So let me get this straight. In our Country where you are innocent until proven guilty this DA has found that a man who was left bleeding and in a coma by 4 (a gang) of men is the aggressor and therefore guilty of bringing this on himself. How do we know the 4 did not go at this guy. They had plenty of time to get their story together after they left him for dead. What if the man had died? Something smells politically rotten here. Did the gang of 4 pass a lie detector test? Why not let a jury of peers decide who is guilty, if anyone was? Were any of these 4 drug tested? Did the so called aggressor have a history of aggression? Did the gang of 4 have a history of aggression? According to the other article the DAs office didn't even contact the family of the man. There seems to be a large movement of people who feel like teenagers and people in their 20s should be able to do anything they want. They make excuses for their bad behavior without thinking of the victims. I am sure this man's family's life has been shattered. I think at the very least, they should be entitled to a trial by jury.

She did not answer the question: "Is it legal to leave the scene and not report the crime".

Also, if Lamont was the aggressor, why not push the "victims" to press assault charges against Lamont? Maybe even a civil case against Lamont should have been considered, I mean these "victims" may have been traumatized by this attack, right?

As I said in the other thread, history is written by the victors. Of course the teens had plenty of time to get together and make sure that their stories were all consistent with each other. Rather than immediately contacting the police or even summoning medical help for David Lamont who was lying on the street in the middle of the night, they all scampered off into the night. For weeks after the incident the police were getting one side of the story and one side only.

As for you Glenn Wohltmann and the Pleasanton Weekly, I think that you did an EXTREMELY POOR job of conducting this interview. Ms. O'Malley said that "the evidence" showed that Mr. Lamont head-butted one of the teens and then was struck back. You should have asked what evidence? Ms. O'Malley refers to some injuries on one of the teens, but that in itself doesn't give any information on the timeline of the order of the events. Could the timeline of events be definitively established based on just the physical evidence (I doubt it), or was the DA interpreting the physical evidence based on the timeline provided by the teens themselves? You had an opportunity to provide some much needed answers for this case, but instead of clarifying the matter you just made it murkier. I find it amazing that you just passively accepted Ms.O'Malley's repeated "the evidence shows" statements without any further questioning. That's no way to conduct an interview.

First thought is, who are these kid's parents?

Second thought is, does stand your ground apply when you are out disturbing the peace and loitering in a neighborhood you have no reason to be in?

A man was beaten and into a coma, by some punk kids causing trouble in HIS neighborhood.

Seems like "Stand your ground" in this case is more of a cop out for a lazy DA.

Nevermind the fact we are supposed to believe that the person who suffered the head butt is the "only one who had contact with Mr. Lamont," while everyone else there just stood there and watched. And left the scene. And didn't call police.

Chances it went down like that are 0.0%

As an elderly citizen and resident of Pleasanton, I am greatly disturbed by the incident which took place very close to where I live. I take great pride in our police and city management for maintaining a place where we are relatively free of crime and can enjoy our beautiful peaceful city. To read about a vicious crime resulting in a man almost losing his life and being left for dead for what appears to be caused by the right to live in peace and reasonable quiet in his own residence. What where the "four victims" doing and why were they so scared that they had to run for their lives. I have been on the fence on my opinion on the rights of citizens to bear arms, but now I am seriously wondering if this man had been armed and truly the aggressor he would have been unharmed and four young men in this case would have been free to go and make trouble in another neighborhood where they could conduct their loud and disturbing behavior elsewhere. This curious old mind wants to know?

The comments here, and those placed on other related sites, make me ashamed to be from Pleasanton. A read of these sites suggests that the town consists primarily of uneducated, spittle-drooling, gun-worshiping, yokels who would no doubt feel much more comfortable in 1940s Mississippi.

I appreciate all of the above comments. It was a very traumatic incident that left a family and community traumatized.

Hopefully folks will eventually find a way to manage their emotions so that they no longer feel so injured by the violent incident.

I have no need to gather additional information.

