Girl 21, Slashes Boyfriends Throat With Beer Bottle - DA Does Not Bring Charges

Can you be serious? How is it possibly right to "suck him in knowing he would act crazy?" Call the authorities and land his @*- in jail. That is what civilized people do. We have laws for a reason, and unless it is absolutely necessary, we may not take the law into our own hands.

Call the authorities and land his @*- in jail.

They can't do anything until he hurt her. You gonna let some punk kid hurt your daughter just so that she doesn't act in self-defense?

That is what civilized people do. We have laws for a reason, and unless it is absolutely necessary, we may not take the law into our own hands.

The sad thing is, it only works when both people are civilized...not just one. This woman protecting her life, did just what was necessary. There are times when...push comes to shove...you take the law into your hands, or you die. That simple. She didn't want to die.

KYPIAKOC - call the police...over and over again...then you get a restraining order...you know that piece of paper that will fully protect her (/sarc), or at least help the DA to add a new charge after he has rapped or killed her....

Here's the thing, why did she open the door? I don't sympathize with the guy, don't get me wrong, but he had already choked her, they got him out, they had enough to bring assault and battery charges, so why not call the police? Why let him back in if they already knew he was acting violently? Something here just doesn't make sense.

I agree True, KYP do you live on an island alone?? Arrest and restraining orders are rarely effective against "psychotic drunken monkeys". As my mother used to say when she was alive,"It wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there drunked up and raging". Something along those lines. He brought it on himself.

He certainly wasn't innocent in all this, but there is no reason she should have let him in a second time. I'm not saying she should have sat around and waited calmly for the police, but she didn't handle this the right way. It's always better when people don't end up dead in the end.

I'd say he wasn't the one to handle it the right way. He shouldn't have been there under false pretenses (to pick up his stuff). He shouldn't have been trying to break her door down. He shouldn't have been terrorizing her. He shouldn't have tried to murder her. He shouldn't have assumed he could commit murder without his victim fighting back.

"Choking" is strangulation. Strangulation is done to murder someone. He was trying to murder her.

No, she didn't intend to kill him. Yes, he was trying to murder her. There is no other reason to strangle someone. It would be charged as attempted murder if he'd lived. Being drunk doesn't excuse him from his violent actions.

Here's info from another article. The "news release" they refer to was from the DA's office.The article details what happened before she opened the door, including when he was in the house the first time. At that time, he knocked her to the ground and tried to choke her. I'm picking it up from when she opened the door the second time:

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/G2/20111021/NEWS01/110210344/No-charges-beer-bottle-death

After Lakin opened the door, Cassidy "pushed the door open, stepped across the threshold and was coming at Azura. Azura struck him in the head with the bottle and it broke," according to the news release.

"Both girls stated that Shaun seemed unfazed when hit with the bottle. They said he continued toward Azura as if to choke her again, and she struck him with the now broken bottle. This strike cut him down the side of his head and neck," according to the news release

Cassidy pushed Azura Lakin against a wall, and Anna Lakin tried to push him off her sister. The women could see that Cassidy was bleeding, and Azura Lakin yelled at her sister to call 911. Cassidy left the apartment, followed by Azura Lakin.

"A witness outside said that Azura was yelling 'Oh my god' and 'I didn't mean to hurt him,'" according to the news release.

The investigation found that the Lakin sisters had bruises and scrapes from the incident.

Prior to these incidents, he was at the bar where Azura was and got jealous because she danced with another man. At that time, he broke a beer bottle and smashed her phone. The smashing of a victim's possessions is a common part of DV. The message is "I can do what I want to you and you might be next." Because it was her phone, he was also trying to stop her from calling her sister (isolation control tactic) which would have allowed her to escape from his violence. The idea that he gets to choose who she can interact with is also an abusive control tactic common in DV.

She did manage to reach her sister and left with her. He took a taxi to her place. That's when she opened the door the first time. Per the article, she opened the door the second time in an effort to get him to leave.

Prior to his arrival at her place, she'd called the police to see if he'd been arrested for the bar incident, which implies there was more violence than described in the article. In any case, the DV began at the bar and he chose to pursue here when she escaped his violence and control. He continued to escalate his violence at her house.

That clears up a lot of questions. Thanks Loretta.

Here's the thing, why did she open the door

Because you generally don't assume that someone you used to date is going to try to kill you.

