I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

 One is responsible for their actions unless:

The person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
 Never having been in such a state or having anyone even describe it to me I can't really say what I think about this, but I think that the person would be more responsible for getting into that state than what they do in it.

The person is temporarily or permanently insane according to the legal definition.
If you don't know what you are doing, you can't really be responsible for your actions.

The person was coerced by another person.
I really thing that it depends on the severity of the action and threat. As far as this rule in the law, I think that it is rather hard to make a legal definitions on severity so I think that it should remain as it is.

The person is under 18 years of age.
This is the one that I disagree with the most. If a teenager was to kill someone, I am rather sure that they would have a good idea of how wrong it is. I think that it should be more around the age of 13 that one would be held completely responsible for their action. This is not, of course, to say that if a seven year old was to kill someone they should be simply told not to do it; sever punishment would most certainly be in order. I just thing that they would not be fully responcible.



As for the man who was stabbed: it was the stabbers fault for his death. Others may have influenced his decision, changing the degree to which he was responsible, but in the end it would be his fault. (I assume) he was fully intending for the man he stabbed to die, so he must be at fault. However, this would not mean that the people who passed by the victim were not at fault, because they most certainly were.

By the way, how do we know so much about what happened. Did the man who picked the dieing man up and set him back down go and tell the news reporters that: Hey I picked that man up and set him down again?