Crime River Visitor Found Guilty of reckless homicide After Drunk Teenagers Harassed Him

[nhbbear]

You're a psychopath. Miu started and escalated the situation. He approached the kids. He was told to leave. He was the first to put hands on someone. He was the first to throw a punch. At any point he could have left. He chose violence. Learn what self defense is.

"Five young men." Like it was a gang or something. Half these people didn't even know each other.

By first punch, do you mean the grabbing of the inner tube or are you referring the punch that some of them claimed he threw at the woman in his face, yet not one of the “witnesses” could say which hand he threw it with, whether it was closed fist or open hand, whether it was a jab, hook(one boy said it was a hook, but when pressed for which hand, he didn’t know) and one boy told the cops she was knocked to the ground but when they viewed the footage, he admitted she never hit the ground.

Did something happen in the moment that the camera wasn’t focused on him? Yes. You hear someone shout “you don’t hit a woman.” But we don’t know whether it was a push, slap, or even slapping the phone from her hand because she was coming it directly into his face. She claimed he struck her in the face, but she had no marks and the only thing that is clear from the video is that she didn’t get knocked to the ground and she didn’t even get knocked back or stumble. Yet they all told police that night that he knocked her to the ground. And one other thing is clear-even if he did slap her or whatever, she was not still in danger because he didn’t continue to strike her or follow up at all. Plus, she was not with the boys, as you pointed out, it was two different groups-the group of 5-7 boys and the group of 5-7 people with her. My point is that no one can argue that they were acting in self defense of the female since whatever happened off camera, was over, and it’s not like someone shoved him down and left it at that. They continued to hit and kick him and shoved him down at least one more time.

For the longest time, I could not tell when the stabbings takes place. For the first time, just now, I was able to see when them take place. At 1:52 of this video, after he is knocked down and hit while he is down, he is getting back up when the kid in the orange runs up and starts to shove him down again and you see his right hand make contact with the kid’s left side under the chest. Then, if you watch closely, you see that every time someone grabs and shoves him, that right hand makes contact with their torso.

With all of that said, he only stabs those people attacking him and only when they are attacking him. They have far superior numbers and he is hit from basically all angles. With his heart issues, the number of attackers, the fact that they keep attacking him right up until everyone realizes that he is armed. He was attacked by five different people because he stabbed five different people.

And again, watch that first part again. You’re trying to tell me that him grabbing the tube so very briefly justifies the gang attack on him?

 

[Blayt7hh]

Yes he could have handled it much better and as an adult should have.

The second half of your quote, “these boys were the ones needing to learn some things” is why you and other posters think this was justified. Well guess what, teaching kids a lesson with a knife is not covered in any definition of self defense that I am aware of.

Refresh me. What is the real reason I think this is fine?

 

[nhbbear]

Oh, when you said I “let slip the real reason” I had hoped you were going to say the “real reason” was something like I hate teens or “there were three minorities amongst them” or something stupid like that.

Rather disappointed with the response. You said I “let slip.” No, that wasn’t a slip. That was completely intentional comment. Those kids were insufferable and they were behaving in a manner which is usually cured by learning a lesson. Sometimes, that lesson comes in the form of getting in trouble, other times, they get their asses heat. They learned a very harsh and bloody lesson, but I am betting the survivors don’t do shit like this again.

 

[Darkballs]

The whole issue comes down to who you think started the assault. And assault doesn't start at physical contact, but rather when a rational person would believe that unwanted physical contact is imminent.

I think it's pretty stupid to claim nothing was going on until the kids shoved him. He'd already rushed over and initiated the physical contact. You'd have to pull a pretty hard "well technically he only touched the tube," to somehow excuse that stupidity.

So you have an idiot put himself in a situation (omg, he's surrounded by five 150-lbs kids!), and then uses that very situation he put himself in as a justification to immediately go lethal the moment someone merely shoves him.

So to find him not guilty, you'd have to find both; 1) that he didn't initiate the assault by running over there and grabbing their shit; and 2) that by being shoved (and "surrounded) a rational person would feel that their life was in immediate danger and had no option but to resort to lethal force.

And I can't imagine anyone other than the softest people on earth buying into that. So while @nhbbear 's support tracks, thankfully the jury wasn't as cowardly.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

This isn’t a video game where the person that got grabbed forgets that anything happened a few moments later. If someone puts their hands on me I’m going to consider them a threat until the situation is completely resolved since they’ve already shown a propensity for getting physical.

- He by law, the moment the old-man isnt more a threat, we could cont the kids as perpretators or revanchists. Thats the thing with lawes, me and you, we have diferent interpretations on the same laws.