Appears someone witnessed the altercation other than the 5 there . I'm sure police didnt accept the testimony of the other 3 as gospel. That person must of witnessed the first punch thrown, probably didnt hear tho what led up to that first punch tho, just saw it thrown. So it all comes down to the eyesight of that witness and if that person actually witnessed and heard everything. Any DNA evidence on the teen who was hit that indicated who threw the punch?

Regardless of other details, the gang of 4 males 'came into' the victim's neighborhood, and were 'DISTURBING the PEACE", thus violating city ordinances of midnight noise in a residential area. The victim was on HIS own street...in front of his house. So if anybody was standing ground, literally, it would be the homeowner,, who had no way of knowing who or what was outside in the dark, or what their intentions might be.
I DOUBT the guy that 'SOME' person might have marked up was just standing in peace, apologetically, and remorseful for their less than gentlemanly behavior of disturbing an otherwise quiet neighborhood.
All 4 knew the older man was KNOCKED to the pavement.
hmmm, the Stow case comes to mind. Has the guy's parents listed their house yet??

What she is trying to tell us is if you start a fight, and you get your ass knocked out...that's it. The little punk had a right to defend himself as well.

Doesn't pass the smell test to me. Doubtful that a white, middle-aged man with a high income, million dollar home and family to support (e.g., lots to lose) is going to start a physical altercation with a doped-up teen. This just demonstrates that there are parents in Pleasanton rich enough to pay off the DA, or the perp was a minority and she doesn't have the will to prosecute. Lesson learned - if you confront teens or others doing illegal activities outside of your home, bring a gun, and if need be use it and leave the assailant for dead. You'll have plenty of time to make up a story and the DA won't prosecute you.

Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

Agree with all the above comments. This gives all the teens and mischief makers a license to make trouble as they know they will get away with it.
Really sad how our system works. Shame on this DA.

The problem with cases like this is that it is very difficult to construct a timeline of events. Most often it just devolves into a case of he-said versus she-said. Even in a case as heavily publicized and examined as the George Zimmerman versus Trayvon Martin case it was not possible to definitely establish the sequence of events. Now if the exact timeline of events could not even be established in the Zimmerman-Martin case, we should all be very curious how Ms. O'Malley was able to claim with such confidence that the "evidence shows" that Mr. Lamont started the physical altercation.

On the night that Mr. Lamont was hit and fell into a coma, it's doubtful that the physical evidence was able to establish the sequence of events any more than it was in the Zimmerman-Martin case. Since the teens involved ran off into the night the police were not able to immediately question them, and so the teens had ample time to establish a consistent story among themselves before they finally agreed to police questioning. They had a lot of freedom in establishing a story since they knew that the person on the other side of the conflict wasn't talking.

As for the physical evidence, there might have been a bruise on one of the teens consistent with the alleged head-butting, but there was no way of knowing precisely when the bruise was made. In fact, since the police weren't immediately called, it probably wasn't even possible to establish the fact that the bruise occurred during the fight. The bruise may have been deliberately made hours later so as to support the teens' version of the events.

What's so curious about this incident is that if the teens were in the right and Mr. Lamont started the fight and was then knocked down unconscious, then one would expect some of the half-dozen or so teens there to attempt to render aid and call an ambulance or the police. They had nothing to fear if they were in the right. But, no, each and every one of them scampered off into the night. Not even one of them rendered aid, called an ambulance, or called the police. Their actions aren't consistent with their story. They're actions are more consistent with their attacking an innocent man and trying to run off and hide from justice.

Agree with Sam from Oak Hill (think that's a first). Even if the perp and/or his buddies had a videotape of the head butting - how would the DA know there weren't other physical violence started by the "youth in question" that lead up to the head butt? As for the sense of entitlement - for some reason these youths felt the need to stick around when confronted by Mr Lamont and argue/fight with him. They were in an automobile and he was on foot - they could have easily driven off if they wanted to. In my day, kids so much as just drinking or smoking caught by an adult would have scampered away like cockroaches with the light on. Now they think, "Hey my parents are rich" or "Hey, I'm a protected minority so I don't have to take this homeowner questioning my right to break the law adjacent to his property."

