Giants fan cleared in Dodger fan's fatal stabbing; DA accepts self-defense claim

[alp227]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

SAN FRANCISCO -- Prosecutors announced Friday they would close their investigation into the fatal stabbing of a Southern California man last year after a Giants-Dodgers game, saying they could not prove the man who stabbed the victim just blocks away from AT&T Park was not acting in self-defense.

District Attorney George Gascon said in a statement his office was "ethically obligated" not to prosecute the case against 21-year-old Lodi resident Michael Montgomery, who police said stabbed Los Angeles Dodgers fan Jonathan Denver, 24, on Sept. 25. The slaying took place in an alley only a few blocks from AT&T Park, shortly after the final regular-season game between the Dodgers and the Giants.

"With multiple sources indicating how the event transpired, it makes it impossible for us to meet our burden and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Montgomery was not acting in self-defense," Gascon said in a news release. "Our hearts go out to the victim's family. The loss of a loved one in this manner is indeed tragic."

Police said two groups of people got into an argument at the intersection of Third and Stillman streets shortly before 10:30 p.m. that night. A few minutes later, the argument resumed and became physical, investigators concluded.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25397362/giants-fan-cleared-dodger-fans-fatal-stabbing-da

[Tx4obama]

1. Kick n/t

[Judi Lynn]

2. This is incomprehensible. WTF. n/t

[Xithras]

4. Not incomprehensible. Completely expected.

The press had a field day with the "Giants fan murders Dodgers fan!" meme, but anyone who actually followed the details of the case expected this outcome.

The "victim" had a history of arrests for his poor drunken behavior, and was a "hardcore" Dodgers fan from a family employed by the Dodgers organization. The "stabber" wasn't really a sports fan at all, but was simply visiting bars with friends and was wearing a Giants cap (very common in SF).

The "victim" and his group verbally assaulted the "stabbers" group outside the first bar, and the "victim" became physically violent as the argument escalated. The "stabbers" group ended that confrontation by walking away to find another bar. The "victims" group followed the "stabbers" group to another club, restarted the fight again, and then escalated it by BEATING the "stabber" and his group with metal chairs, which made the confrontation felony "assault with a deadly weapon" under California law. While being beaten, the "stabber" pulled his knife and stabbed the "victim".

This isn't a "my word against the victims" scenario. The police found and interviewed multiple witnesses at the locations of both confrontations, and they ALL gave stories that supported the "stabbers" claims. The dead guys group instigated the verbal argument, escalated it to a physical fight, chased after the SF group to continue the fight when the SF group attempted to flee, and then escalated it again by picking up weapons and attacking the "stabber" with a potentially lethal weapon.

The stabbing was clearly self-defense from the get-go, even though the press attempted to do everything possible to twist it into something else. Because a lot of Dodgers fans were shamed by the beating of Brian Stowe, there has been a real sense that the press has tried to use this case to turn the rivalry into a "mutually violent" scenario and relieve Los Angeles of any perceived "guilt" over that beating by saying "Look, San Francisco is violent too". That, of course, was a stupid position from the outset, because I don't know a single Giants fan who blames the Dodgers, Dodgers fans, or Los Angeles for what happened to Stowe. The only thing the medias treatment of the SF stabbing has done is inflame people even more, potentially increasing the danger for future visitors to these games.

[penultimate]

3. From the article, it sounds as if Mr. Denver (the guy who was stabbed)

and his brother (who hit Montgomery with a chair) were both attacking Montgomery (the stabber), and they initiated the physical altercation. Is there more to this story than the article is letting on, because if that's how it all played out, then I can understand why it may be considered self-defense. Did the two brothers back off before Montgomery stabbed one of them, or were they continuing their attack? If they were continuing their attack and Montgomery was unable to get away, then I can't fault him for not risking being killed himself. Although, this article seems to be pretty skimpy on details.