think the police detective and the district attorney need to take another look at their Pennsylvania Crimes Code, because what you described to me was a robbery attempt gone bad where the victim got th upper hand.

Gil, I am surprised that your "lesson" was to advise the young man to "keep ridin" when he did not know if the group had a gun or not. During my time as a police detective in Philadelphia I can't count the number of times where crime victims minding their own business attempted "to keep ridin" and winded up with a bullet in the back.

This case reeks of a miscarriage of justice and questionably trained police officers and or uninformed assistant district attorneys. I hope the judge has better sense to correct the matter. I also would hope the District Attorney's office takes second look at the others involved, READ THE PENNSYLVANIA CRIMES CODE.

I think Brian makes some pretty points here, especially when it comes to the decision to charge Leonard without considering the potential criminal actions of his tormentors.

However, if it turned out that someone in the group actually had a gun, Leonard would have probably ended up the worse for it. The old saying is: You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

If Leonard himself thought it would have been possible to avoid the confrontation by riding away from it, I have no reason to second-guess his Monday morning quarterbacking of his decision. After all, it ended up with a 16-year-old kid almost being killed.

While I am the first to admire people who stand up to bullies, I try to be the last who would suggest they do so if there is a good likelihood of their being shot and killed.

Fight or flight is often a tough call.

One of my main concerns in writing about Leonard and his willingness to stick up for himself was that such publicity might give him a street rep he would feel the need to live up to. So when I met him I was pleased he was somewhat circumspect about the incident. Ignoring a teen-age bully sometimes is the best course to the best outcome. Not always but sometimes.

In any case, I fully agree with Brian, Leonard shouldn't be prosecuted or punished for refusing to capitulate to what looks very much a robbery attempt and certainly not by the criminal justice system.

That's just wrong.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would "Brian" rely upon Gil's one-sided account? Doesn't sound very professional.

I wouldn't take the advise of a doctor that relied on an examination conducted by Gil, either.

If no one laid hands on Leonard, it's probably not really self-defense.

Where's the VIDEO??
That would be the KEY piece of evidence to see if Leonard acted in self-defense.
Otherwise, it's he-said he-stabbed.

October 15, 2009 at 1:20 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Anon, typically has it wrong.

Testimony provided at the preliminary by the alleged victim himself more than suggests he was in the process of committing a crime.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude that Leonard believed an attempted robbery was in progress and he was being threatened with grievous bodily harm.

Crime victims are NOT required by law to allow a mugger to put their hands on them before they act in self defense.

The video will show what it will show.

But the video alone might not be determinative. The lawyers on both sides would have to argue the context in which the stabbing occurred. If a judge or jury concludes that Leonard had good reason to believe he was being robbed and was under threat of bodily harm or believed he was under such a threat, he (they) would have no choice but to acquit him.

October 15, 2009 at 3:10 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was "Brian" at the preliminary hearing? Sounds like he was relying upon YOUR story. A bad move for any professional.

The video might show Leonard over reacting. It might show the other boy backing off, but Leonard still attacking him anyway. If so, it wouldn't be self defense.

If they weren't even trying to lay hands on him, then it wouldn't be self defense either.

Where was everybody standing? Was he surrounded? Had anyone made a sudden move?

My point is that the prosecutors and judge must have looked at the video. If Leonard over reacted when there no longer was a threat, then it isn't self defense.

Unless YOU'VE seen the tape, or bothered to ask anyone what it showed, you are just making things up, as usual.

Unless he was clearly intent on murdering the other kid, rather than just overreacting, my recommendation is probation with some counseling and community service. Psychological counseling about his ordeal, and proper ways to deal with situations and the rules on when lethal force is allowed. Also, just because lethal force might be permitted, that does NOT mean it should be the first option chosen.

It sounds like if you were in a situation where you could "legal" use deadly force or just walk away, you would choose deadly force.

October 16, 2009 at 12:55 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home