Though you generally do assume that after you just barely managed to push him out the door after he tried to strangle you and now he's banging on the door. In any case, the info provided by LK a couple posts up presents a much clearer picture of the scenario than I had formerly been aware of.

I think the woman made a serious mistake and found a legal avenue to avoid a jail sentence.

A woman invites an out-of-town ex-lover to stay at her home, then gets into an argument with the man in public and leaves him behind. She then makes phone calls to locate the man and presumably invite him back to her home. Man arrives at her home and she won't give him back his belongings because he broke her cellular phone. Man attempts to coerse her, to provide him his belongings in order to leave the premises, by continually knocking on her door.

Woman opens door with weapon in hand and smashes beer bottle over his head and inevitably slits his throat. Woman sees the injury she's inflicted and runs out of the home screaming "I didn't mean to hurt him". Then she tells the police that she hit him because he broke her cell phone. Therefore, police arrest woman for assault.

Woman is bonded out of jail the following day. Man spends week in hospital before succumbing to his injuries. Police investigate an otherwise typical domestic violence case up to the point where the man has died. Then the investigation seeks witness accounts a week after the events transpired. Any good attorney will likely consult with their client to provide proper instruction on the accounts of an event to insure Colorado's Make My Day law complies; particularly when such an event offers no opposing or differing account of the events, because the other party is deceased.

Would the OP open up her mind and leave her prejudices aside if the man where found to not be intoxicated? How about if the man has a history of being a law-abiding citizen? Maybe the OP would show less prejudice if she found that the woman has a history of domestic conflict with men? How about if the woman has had multiple alcohol offenses and is currently on probation for such unlawful violations? Would the OP be less gender-biased on this story if she found that the woman has had restraining orders filed against her by other women or men?

These are all facts that make this otherwise simple case of self-defense take on a whole different stance. Unfortunately, the DA's office is not obligated to look any deeper than the direct evidence of this specific case. There are no background checks, no alcohol content evidence collected, and no consultations with other CO jurisdictions to assist in the evaluations of the credibility of the woman and her account of the events that took a man's life. If nothing else, this case should be brought to trial and subject the woman, her sister and the two male friends to stand before God and their peers, place their hands upon a Bible and swear to tell the truth about the events that occurred that night. Outside of this occurring, we'll likely never know the real story of how this man lost his life.

Mark, I think you should go see the DA right now with all this evidence you've accumulated. I'm sure he'll change his mind.

According to my information, the DA has already been informed of these facts. However, many of the items noted above are not a specific aspect of what occurred the night the man was injured. Therefore, the DA is under no obligation to investigate these "background" issues. Colorado's law is cut & dry; if a non-homeowner sets one foot across a home's door threshold, the home's owner may use deadly force against the visitor. I think the DA has set a dangerous presedent with his ruling in this case, and I'll be watching out for new CO crimes similar to this (I believe one has occurred in Colorado Springs today).

It is a lot simpler for the DA to close the case and not push for trial where a jury will need to consider outside elements to verify witness credibility. This would be an extremely tough case for any DA to win in court, since there are witness accounts to only one side. However, a person's life was lost in this case, and I'd like to think that the law would fight for me if it were my life lost.

Colorado's law is cut & dry; if a non-homeowner sets one foot across a home's door threshold, the home's owner may use deadly force against the visitor.

Well, there ya go.

It sounds like she would have been covered even if he hadn't choked her and then took a shot at doing it again.

You didn't answer my question: Have you protested this long and loud at other cases in CO where this law was applied? If not, why not?

Do you think that interpretation of the CO law is acceptable, VerbalBarb? If so, I'd like to invite you over for a visit to my CO home and we'll test your veracity.

Loretta, your question to me is irrelevant to this specific case; my involvement stems from the locality of the event. Your post above is even more irrelevant due to the fact that you did not pose your question to me in this #2 string, so I and others are likely baffled by your abusive and intrusive insinuations that seem to indicate you are somehow owed special attention in this blog. It appears that not only do you have gender-biased issues, but you may also be stricken with some type of an attention-craving disorder.

So the answer is no, you aren't upset with other rulings under this law and are just focusing on this one case.

That's telling.

Ha! What is it "telling" you, Loretta? Is it telling you that you are obsessed with the feeling that all men think women are inferior and are objects that can be manipulated and inevitably destroyed? If that is what my reluctance to answer your irrelevant question is "telling" you, then it is my opinion that your obsession against men has overcome your common sense and you are providing an injustice to women's rights. I certainly wouldn't blindly advocate for men's rights in every situation when oblivious to all the facts.