I agree with Sam, that Mr. Wohltmann did an extremely poor job with the interview. I think even asking the question, "What evidence?" would have added quite a bit to the dialogue. Furthermore, Mr. Wohltmann should have pointed out that Ms. O'Malley was appointed to her position by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and then ran for re-election unopposed. She also has a history of not investigating/not charging when money has flowed her way: Web Link It makes one wonder if a payoff was involved?

Could be that the teen hit Lamont after the head butt and simply all of them immediately ran not knowing if Lamont was seriously hurt and just trying to flee to protect themselves. An understandable human response for teenagers.
We can speculate until the cows come home. Where are those cows anyway. But no one knows for sure and probably everyone involved has a different memory. So speculate away you super sleuths and intellectual elites.

I wonder if some of the folks defending the "youths" are the parents of one of these monsters? Or maybe they've done such a poor job parenting their unruly teens who would do/have done something like this, so they sympathize?

No taking sides here. Nobody knows who was right or wrong. Maybe both sides were right or both sides were wrong. Truly tragic for all involved especially Mr. Lamont who was injured. Sum it up to stuff happens. William tell should go shoot an apple off his own head. What a moron.

It's unlikely that Mr. Lamont started a fight with four teens, but even if he did they still committed two crimes given what we know. One was using unreasonable force (stand your ground lets you respond with like force to defend yourself. Beating someone in to a coma goes beyond that.) and the other was not rendering aid, and leaving the scene. Those things should be enough to get them charged. I am deeply disturbed by how this even has played out.

Contact info for the DA's office is available here: Web Link

I wonder if James Meehan would be inclined to tell the truth if he were interviewed?

Yes, contact the DA's office, because cases like this do not involve evidence, or legal thinking, or rule of the law, rather they are just political. The more political pressure we put on our public servants, the more they'll act the way we want rather than how their expertise dictates. (If only our public school teachers felt the same way! Then my kid might of graduated with higher then a C-!!!!!)

We know already that either the kids were rich and that their parents paid off one of more members of the DA's office, or that one or more members of the DA's office is seeking a higher position in Oakland and so doesn't want to antagonize the entitlement groups that always vote in limp-wristed turn- the-other cheek Democrats.

If we have learned a lesson here it is that Mr. Lamont should have been carrying a gun. That either would have prevented his unconsciousable injury or he could have stood his ground and shot the cockroaches before they had a chance to scatter.

I have to laugh at those limp-wristed libs saying Mr. Lamont should have called the police instead of going outside to confront the spoiled little Pleasanton richies and their entitlement thug friends from Oakland. We all know the police in this city are afraid to do anything because rich parents and diseased libs have their fingers on the purse strings.

One of the bed rock principles of our criminal justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Those of you who seem inclined to reverse this principle to read that you are guilty until proven innocent, shouldn't be suprised when you are hoist on your petard.

The DA should make public any money directed her why by anyone of the families involved to any campaigns she is involved going forward.

If these kids did not have money and expenses attorneys there would of been arrest.

This is one big joke and one more reason for us to lose a little more faith in the legal system.

Bruce wrote: "One of the bed rock principles of our criminal justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Those of you who seem inclined to reverse this principle to read that you are guilty until proven innocent, shouldn't be suprised when you are hoist on your petard."

It's true that they can't be proven guilty of assault as things now stand. But they are guilty of extremely poor judgement: Leaving a critically injured man in desperate need of medical attention on the dark pavement alone and uncared for, not calling for medical attention or for the police, and leaving a crime scene. There's no way to spin this so that the teens come out looking good. The teens are the ones who got "hoisted by their own petard." (i.e., because of their actions, the teens have no one to blame but themselves for how the community views them).

