The Case Against the Filipino, Essay Example

The case against Filipino is a common case that happens to thousands of people annually. The case, however, is not easy to resolve since the event itself is quite confusing. In addition, the case should be looked at very thoroughly in order to make a proper decision at the autumn. It is very obvious that Filipino killed the Drunkard, therefore the case should not focus on finding evidence for killing but rather what happened prior to the killing and at the exact moment of the killing since that would determine the level of guilt that this Filipino should be charged with. In my opinion, though Filipino yelled out his intentions if the Drunkard did not retreat, he is innocent of any crime  since he was being constantly harassed, when the Drunkard caught him he was choking the Filipino, and instead the owner of the ferryboat should be directly sued for the killing for not having security to cease the fighting.

The defenders of Filipino should first and foremost focus on the fact that their client has been repeatedly harassed prior to arriving on boat and also when he was on the boat (3). This should serve as a reasonably argument to drop the charge at least to third-degree murder (further evidence should drop all the charges).  Reason for it is because this man was being constantly chased and repeatedly stalked which means that he had no intention of hurting the Drunkard, at least before the Drunkard got to him  and that’s when the Filipino began shouting out threats, though this will be further argued. Going back to the original point, this harassment was intended by the Drunkard but the Filipino kept avoiding a conflict and the only thing he wanted to do was to get to his brother in Oakland (4). In addition, the Drunkard kept yelling out racially sensitive insults which should have been stopped from the start (1). This relieves him from having any intentions to kill the Drunkard. The further evidence will prove that Filipino acted as self-defense when he killed the Drunkard.

When the Filipino tried to run away from the Drunkard, latter caught him from the sleeves of his coat and clanged to the man and began choking him (2). This means that the Drunkard had the intention of actually hurting the Filipino man, and perhaps even kill him. This scene proves, singlehandedly, that the Filipino man actually acted in self-defense: as he was tried to get away from the Drunkard to avoid further conflict, the Drunkard choked him, which brings to the conclusion that the Filipino man had no other choice but to stop the Drunkard from hurting or even killing him. In sum, it can be said, without a doubt, that the Filipino man had no intention of killing the Drunkard whatsoever and was acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man in order to stop him from choking. This however, does not acquit all those who were present at the scene: the owner of the boat should be cited for not dealing with the situation properly during the scene since it was his private boat.

Even though the Filipino man should be acquitted of any charges, the owner of the boat should be charged for being indifferent when the Drunkard was disrupting the peace.  There were no security guards to calm the Drunkard down nor were there any employees that tried anything to stop the Drunkard from  disrupting the peace. The Filipino man in this case is a costumer and his rights should have been protected since he was in a private property.

All in all, the Filipino man should not be charged with anything since he clearly acted in self-defense. The Drunkard first chased after him and later tried to choke him: the Filipino, having no other choice, used to knife to stab him. The owner of the boat, however, should be cited in some way for not taking proper steps to stop the conflict.

Work Cited

Saroyan, William, The Filipino and the Drunkard, Line 16-17

Saroyan, William, The Filipino and the Drunkard, Page 2, Line 18-19

Saroyan, William, The Filipino and the Drunkard, Page 1, Line 10-11

Saroyan, William, The Filipino and the Drunkard, Page 2, Line 36-37