I might ask why you are so one-sided on this issue, but I won't bother due to your gender-biased posts here and in your other "seeds"; you don't seem to offer any credibility.

If so, I'd like to invite you over for a visit to my CO home and we'll test your veracity.

It would be a bad test, since you just invited me to your home, with a bunch of witnesses who saw the invitation.

Yes, it was exactly an invitation to my home. What makes you think the man in the story was not an invited guest to the woman's home? It couldn't be because his weekend clothes bag was in her house. It also couldn't be because they left her home together earlier to go out for drinks? Certainly, it couldn't be because she called looking for him after their argument?

Or, was it suddenly not an invitation because she opened the door and allowed him entry into her home, a home that contained his clothes bag, car keys, and wallet? Was it suddenly not an invitiation because a week after her violent attack she ammended her story when the victim died, thus seeking justification from the CO Make My Day law after receiving consultation from a law firm? The facts are obvious that Colorado's Make My Day law would not help a deceased you if witnesses simply stated that you were invited to my home.

What makes you think the man in the story was not an invited guest to the woman's home?

He initially was. That doesn't mean he gets to barge in and go for her once he's been kicked out. After choking her.

I think I'll rely on the DA's investigation and decsion in the matter rather than your made up scenario formed after reading articles, accepting some information and just non-chalantly throwing out other information.

My guess is the DA does his job by looking at actual evidence, not by Monday morning quarterbacking.

That doesn't mean he gets to barge in and go for her once he's been kicked out. After choking her.

Oh VerbalBarb, don't be so naive to give credit to the accounts of two related person's that provide witness to a deadly situation after having a week to think about it, review the case with an attorney and alter their stories. Remember, the woman's initial confession to the police, after she attacked the man, was that she struck him with the bottle because he broke her phone. Only after the man had died did she alter her story to include the version where she was choked. Keep in mind that her mug-shot showed no signs of a physical altercation, nor did she indicate such when arrested that night for assault.

In regards to your accusations of my throwing out some information, I've only discarded information that appears to be hasty and contrary to previous reports. How can a confession to assaulting a man, because he broke her phone, change to killing him because he entered her home and she feared for her life?

If you think the DA is doing its job in this case, it might be prudent for you to look into the recent history of the Larimer County District Attorney's office and the ineptitude of their previous job performance. They appear to be operating in a manner consistent with a reluctance to stick their necks out for the benefit of their constituency.

Oh VerbalBarb, don't be so naive to give credit to the accounts of two related person's that provide witness to a deadly situation after having a week to think about it, review the case with an attorney and alter their stories.

Yeah, I should be sensible and believe the DA's got it all wrong, all the witnesses lied and/or that the DA could convict the woman but just doesn't feel like it - and you've got proof of what really happened by reading newspaper articles.

Sure. lol

I'm done with your fantasy.

Colorado's law is cut & dry; if a non-homeowner sets one foot across a home's door threshold, the home's owner may use deadly force against the visitor. I think the DA has set a dangerous presedent with his ruling in this case, and I'll be watching out for new CO crimes similar to this (I believe one has occurred in Colorado Springs today)

Which shows what a mistake such laws are. Technically, couldn't you even kill a first responder with impunity because you say you "thought" he was a burglar?

I once got a Protection from Abuse Order against someone who had been arrested the same day; I was promised he'd be served with the PFA while still in jail, but somehow it didn't happen before he could make bail. Of course I didn't know that. So when he showed up at the house, could I have shot him? (I don't own a gun; just speaking hypothetically.) Would my children have forgiven me for killing their father? Would I have maintained my sanity?

Basically, this is a stupid law that will inevitably result in many needless tragedies.

you charge this woman with the crime of protecting herself, what message are you sending other battered women?

Just so.

Something else I look at here, in a way it can be considered domestic violence,.....

It is very clearly domestic violence and yes, she had the right to defend herself. Choking is meant to kill. He was trying to commit murder. In what other situation would someone even question a person's right to prevent their own murder?

Actually, I'm somewhat impressed. Colorado has a history of arresting the female VICTIM in cases of DV, apparently just to keep their quotas on track, perhaps also because they know women are more likely to plead guilty and do their two days in jail, which saves the arresting officer a boring wait at the courthouse. I've known women who were covered with bruises but the cops arrested THEM rather than their boyfriends/husbands because the women admitted they had pushed the guy or something in their effort to get away. I guess in this particular case they decided to believe her since hers was the only story they were able to hear.

