Harvard grad student ordered to make payment to family of man he killed with a knife
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that Alexander Pring-Wilson was negligent enough in a fatal knife fight on Western Avenue in Cambridge in 2003 that he owes his victim's daughter $250,000 in damages.
The court agreed with a lower-court judge that Michael Colono was equally negligent in starting the three-on-one beatdown that Pring-Wilson ended by taking out and waving around a folding knife - which left Colono with a fatal stab wound to the heart. But the court also agreed with that judge that Pring-Wilson should have found another way to extricate himself from his attackers:
The judge found that Pring-Wilson was negligent for both "failing to avail himself of reasonable alternatives to combat," and "employing more force than was reasonably necessary to repel the attack." Finding that Colono was comparatively negligent and Pring-Wilson and Colono were equally at fault for Colono's death, the judge decreased the damage award by fifty percent, ordering entry of judgment in the amount of "$10,000 to the Estate of Michael Colono for conscious pain and suffering, and $250,000 for the benefit of Leah Colono [his daughter], for wrongful death."
On appeal, Pring-Wilson's sole claim is that, although the judge's factual findings are sound, those facts require an ultimate finding that he acted intentionally, not that he was negligent. We disagree.
Comments
Chickenshit justices
Let's see their opinion after they've had three guys start beating them on the street.
"failing to avail himself of reasonable alternatives to combat"? What the fuck are you supposed to do when three guys are attacking you?
is this for real or are we
is this for real or are we close to april fools?
From what I've read this
From what I've read this Pring-Wilson guy was a bit of a meathead and a hothead, but the guy he wound up killing was a thug. Ordinary people, meatheads or otherwise, should be allowed to stand up to thugs without being sent to jail.
Wait THAT'S how the law works?
So, different rules apply based on which social label is applied to someone? Meatheads can kill thugs, but thugs can't kill meatheads? Paper usually beats rock, unless the rock went to the wrong schools?
Meathead thug lawyer shoot!
It's a stupid game, really, because although sometimes thug beats meathead and meathead beats thug, lawyer always beats them both.
"Although Pring-Wilson agrees that he did not intend to stab or kill Colono, he nevertheless argues that his actions were intentional because he purposefully removed the knife from his pocket with the intent of scaring Colono and Rodriguez. That action amounted to the intentional tort of assault, he argues, so he could not have also been negligent."
Got that? My client could not have been negligent because he threatened Colono with a knife on purpose. That was assault, with which he was never charged, but you should have, and that means the whole killing the guy thing wasn't negligent but intentional, which it also wasn't when it comes to the manslaughter being involuntary, so you can't jail him but you can't make him pay either. It's like schroedinger's stab, both voluntary and involuntary at the same time.
This is what happens when you
This is what happens when you have shielded suburbanites behind the bench
That, or
Rich little pricks that think their privilege can protect them from the consequences of killing someone with a knife in a fight ... if there even was a fight. That still isn't clear.
Flip the circumstances around and see how different the spin would have been.
Outrageous!
I truly feel bad for Pring-Wilson. How many ways can the Massachusetts criminal justice system find a way to further ruin his life? THREE-ON-ONE FIGHT on a dark street in East Cambridge -- started for virtually no reason -- and the VICTIM is forced to defend himself in order to survive... then sits in jail for how many years, is tried twice criminally and let off by a jury that has some COMMON SENSE.
I wish these CLUELESS JUDGES would let this guy move on from this nightmare he in no way brought upon himself.
Melodramatic, much?
Gee, I seem to remember that there were two guys spewing macho bullshit, a guy got out of a car to start something, and somebody got stabbed. There was sufficient evidence to not only bring a manslaughter charge, but make it stick at the first level.
Somehow the rich Harvard student is now an innocent victim attacked for no reason, and the kitchen worker who died in the fight is entirely the cause of the situation?
Perhaps you should read the legal resoning behind the negligence judgement, which includes the facts of the case, before dramatizing this as a "he was fighting for his life" situation that it doesn't seem to ever have been.
Your class envy leaks out the sides of this argument.
It's difficult to imagine how you could be objective on this one, given your posting history. It's fine to make the choice to live within a certain socioeconomic sphere, but we shouldn't piss upwards to spite those who are better off. You can do better than this.
Agree with Swirly wholeheartedly
I remember how close this guy came to not facing any consequence at all. And if the class roles were reversed, I bet you a billion bucks Colono would still be in jail. Instead he's dead, and Pring-Wilson is free as a bird. He stabbed the dude multiple times, if I remember right. Class envy, huh? I think it's you staunch defenders of Pring-Wilson who seem to suffer from some darker biases than that.
