From WCBSTV.com
Police have arrested a suspect in the murder of the ‘realtor to the stars’ - Linda Stein. Natavia Lowery, Stein’s personal assistant was arrested, after she confessed to the murder.
Lowery, 26, claims she murdered Stein after being abused by her employer. Lowery told police Stein was blowing marijuana smoke into her face, which was making her ill, and verbally abused her.
Police believe Stein was hit six or seven times with a yoga stick, which they are still looking for. Lowery will be charged with murder in the 2nd degree.
Natavia Lowery, 26, who told police she was subjected racist slurs from Stein, bludgeoned her boss with a weighted yoga-stick used for stretching exercises.
She finally snapped after Stein blew marijuana smoke in her face and told her to hurry up, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly announced in a press conference Friday afternoon.
Who blows pot smoke in somebody’s face while taunting him or her with racist slurs? Come on; wasn’t that a scene from the Peter Fonda movie, “Wild Angels”, or Orson Welles’ “Touch Of Evil”?
“She was trying to give me a contact high so, I beat her with a stick, officer; a yoga stick”.
I love how the throw that one in there; “yoga stick”. Which is, after all just a stick. I reckon it is an attempt at demonstrating irony.
You must bind your consciousness to a single spot, right in the center of Ms. Stein’s forehead.
I wonder what they will find if they get the stick. Are they maybe looking for pot residue?
From FindLaw
Murder: Second degree
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable “heat of passion” or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender’s obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
I don’t know, sounds to me like the police are already dumbing down the charges. I don’t see how a little pot smoke is an obvious lack of concern for human life or, how it could throw somebody into a “reasonable” heat of passion. It’s a good thing that Natavia Lowery never went to a Phish concert, there would have been a massacre.
Related posts
Tags: irony, Linda Stein, Natavia Lowery, yoga stick
Mr President wrote,
I think you misunderstood Findlaw’s definition of second degree murder. Firstly second degree is actually when there is NO reasonable heat of passion (I think you misread that bit). This is why she’s been charged with second degree)
What that first part of the definition means is that the killing was intentional (which rules out manslaughter) but not planned or pre-meditated (which would be first degree). The “heat of passion” refers to a defence which renders any killing manslaughter.
The facts of the case seem to support an intentional killing that was not premeditated and the fact she’s been charged with second degree not manslaughter suggests the DA shares your view that “heat of passion” is not “reasonable” in this case.
As for “obvious lack of concern for human life” that would be an unintentional but reckless killing. First degree is reserved for intentional killings only, manslaughter for killings that are negligent, but second degree occupies the space in between, namely someone showing complete disregard for the value of life.
Mr President’s last blog post..Crazy Christian Couple Back Down
Link | November 11th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Mr President wrote,
Of course when I say manslaughter is for negligent killings I mean involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing with the “heat of passion” defence.
Mr President’s last blog post..Crazy Christian Couple Back Down
Link | November 11th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Pribek wrote,
You are correct in that I misread the part about “reasonable heat of passion”, Mr. President.
However, this business of taunting and pot smoke doesn’t add up. That seems like an attempt at the heat of passion defense. “She blew smoke at me and I snapped”. Of course, I’m not a lawyer but, if I was on a jury, I would not be able to get past the lack of logic here.
It’s just not a reason to kill someone. It sounds made up. Add to that the fact that the victim was hit six or seven times. I’m guessing that if you hit someone with a yoga stick say, three times, they would quit blowing pot smoke.
How much time has to pass before a killing is pre-meditated? If all Lowery wanted was for Stein to stop the offensive behavior, she could have easily stopped short of murder.
Now that I think about it, I have a problem with settling on a second degree charge while the yoga stick is still missing as well.
Link | November 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Mr President wrote,
Oh I agree, it does seem like an attempt at a heat of passion defence, but one that’s destined to fail. I agree, a jury will see right through, and clearly the DA does too or Voluntary Manslaughter would’ve been the charge.
You’re right that it’s not a reason to kill someone but I think you’re still misunderstanding the charge. Pre-meditation and intention are two different things. You are correct in saying that if all Lowery wanted was for Stein to stop she would not have struck her 6 or 7 times.
It is this that makes it an intentional killing. Clearly she meant to kill Stein, I think it would be hard to argue that she was “reckless” (that may have been the case if she’d struck Stein once or twice but 6 times is excessive). However pre-meditation would require some sort of planning before the act.
Using the yoga stick seems to imply that there was no forethought involved. That strikes me as a weapon of convenience, the nearest thing to hand, rather than a pre-planned weapon of choice.
Pre-meditation requires at least a few days between deciding to kill someone and actually doing it, in most cases weeks, even months. It is imperative that there be a long period for reflection between the plan and the execution because it is this that makes first degree more worthy of punishment. Many times juries will refuse to convict of first degree if only a few hours passed between the plan and the execution, and here it seems like it was minutes.
I have to disagree with you here. As a lawyer second degree seems the only charge likely to succeed, and rather than being a “soft touch” or “dumbing down” the charges is actually quite an aggressive approach. Had they wanted an easy conviction they’d have gone with voluntary manslaughter, which it seems Lowery would have been willing to plead to.
Mr President’s last blog post..Crazy Christian Couple Back Down
Link | November 12th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Pribek wrote,
I have no problem deferring to your expertise here, Mr. President.
“Dumbing down” was a poor choice of phrase on my part.
“Using the yoga stick seems to imply that there was no forethought involved. That strikes me as a weapon of convenience, the nearest thing to hand, rather than a pre-planned weapon of choice.”
At this point, according to the CBS piece, the yoga stick is the alleged weapon and, it is not around. That, to me, could be a Pandora’s box. Maybe, there is no yoga stick. Perhaps, Ms. Lowery brought a cricket bat with her for the purpose of murder.
So, instead of “dumbing down” the charge, let me make the case that the 2nd degree charge is premature.
Link | November 12th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Mr President wrote,
That’s a good point. It certainly is premature but there’s a sound reason for that. Double Jeopardy only applies to lesser or included offences. So it is possible to charge someone with second degree and change that charge to first degree later, however it would not be possible to do the opposite.
What this means here is until the weapon is found second degree is a sensible choice. Should we later find the weapon and it turns out to have been a weapon Lowery brought with her (which would then suggest pre-meditation) we can always increase the charge to first degree.
However if the weapon is never found, first degree won’t be made, the jury won’t convict and Lowery goes free. This is the quirky nature of the legal system at work. Charge a lesser offence, even if you suspect the defendant may be guilty of a greater one, because you can’t prove the greater one. Even if the evidence of the greater offence comes to light after conviction for the lesser one you can bring a fresh prosecution for first degree.
Mr President’s last blog post..Beyonce Too Raunchy for Sin City
Link | November 13th, 2007 at 6:36 am