I guess in this particular case they decided to believe her since hers was the only story they were able to hear.

Or, she was lucky her sister was there, also. The article mentions that she and her sister initially pushed the guy out of the house - so it looks like she had a witness.

The taxi driver would also be a witness to his inebriation and whatever happened outside the house. He also could be a witness to any hostility expressed while in or near the cab.

There are also witnesses at the bar where he was definitely hostile and violent.

It appears from the DA's statement that they interviewed only four witnesses to the man's demeanor, the woman and her sister along with two of their friends at the bar. It seems a little one-sided if all parties are in favor of the woman. Where are the witness accounts from the bartender, neighbors, ect?

Another interviewed party is likely the taxi driver whom indicated the woman mentioned that she didn't mean to hurt him. Herein lies a conflict -if the man is a physical threat to the woman's life (CO Make My Day law) and she defends herself with the bottle, why would she then immediately say "I didn't mean to hurt him"? I think the taxi driver's testimony indicates that there is more to this story than how it was portrayed by a DA whom might be reluctant to press charges based upon gender biases (meaning: it's hard to prosecute a woman under these circumstances).

Additionally, it was printed in earlier reports that the woman's initial statement to the police was that she hit him with a beer bottle because he broke her phone. I've followed this story since it hit the Fort Collins newspaper the day it happened, and I've found that the woman's accounts of the events have evolved since her first statements. I believe that during the week while the man fought his injuries in a hospital, the woman may have received some legal advice and found a way to utilize Colorado's Make My Day law. I'm sure the woman didn't mean to kill the man, but it would not be unusual to find that some woman enjoy conflict in relationships and this one might have gotten out of hand for her.

If they are actually at your doorstep, that means they are on your property and that's criminal trespass if they won't leave. Some cops are lazy *&/%'s. Some police departments have been successfully sued because of it.

OOM

id like to see the facts of you producing police departments losing money via suits of a criminal trespass-- private property law violations means there has to be someone present to issue a criminal trespass, thus thats a bold face lie, nice try.

Police officers a normally are the first ones, to TELL PEOPLE to do a trespass and most people dont follow that warning.

the cops suggest it to the citizen so as to not have to RETURN TO THE LOCATION on a call back.

id like to see the facts of you producing police departments losing money via suits of a criminal trespass-- private property law violations means there has to be someone present to issue a criminal trespass, thus thats a bold face lie, nice try.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't even talking about criminal trespass per se, but about the entire category of domestic violence (and Colorado does call "domestic violence" a category, not a specific crime.) There are police departments in many states that were sued because they didn't take domestic violence seriously and failed to enforce laws that were on the books. Women were permanently disabled and in some cases killed because of such police inaction. That is probably why some states now go to other extreme including mandatory arrest laws that guarantee one or both parties goes to jail even if neither party wants to press charges. It may also explain completely screwed up messes like this case is starting to look like.

As far as I'm concerned, they should give that entire state back to the Indians and let them run it. The white people there have made an unbelievable mess of it.

OOM

well your comment still doesn't hold water, the laws that have been passed were pushed by womens rights groups and statistics that showed removing a party helps cut down on the violence that could continue if that party didn't leave.

YOUR ASSUMPTION is just that. Your opinion of what cops do in a domestic is just that. I cant imagine you producing any statistic that shows POLICE DEPTS sued for lack of action in a domestic.

This case is pretty simple and clean in the scope of how the law works. I am not sure if the racial comment is necessary because any color of people have domestics, so i think your not really right minded.

No, we need background checks before we make that first date!

Maybe we need to do background checks on the beer first, see which bottles are dangerous. /s

No, we need background checks before we make that first date!

Wouldn't help. Too many women don't press charges, in part because they fear a scenario as I described in post 5.1, or if they have kids, they fear CPS involvement for "exposing the children to violence." As long as we continue to punish the victim in these ways, most violent men will go undetected.

No, I can see waiting by the door with a baseball bat and using deadly force if he broke down the door. Letting him in when you know he is going to act violently and then using deadly force is wrong.

I can see waiting by the door with a baseball bat and using deadly force if he broke down the door.