I am reading some of this and amazed about how ignorant some people can be.Of course there are no payoffs - and has anyone ever thought that maybe Mr Lamonte actually told the police that he started it? Kids or anyone for that matter can be on any street,it's not against the law-Gated community maybe not but instead of calling 911 he left his home and approached them. In fact this makes him the agressor whether you like it or not. Granted they should'nt have fled. And who said they were doped up? Too many people jump to conclusions here. It was unfortunate all the way around.I guess i have alittle more respect for the DA's office. They certainly took a lot of time to sort things out in my estimation

Everyone thing is political, Mitchell. Alameda County DA is an elected position. Ms. O'Malley has made her decree for whatever corrupt/incompetent reasons, but voters should tell her how they feel so hopefully she won't be inclined to make such poor decisions in the future.

@ Susie - the articles state that the Lamonts have not been contacted by the DA and that Mr. Lamont was unable to remember the events anyway due to his massive head injuries that almost killed him. So there goes your theory that he admitted starting it.

Calmly approaching someone in an automobile playing loud music and who are also "allegedly" doing drugs is not an act of aggression - it's actually a courtesy to the ill-mannered youth of this town - to let them know their behavior is illegal and unappreciated, and that they should discontinue it. Unfortunately, they didn't receive this training at home, or have in fact have been told that they are above the law and rules don't apply to them by either rich, entitled parents or poor, minority entitled parents.

It's a sad day for our community when kids who are up to no good would challenge a homeowner on his own property. I hope this doesn't embolden more "youths" to do the same thing - if they do it anywhere near my turf, you can be they'll be the ones laying face down with multiple shotgun injuries.

Regardless of anything else, when being LOUD, any decent, respectful teens, would quietly slink off immediately when a parent-aged homeowner comes out to the street. Maybe having a FOUR to one ADVANTAGE, they felt a bit cocky.
And "Ashamed" should be very much ashamed of the teens regardless of story. None of the 4 live on that otherwise quiet street, and any distant watchers could have said leave or stop it, and called for help to a downed adult, since NOT ONE of the foursome made a call....just out of common decency and respect for resident adults and basic 'life' of another !!!

Mr Tell--perhaps you need to talk to someone at the polie department to define aggressor to you in this instance rather than spouting off like you do. just make a call to the PD to ask some general questions about rights. You show your ignorance by what you write when you truly don't know how the system works and want to attack elected officials,that's the easy way out. i have had this kind of situation explained to me by a retired officer and I believe what he says,so do some homework.

Susie wrote: "Kids or anyone for that matter can be on any street,it's not against the law-Gated community maybe not but instead of calling 911 he left his home and approached them. In fact this makes him the agressor whether you like it or not."

Susie, do you really believe what you just wrote? One person kindly asking another person to turn down some loud music late at night makes that person an "aggressor"? Have you never in your life kindly asked another person to do something (e.g., turn down some music, move his jacket, let you pass in a narrow corridor, etc.)? Or do you consider any such act an act of "aggression" and immediately call the police at every opportunity? They must love you down at the Pleasanton Police station.

You are missing the point in the broad sense of the term that is being the aggressor. In this particular case he should have called 911,but chose to go outside and confront.. Don't muddy things with silly statements about everyday courtesy like you mentioned and no I don't call the PD,maybe once or twice in 40 plus years in Pleasanton I don't have any more time-you guys need to get your info from official sources

Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)

@Susie
No, Susie, a person is not being an "aggressor" even in a "broad sense" if he or she kindly and politely asks another person to do something like turn down some loud music playing late at night. I think that you're just being a bit careless with your words when you write. Another instance of your carelessness is when you write that Mr. Lamont should have "called 911" on the teens, when you know very well (I hope) that 911 is only to be used for emergencies, not for calling the police on loud music playing late at night.

Susie wrote: "couldn't resist now the REAL truth comes out..."

Tell us something we don't know.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff.)

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)

No one knows whether the kids called the police or not. No knows much of anything. It's all speculation. They're kids. People, adults too, panic. Many hit and run accidents occur with the 'hitter' panicking and not coming forward until later. Sometimes much later. . . .

