# Alexander Pring-Wilson case...



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2004)

Anyone paying attention to this? 

I have been catching parts of it on court TV. I thought this would be a good place to discuss this particular topic. . 

I think that this is a good case to pay attention too. I feel somewhat validated because the harvard student is running into many of the legal problems that I cover in my EDC seminars. 

I also think it is important to pay attention to this case due to its implications regarding knife defense. You need to be aware of "what" to train and get into your muscle memory, so you don't panic and hack somewhat to bits in a non-prudent fashion, and find yourself defending a murder charge. 

I have heard people before basically make the arguement that "mercy" on your attacker is not an option, and can get you killed. I agree to a point. Sometimes the line is very grey, such as in cases where I am doing security and in a position of authority. But once that line of lethal force is crossed, you need to defend yourself first and foremost, and by any means available (which would include your gun or knife or weapon of opportunity). 

However, you also need to understand the legal implications of such actions. Furthermore, you need to know how to use whatever you carry for self-defense in a "prudent" fashion. Why? Not for the sake of your attacker, but for the sake of YOU. 

So, if you draw down on a guy with your firearm, you aim center mass, and you shoot to "stop." "Officer, I was not trying to kill anyone, I was just trying to stop him from hurting me." 

Simple enough with a firearm. I am probably one of the few knife instructors who advise my attendents to get a CCW if they really want to carry something for self-defense. 

It is not so simple with a blade, however. In the Pring-Wilson case, Forensic science is brought into the equation, and the prosecutor is trying to determine that the cuts do not resemble someone on the defense, because there are few slash marks superficially in places like the arms, and there were 5 stab wounds to the chest. This was also a factor I cover in my seminar...what story will forensic science tell in court? 

So, you have to train in a manner so that when all is said in done, the evidence is stacked as much in your favor as possible. This includes with how you actually train the blade. If your doing soldier of fortune/para-military stuff like sentry removal techniques in your knife class, you'd better consider the consequenses and circumstances where these techniques would be viable. 

Anyways, these are just some things to think about. 

What do you all think? How do you think this case might impact our rights to self defense with a knife? How might it impact the knife industry? What are some of the things Alexander (the harvard student) did wrong, or rather what is wrong with his defense? What is wrong with the prosecution? How about your training? Do you consider things like legal reprocussions and prudence when you train with your knife? 

I look forward to here your opinions... 

PJMOD


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

It's really difficult to comment without knowing all the facts.  I was not familiar with the case, and so I googled the name to get some background.  One thing that really stood out is the fact that he misrepresented the facts in the original 9-1-1 call.  That basically destroys his credibility.  My feeling is that* IF* one legitimately feels that they have defended themselves in a legal way, there should be no reason to lie at *ANY* point to anyone.  It is entirely possible that this was legitimate delf defense, but I don't have the facts in front of me.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> It's really difficult to comment without knowing all the facts.  I was not familiar with the case, and so I googled the name to get some background.  One thing that really stood out is the fact that he misrepresented the facts in the original 9-1-1 call.  That basically destroys his credibility.  My feeling is that* IF* one legitimately feels that they have defended themselves in a legal way, there should be no reason to lie at *ANY* point to anyone.  It is entirely possible that this was legitimate delf defense, but I don't have the facts in front of me.



I don't know all the facts either, but 2 factors that the defense will use is that he was highly intoxicated when he made the call, as well scared out of his mind.

It will be interesting to see what gets presented as the case moves forward...

Paul


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

I think that in order for them to find him innocent of homicide, they'll need witnesses to corroborate that he was attacked - the report I read stated that they argued, and he (the accused) opened the car door and got stabby. Sounds bad for him.....


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2004)

> It is not so simple with a blade, however. In the Pring-Wilson case, Forensic science is brought into the equation, and the prosecutor is trying to determine that the cuts do not resemble someone on the defense, because there are few slash marks superficially in places like the arms, and there were 5 stab wounds to the chest. This was also a factor I cover in my seminar...what story will forensic science tell in court?


Guess he didnt know about "limb destructions" huh? Would have looked better in court..

Based on what Flatlander just said, sounds like theres bigger holes in this guys story.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

The thing is, regarding limb destructions, we all know that a guy can bleed out and die after some well placed bladework on the limb - and it can be shown that one's training made the defender AWARE that this was the case - resulting in, at the very least, foreknowledge of possible death.  I just don't think that there is a way to fully justify using the blade defensively without first demonstrating a reasonable certainty of impending violent harm by the agressor.  Similarily, the Reebok maneuver must not be an option, in order for the blade to come out.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Sep 27, 2004)

I've been following this a bit on Court TV too. One of the the things the prosecution brought up was that Pring-Wilson had to stab through a leather coat....something that would be inconsistent with self defense...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2004)

Case info...
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=45154

DETAILED Case info...
http://www.casewatchers.com/AlexanderPring-Wilson.html


----------



## still learning (Nov 19, 2004)

Hello, Who do you believe? The college person "Alex" was intoxicated and did tell to many different stories. A police officer knows when a person is telling the truth, most of the time because if it is true, story will be always the same today,tommorrow and in next ten years from now. Liars cannot tell the same story twice,if they lied. Our memory works like that. We have a hard time remembering lies,but actually events will become a part of our memory. Try remember your past..now tried remember those old lies? This is why I believe "Alex" is guilty. Why does a college student need to carry a knife? He carry it to be use for protection(defense/Offense) and he use it to stab at that person. Not use to scare them. Murder will be issue here. But we know lawyers who presents the best case will win....is it fair....? Note(I did not have all the facts,just the newspaper  story)...there could be more info that has not being presented.  Aloha


----------