 

[Poon Goon]

- He by law, the moment the old-man isnt more a threat, we could cont the kids as perpretators or revanchists. Thats the thing with lawes, me and you, we have diferent interpretations on the same laws.

You really only need to think of it from a practical perspective. If someone comes up and shoves you then walks a few feet away for two minutes you would still be on guard.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

You really only need to think of it from a practical perspective. If someone comes up and shoves you then walks a few feet away for two minutes you would still be on guard.

- I do agree. But even if i broke into your house, and turned my back, they would stop counting as a self-defense, but of course, that taking in consideration the judge interpretation.

 

[650lb Sumo]

The maximum sentence for First Degree Reckless Homicide in Wisconsin is 60 years.

The max for First Degree Reckless Endangerment is 12½ years.

As Miu is 54 and has already had heart problems he seems likely to die in prison.

 

[nhbbear]

The whole issue comes down to who you think started the assault. And assault doesn't start at physical contact, but rather when a rational person would believe that unwanted physical contact is imminent.

I think it's pretty stupid to claim nothing was going on until the kids shoved him. He'd already rushed over and initiated the physical contact. You'd have to pull a pretty hard "well technically he only touched the tube," to somehow excuse that stupidity.

So you have an idiot put himself in a situation (omg, he's surrounded by five 150-lbs kids!), and then uses that very situation he put himself in as a justification to immediately go lethal the moment someone merely shoves him.

So to find him not guilty, you'd have to find both; 1) that he didn't initiate the assault by running over there and grabbing their shit; and 2) that by being shoved (and "surrounded) a rational person would feel that their life was in immediate danger and had no option but to resort to lethal force.

And I can't imagine anyone other than the softest people on earth buying into that. So while @nhbbear 's support tracks, thankfully the jury wasn't as cowardly.

Good, so you have been following these posts so I don’t have to go over everything in detail for the umpteenth time.

Is was 13:1, he was shoved down multiple times and struck while down, he had a bad heart, he was in water, they started this by calling him a pedo and fucking with him for a long time before he grabbed the tube-and so fucking what. They laughed the whole time. You mean to tell me that their attack on him was self defense because he put them at unease because he grabbed the tube? And then, he used his knife on people actively attacking him. He didn’t lash out at anyone just standing there. As they made contact, he stabbed. He was attacked by no less than five people coming from all angles.

So a rational person would think their lives were in danger given the circumstances. And you are completely wrong in your metric to determine self defense. It’s not that you have to prove he didn’t do this or that. It’s that the state has to prove that he knew his life wasn’t in danger or that a person in a similar situation-being attacked viciously by multiple attackers, wouldn’t think their lives were in danger.

Basically, he doesn’t have to prove his case, the state had the burden to prove their case, and I don’t think they did that. I think you had a jury that was emotional over the loss of a 17 yr old kid in a very bloody aught on video incident. I have never said what he did was right, or what I would have done -I just argued that based upon the circumstances and his health, his life was in danger and this was self defense and that I didn’t think that the state could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they got lucky with the jury.

 

[Darkballs]

And you are completely wrong in your metric to determine self defense. It’s not that you have to prove he didn’t do this or that. It’s that the state has to prove that he knew his life wasn’t in danger or that a person in a similar situation-being attacked viciously by multiple attackers, wouldn’t think their lives were in danger.

100% wrong.

For any affirmative defense, including self-defense, the burden is on the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that such a defense applies. The prosecution need only prove that the elements of the crime. The defendant must kick that back out by convincing the jury they were insane, acting in self-defense, coerced, etc.

The rest of your post is again, just painting the story in the most biased of descriptions. 13-1? This wasn't some poor guy who got jumped by a "gang." He was never getting piled on. He inserted himself (ran over) to a group of kids and immediately started stabbing the moment they reacted with shoves.

And this was the point I'm trying to make. There is no legal issue at debate here. Well, except you completely fudging the burden of proof. But this all comes down to whether a rational person would look at a this situation and think lethal force against five people was necessary. And I contend that you have to be one soft ass motherfucker to thinking getting shoved to the ground by a group of teenagers warrants stabbing all who lay hands on you.

 

[Hog-train]

So you have an idiot put himself in a situation (omg, he's surrounded by five 150-lbs kids!), and then uses that very situation he put himself in as a justification to immediately go lethal the moment someone merely shoves him.

They're not all 150 lb kids. The one that died was 17, but the rest were 18-24. The one filming was a 230 lb football player.