Maybe she was tired of cowering in fear and opened the door to tell the SOB to f-off. Maybe she even had the bottle in her hand at the time and tried to scare him off with it. Seriously stupid of him to charge at her in that case.

Maybe she could see he was going to break the door down, leaving her with nothing between her and him, so she decided to open it before he destroyed it completely. Maybe he stopped and acted calm, then lied to her that he was done being violent. Maybe the person who was with her told her what was happening was her fault because she wouldn't let him in, that if she let him in, the other person would deal with him and she'd be safer.

I'm going to ask again: what situation other than DV would cause anyone to think the victim didn't have the right to defend herself?

Osiyo Loretta. Well put my friend !!

She certainly had every right to defend herself. There is a lot of detail we don't have. My response had been to Screaming for Vengeance, who asserts that luring him back in so as to finish him off was the right thing to do, which to me is a repulsive idea. I think the DA made the right call. I'm certain the young man was scum, and he probably got what was coming. I don't think the young woman acted prudently, though in all honesty, almost no one would act prudently in such a situation unless they had been extensively trained (police/military).

I just posted a link and the complete details at 2.12

Per the DA's release, she opened the door in an effort to get him to leave, and he barged in again, beginning his violence again. She first hit him aside the head, causing the head injury. He continued his violence. She then struck him with the broken bottle, causing the cuts. He still continued his violence. The sisters did not think he was fatally injured because of his continued actions. Even so, he was bleeding, so they called 911 to get help for him and tried to get him to stay until the paramedics arrived. But he left. So he was still amublatory at that time. I don't remember if the article said when he finally got medical help.

The problem with the DA's release is that the accounts of the events are based upon the woman, whom may receive a severe penalty for her actions, and the woman's sister, whom may be inclined to protect her sibling. The woman and her sister also had a week or more to consult with an attorney/s before the man died of his injuries.

If I were a competent District Attorney, I'd be researching this case a lot longer than a week. I'd check for witness accounts from neighbors, bartenders, citizens at the bar, etc. I'd look into the background of the former relationship between the man and woman. I'd contact law enforcement to check for prior lawful violations regarding the man and woman independently.

A person died at the hands of another, so I'd expect a great amount of investigative effort to ensue and this effort would likely consume more than a week's worth of time. Colorado's Make My Day law appears to have afforded the DA a convenient "wrap-up" to this mysterious case. Although, I don't think we've heard the end of this case.

Per the DA's release, she opened the door in an effort to get him to leave

That's like poking a stick at a pit bull in an effort to get it to stop barking.

cjfromMN_____She definitely did the right thing/every body should protect themselves from being abused/both physically and verbally. Because living in life without feeling like you have the right to protect yourself is not living life comfortably.

She definitely did the right thing/every body should protect themselves from being abused/both physically and verbally.

Everybody should kill if they feel they are being abused VERBALLY?!?

Abusers do say they are in love. The problem is their version of love includes ownership which gives them the right to control their victim. It does not include recognizing the right of the victim to make her own decisions and control her own life, including excluding the abuser from their life.

Stalkers who have never met their victim will tell you they're in love too. Would you accept that claim if they harmed their victim?

I actually screwed up and conflated David and Shaun Cassidy.

LOL. That's easy to do, especially if you're not paying close attention. I too get caught in that syndrome.

yeah, but with all the posters I have of each of them on my bedroom walls, it's almost unforgivable.

Oh, well, I don't have posters, so I can plead simple forgetfulness. Hmmm...well, we tend to get inured and overlook what we see everyday, so that can be your excuse.

Shaun Cassidy was the name of the ex-boyfriend who attacked her and died when she fought back.

Osiyo Loretta. I just did my 3rd 14 hour day in a row. Hellllllllllllllpppp!!! LOL I'm tired too. Nancy Drew wasn't the detective was she?? Please tell me Danny Partridge wasn't involved. LOL

Dohiyi Oginali.........

Loretta_____I see now i had forgotten that so thanks for the reminder. Looks like they were two people that didn't belong together/and the way it ended was really tragic.

What no one has anything else to say/about a lady that is a killer that won't be held accountable/for killing her boyfriend. Just kidding she did the only thing she could do to protect herself/she fought back instead of becoming just another victim.

It very much looks as if SOMEONE was going to die that night.

Yes it surely did and thats the sad part of the whole situation.

I think your right that you could look at the story in a very different light/concluding that she could have avoided killing him. But after reading all the facts she did the only thing she could do.