Yes - Swirly is the one who brought class into this argument.
She called Pring-Wilson a rich prick in her first post on the topic. Get your head out of your ass and your facts right before you accuse me of "darker biases," you twit.
Because he's not rich?
Or he's not a twit? Is it declasse to point out that rich twits sometimes get an easier path through the criminal justice system than their less wealthy counterparts from the other side of the tracks?
That's rich.
Your point is not the one Swirly was making, and frankly, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - whether the justices of the appeals court were correct to uphold the lower court ruling.
Swirly's constant references to Pring-Wilson's wealth and her complete misrepresentation that it's disputed whether there was actually a fight (counsel for the Colono's estate concedes there was a fight and that Colono instigated it by getting out of his car and rushing after Pring-Wilson) make me think she's not interested in a real discussion of the issues here. She just wants to rail against a rich kid who killed a guy with less money.
This is consistent with her posting history - she has displayed animus towards wealthy people and/or people who live in wealthy neighborhoods for many years. I can't be the only one who has grown tired of her half cocked outbursts.
Spoken like a true anon
The biases run dark indeed in the netherworld of mom's basement.
Thanks for participating.
Bested by facts, you result to personal attacks. I'm sure basement dwellers across the region are firmly pro rich guy from Harvard.
I think it's accurate to say...
the fight was started for virtually no reason. From the Court's opinion:
"Neither party contests the judge's factual findings. In essence, those findings reveal that at approximately 1:50 A.M. on April 12, 2003, Colono, his cousin Sammy Rodriguez, and Giselle Abreu sat in a car parked on Western Avenue in Cambridge, Massachusetts waiting for a pizza they had ordered from a nearby restaurant. Pring-Wilson, walking home alone after attending a nearby club with friends, walked past the car. "All three men--Colono, Rodriguez, and [Pring-]Wilson--had been drinking." As Pring-Wilson approached on the sidewalk, Colono said out of his open window, "Look at that motherfucker, he's shitfaced," and then told Pring-Wilson to "get off the street." Pring-Wilson, who had been talking on his cell phone, heard that someone in the car had addressed him but did not hear what was said, so he walked back to the car and asked, "Were you talking to me?" Colono's confrontational reply was something to the effect of "Yeah, you want to do something about it?" Pring-Wilson then replied with "Fuck you" or "Fuck off," and turned to leave.
Upset with Pring-Wilson's response, Colono got out of the car and rushed Pring-Wilson. A fight began and, after about a minute, Rodriguez joined the fray, grabbing Pring-Wilson "from behind, and punch[ing] him a few times in the head, albeit from close range and without causing serious injury." At this point, Pring-Wilson pulled from his pocket a folding knife with a four-inch serrated blade that he almost always carried as a utility tool."
Sounds like there wasn't much of a reason (ie - robbery, Pring-Wilson making a pass at Colono's girlfriend, etc.)
Seems like Colono picked a fight, then when his buddy jumped in and made it a 2 on 1, Pring-Wilson pulled out a knife.
Take your own advice.
Read the opinion - you know the part where the Court recites the findings of fact made by the trial court and notes that the parties don't dispute those findings.
Then think about your idiotic comment "if there even was a fight. That still isn't clear." You are a piece of work.
Better a suburbanite judge....
...than a city guy like you who thinks he's somehow superior because he's a city guy.
I don't see how one's residence location has any bearing on their judging ability any more than sex, race, sexual orientation, height, left/right handedness, shoe size, etc. But hey, that's just me.
yea its just you, its called
yea its just you, its called a lens, and suburbanite lens when peering into urban affair are foggy at best
The arguments made by P-W's attorneys....
... seemed rather far-fetched and not very compelling.
Are we sure it was three guys?
I thought it was 2 on 1? There was a girl in Colono's car at the beginning of the confrontation - did she get involved in the physical altercation?
This is a tough one.
Depending on what happened.
Two guys get out of a car and start beating someone and that someone takes out a knife to stop the attack? That could be justified.
Two guys get out of a car and confront some guy and some pushing goes back and forth and that guy with a knife starts stabbing when he could have escpaed, called for help, fought back, etc? Maybe not so justified.
The original attack is the key element here. Was it 2 on 1?, was there kicking to the head, Were both people keeping the other down so they could beat him further? Was the lone person undersized or exahusted? Were there death threats during the struggle?
Not an easy case to decide either way in my opinion.
Agreed, Pete.
The opinion clears some of that up, but there are details in the trial court record that would be helpful.
It does appear that Pring-Wilson didn't pull out the knife until the second attacker joined the fight.