Two men indicted in hotel beating
A grand jury on Monday indicted two men on charges that they beat a gunman who had shot their friend at a downtown hotel party in December. The shooting made national news because of the location, but the attorney for one of the suspects is complaining that the two men acted in self-defense.
Lawyer Warren A. Brown is holding a new conference this morning to allege a double-standard -- saying the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office last week declined to charge a Johns Hopkins University student who killed an intruder with a samurai sword but charged his clients who he said disarmed a man holding an Uzi-like weapon.
I'll have more details about these cases in Wednesday's column. Prosecutors say the two men in the hotel beat the gunman, who remains in grave condition at Maryland Shock Trauma Center, beyond the point where anyone was in danger.
Here's the news release from prosecutors:
Baltimore, MD – February 1, 2010 – State’s Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy announced today that the Baltimore City Grand Jury indicted Dominic Anderson, 22, of N. Mount Street and Abdullah Omar, 21, of the 200 block of N. Calhoun Street for attempted first-degree murder, deadly weapon and handgun counts.
Court documents allege that on December 6, 2009 Dominic Anderson and Abdullah Omar were involved in a verbal dispute with Raymond Woodland, 19, during a birthday party resulting in shots being fired at the Sheraton Hotel located in downtown Baltimore on W Fayette Street. It is alleged Anderson and Omar were attending a birthday party in adjoining rooms at the hotel when an argument began between Woodland and the defendants. During the argument Woodland allegedly produced a handgun from his waistband and fired on round striking an individual in the face. It was at this time that Anderson and Omar attempted to disarm Woodland. Omar allegedly held Woodland in a “sleeper hold” while Anderson allegedly struck Woodland with a handgun in the face and head. Woodland suffered life threatening head trauma as a result of the assault.
An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceeding.
Both defendants were released on their own recognizance. An arraignment is scheduled for February 25, 2010 before Judge Pamela J. White, 636, Mitchell Courthouse.
Categories: Breaking news, Confronting crime, Courts and the justice system, Downtown
Comments
I agree with Mr. Brown. I've had problems with the whole samurai sword killing from the beginning. It's a little obvious that because this was a "Hopkins" situation and the city doesn't want the name tarnished is why this guy wasn't charged. If that were anybody else, we would be in jail. Last time I checked, if you are in your house, with doors locked and in no danger and there is a intruder (outside your house in the back yard), you call the police. You dont grab a sword and go out into the yard and kill someone and then say you feared for your life. Hello! If you never went out there in the first place, you wouldn't have been in any type of danger. Especially since you just had the cops there with you earlier. This guy was fed up that someone broke in earlier and when he heard someone in the yard again he grabbed that sword with intentions of doing something to whomever he was going to find out there. If that wasn't the case, then why not call the cops back. And I don't know about you, but I'm not jumping at anyone with a sword in there hand! This is just another political situation.
Now as far as the hotel beating, you have a bunch of kids partying and shots ring out. Typical night in Baltimore, huh? This is no college party at Hopkins so we will just charge the two that stopped the gunman that shot people and stopped him from shooting anybody else by the way. Thats more than a double standard to me.
They should have been Hopkins students. Mr Brown wouldn't have the need for the press conference then
Posted by: Greg | February 2, 2010 10:33 AM
The only double standard I see is that a white Hopkins student kills a blackman and is not charged, but a blackman beats a gunman and saves other party goers by subdoing him are charged with attempted murder. that's the double standard. Maybe they should have been saving some white people.
Posted by: UNCLEOLLIE41 | February 2, 2010 11:53 AM
Greg, I agree that Anderson and Omar did nothing wrong and should be exonerated. But are you seriously saying that if you find an intruder in your house, you should call the cops and wait for them to show up while the intruder ransacks your home and/or attacks you? That is absolutely ridiculous. No, if someone is in my home who should not be there, they are the one who has broken the law and threatened me. If I have a gun, a sword, or a flamethrower, then I would be fully justified in using any of these weapons to protect myself and my possessions. It seems that you feel it is more important to protect a criminal aggressor than an innocent human being trying to defend himself.
Posted by: Ed | February 2, 2010 12:50 PM
Get rid of Jessamy and her happy band of fools.
Posted by: Moe | February 2, 2010 5:17 PM
To Ed:
The alleged burglar in the sword incident wasn't inside the Hopkins student's home; he was outside in the yard. Had he managed to break the line of the door or wall and been "inside" I'd agree with you (and vote for the flamethrower BTW). There's legislation being introduced on self defense in your home or business today. House Bill 207 (HB207)
http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb0207f.pdf
To UNCLEOLLIE41:
Unfortunately still race plays too much a role in prosecutions in Baltimore, regardless of the financial ability to hire good counsel. If you're black, you're guilty until proven innocent. Even then your innocence is supposedly a failure of the system to convict you, not proof you didn't do it.
In General:
The story didn't say if the gun Woodland was beaten with was his own, (taken away from him) or belonged to Anderson or Omar. Either way, if Woodland really was the agressor (pulled his gun first rather than fleeing the argument) then he deserves what he got. He'd already shot someone, presumably NOT in self-defense. If it was he could have withdrawn to safety rather than shooting.
Then again, I'm not sure of any of this because I wasn't there.
It's a sad state of affairs when you have to fear the States Attorneys Office more than the attacker with a gun in your face. When you go to prison for self-defense or the grave for lack of it.
Posted by: R. Notsay | February 3, 2010 1:13 AM
This is an interesting case. It just looks to me that race plays a big role in this case. Either way, the two guys that beat the man with the gun can't justify themselves by saying we had the right to nearly kill the man because he had a gun. Yes, it was smart to take him down, and all they had to do was take the gun and hold me down until the cops came. We can't take the justice system into our own hands. That's how corrupt cites are formed.
Posted by: maryland criminal lawyer | February 18, 2010 2:31 PM