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

Immanuel wrote: "They're kids. People, adults too, panic. Many hit and run accidents occur with the 'hitter' panicking and not coming forward until later. Sometimes much later. "

So you're saying that by running away and leaving a man critically injured and in desperate need of immediate medical attention alone and uncared for on the cold, dark pavement that these teens are no worse than your typical hit-and-run driver.

Thanks for clarifying that for us, Immanuel.

I believe DA O'Malley is up for re-election this year on another 4-year term. Your vote is a good place to express your views of her performance.

I concur these entitled kids likely punched each other to create the injury. The idea that this man, with no history of violence, would choose to headbutt an 18 year old?????? The parents are wealthy and using influence to protect college admissions or interruption of the charmed young life . Bet the kids are in regular counseling too as they will need to live with their concocted story, lies and destruction of not just one man but an entire family. I bet the frustration of this incident results in the "outing" of the families to face the public court of opinion. No matter the start of the fight the conclusion is criminal. If the kids had shoved him, he pushed back and then left a teen in the street in a pool of blood would this be self- defense?

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)Yes, I think the kids purposely lured the poor man out of his house so they could fake a head-butt and then try to kill him. He had once before asked them very nicely to leave the neighborhood -- after all, it was HIS neighborhood, and they weren't in Oakland -- and this time they returned in order to put him six feet under.

And my cousin's best friend's Aunt's nextdoor neighbor said she saw the four kids practicing head-butting after the premeditated attack.

So, there you have it. . . . All agreed. Because we KNOW what happened better than do the authorities. We KNOW the poor man went outside only to very politely and respectfully request that the youths kindly keep down the noise. He wasn't mad or irritated one bit. We KNOW. He wanted no conflict whatsoever. That's why he didn't call the police. Because, see, he just wanted to avoid conflict. We KNOW all this. And we KNOW he couldn't possibly have struck first, because, see, we've already established his intention was to be oh so very polite, while the youths' intentions were to deliver a near fatal blow to his head. And we KNOW that, as is the case with head trauma injury, the poor man had to have hit the ground immediately, and the kids KNEW he was unconscious, and immediately began practicing head-butts to establish their airtight alibi, which 4 scared-witless teens are no doubt able to do with great facility. I mean, the way these kids, these days, can absolutely pull the wool over the eyes of police and DA! And we know these kids must be smart enough to formulate a story that all four might articulate and stick to, even under intense police interrogation, because these kids are really ever so sly, so evil, that they developed a plan to lure the polite older gentleman into the street where they could launch their attack. And, really, the idea that police interrogators would be able to separate the youths and see through their lies? How preposterous.. . .

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)Alameda County is known to be extremely liberal and very lax on crime. What's that old saying? A liberal is a conservative who has never been mugged.

Give us names

(Comments partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as innuendo, hearsay or specific accusatory information unsupported by facts.)Just commenting on your very own statements, Sam. I note you don't disagree with anything I've written in my above post. Of course, one really couldn't disagree unless one were privy to facts that, truth be told, none of us has had access to. I mean, really, Sam. . . . like the after-the-fact-head-butting that you've proposed; or the airtight alibi that these clever little demons were able to fool the authorities with; or how the poor Mr. Lamont just HAD to have approached the kids with extreme politeness; or how the kids knew, for a fact, that he was severely hurt and needed medical treatment; or how Mr. Lamont just HAD to have collapsed like a ton of bricks because it is impossible that he may not have collapsed until after the demonic youths had fled the scene? . . . and that what these kids did was far worse than a hit-and-run because hit-and-runners don't concoct head-butt stories after the fact? And, boy, we know they must've done that, because doctors/investigators sure wouldn't be able to discern evidence of a head-butt on Mr. Lamont's head, would they? . . . Just basic physics, right? . . .

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

Just some food for thought here. It's late Friday night, early Saturday morning. Mr. Lamont is at home, possibly enjoying a few adult beverages. Some kids arrive. This has happened before, Mr. Lamont gets mad, goes out, has an argument, head buts a kid who swings back. Mr. Lamont goes down, the kids panic and bolt.

Where's the evidence? According to the story, the medical reports from all those involved. What else? You can bet the police grilled these kids long and hard and separate from each other. The police are convinced.

The DA's office reviewed the evidence. THAT'S THEIR JOB. They do it EVERY DAY. The DA's office is convinced. Look at Cody Hall. The DA's office reviewed the evidence and bumped the charge to murder.

Accidents happen. It's unfortunate but true.

Are these kids guilty? NO.
They were NOT charged.
They were NOT convicted.

What possible good could come from releasing their names?

Step away folks, there's nothing to see here.

You mean, Sam, once you got to that sentence about "none of us knowing what the facts are," then you quit reading? Nothing I wrote amounted to anything even remotely resembling an attack against you. No, Sam, the attack is against your unfounded assertions and how it is unfathomable that any rational person could claim the things you've been claiming. If I were to attack you personally, I'd probably claim something about how you seem to have some issues with young people in P-Town; but I haven't made such a claim. (Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

To "None of the ...",

Then why no charges against Lamont? Surely there should be some outrage here. These kids were just minding their own business, and a crazed drunk headbutts one of them out of the blue? That's assault and battery. The evidence is on their side, right?

(Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)The kids perhaps don't want to press charges; cops/DA don't want to charge a poor guy who's in for a lifetime of recovery.

"None of the Above" wrote: "Where's the evidence? According to the story, the medical reports from all those involved. What else? You can bet the police grilled these kids long and hard and separate from each other. The police are convinced."

You of course realize that medical examinations of all those involved were not performed when they should have been performed in order to shed the most light onto the incident (i.e., immediately after the incident) because the teens ran away, right? Yes, a police grilling of all involved would have been absolutely wonderful if it had occurred immediately after the incident, but that didn't happen did it? Why? Again, because the teens ran away.

I doubt much police "grilling" went on when the teens came in because they most certainly had their lawyers in tow, as well as ample time and opportunity to rehearse their stories and make sure that their stories were consistent with each other. Also, any lawyer that allows his client to be harshly "grilled" by the police is a pretty poor one, don't you agree? You can be sure that the lawyers were there watching and listening carefully and ready to put an immediate stop to the police questioning at any time.

Finally, the fact that the teens were not arrested by the police does not mean that the police were, as you say, "convinced" by the teens' stories. It simply means that the police realized that they did not have enough evidence to arrest them.

Oh, oops, sorry I missed the sarcasm, John. Good one.

Now Sam is telling us about how the four kids all showed up with lawyers. And were all the lawyers wearing pink bow ties, too? Where, I wonder, does Sam acquire all of his "knowledge"? He must have privileged access to info the rest of us simply don't have. No? Well, then, each new, bizarre, unfounded assumption only adds to what should be a fount of embarrassment.

Everytime we have called the police to report kids drinking/hanging out at late at night in our neighborhood... we have been told by the police this was not important enough for them to come and investigate. So calling police/911 to report the kids was not really an option.

Mitchell wrote: "Now Sam is telling us about how the four kids all showed up with lawyers. "

The assumption that the teens showed up with lawyers for police questioning in a case involving a man beaten into a coma and in which they were potential suspects is "bizarre" and "unfounded"? OK, if you say so.

@None the Above said it best. This was a terrible, unfortunate accident with some degree of fault on both sides. I for one would rather the DA and her staff spend MY hard earned tax dollar on cases they know, beyond a reasonable doubt, they can prove. The evidence shows, this is not one of them. Spend the money on putting Cody Hall behind bars for life.

I hope the kids had lawyers. I hope Mr.Lamont has a lawyer. To think that there is no such thing as influence and corruption is just silly. On his way out of office Gov. Schwarzenegger pardoned his buddy Fabian Nunez (former assembled speaker's) son who was involved in the murder of a San Diego state student. His name was Esteban Nunez. As sad as it is, corruption exists. I think it is not just right to question the events here, but necessary. I am glad Glenn W. is covering this story.

I would be OK with the outcome if the DA would of sent the case to a grand jury.

That the reason I think it smells a little of cover-up.