 

[Darkballs]

They're not all 150 lb kids. The one that died was 17, but the rest were 18-24. The one filming was a 230 lb football player.

Filming.

A 230-lbs guy filming nearby means you get to stab the guy who shoved you? After you ran up to them armed in the first place?

 

[Hog-train]

Filming.

A 230-lbs guy filming nearby means you get to stab the guy who shoved you? After you ran up to them armed in the first place?

No but you're purposefully exaggerating details to bolster your case. There was another guy that was 200lb plus too.

A lot of the people arguing against the old guy's side are portraying it like he attacked helpless kids. That's far from the case. They were adults except for the one 17 year old. And each of them were obviously more fit than this old guy.

 

[Darkballs]

No but you're purposefully exaggerating details to bolster your case. There was another guy that was 200lb plus too.

A lot of the people arguing against the old guy's side are portraying it like he attacked helpless kids. That's far from the case. They were adults except for the one 17 year old. And each of them were obviously more fit than this old guy.

The old guy who put himself in this situation by running over there with a knife.

I put a lot on weight on who starts it. There's nothing happening until he inserts himself into a group he's arguing with, and he does it while armed. Then the moment he gets shoved, it's OMG the poor man is mere moments from being killed.

If we are going to be this soft, we are saying that armed people can just go around acting however the fuck they want in terms of running up on you and grabbing your shit during an argument, and you just have to eat that I guess. Because if you so much as push them back, then they can go straight to killing.

 

[Hog-train]

The old guy who put himself in this situation by running over there with a knife.

He didn't run there with a knife. He had one that he pulled out when they surrounded him.

I put a lot on weight on who starts it. There's nothing happening until he inserts himself into a group he's arguing with, and he does it while armed. Then the moment he gets shoved, it's OMG the poor man is mere moments from being killed.

If we are going to be this soft, we are saying that armed people can just go around acting however the fuck they want in terms of running up on you and grabbing your shit during an argument, and you just have to eat that I guess. Because if you so much as push them back, then they can go straight to killing.

But that's not how it happened. By the time they surrounded him hooting and hollering, the incident with the tube is over. The people were not entitled to start pushing him into the water and hitting him in the face.

 

[Darkballs]

He didn't run there with a knife. He had one that he pulled out when they surrounded him.

Why do you try and play semantics and downplay everything? He approached a group of people he was arguing with while armed with a knife. Any fucking reasonable person should be held accountable if things go south after that. I get that you want to put zero weight on anything the guy did, but unfortunately the law differs, and you can't claim self-defense from an assault you started.

 

[KnightTemplar]

You're a psychopath. Miu started and escalated the situation. He approached the kids. He was told to leave. He was the first to put hands on someone. He was the first to throw a punch. At any point he could have left. He chose violence. Learn what self defense is.

"Five young men." Like it was a gang or something. Half these people didn't even know each other.

You say that like it's a BAD thing!

 

[blaseblase]

No but you're purposefully exaggerating details to bolster your case. There was another guy that was 200lb plus too.

A lot of the people arguing against the old guy's side are portraying it like he attacked helpless kids. That's far from the case. They were adults except for the one 17 year old. And each of them were obviously more fit than this old guy.

He was 52, not an old guy. Not that his age matters. Being middle-aged doesn't protect you against your own psychopathic tendencies. He was the aggressor. He was freaking people out with his actions, he was told to leave and did not. He was the first one to put hands on someone. That's all you need to know about the situation to determine it wasn't self defense. It should be clear as day to anyone with a basic understanding of how the law works.

Quite frankly I find it fucking insane this guy has any defenders considering he stabbed 5 PEOPLE, including a woman, then hid the knife and lied about it to police. You guys are completely off your rockers here.

 

[Renard]

Why do you try and play semantics and downplay everything? He approached a group of people he was arguing with while armed with a knife. Any fucking reasonable person should be held accountable if things go south after that. I get that you want to put zero weight on anything the guy did, but unfortunately the law differs, and you can't claim self-defense from an assault you started.

Lmao "assaulting" 1 v. 13 teenagers that have 200 lb football players on their team. Are you mad? Nobody would look at that scenario as something they'd want to get involved in, or reasonably believe they could win. Usually in these gank scenarios, the person being ganked dies. He's lucky to be alive at all. If a security camera had filmed everything from beginning to end, I doubt he'd be convicted of anything. It's a strange verdict.

 

[nhbbear]

100% wrong.

For any affirmative defense, including self-defense, the burden is on the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that such a defense applies. The prosecution need only prove that the elements of the crime. The defendant must kick that back out by convincing the jury they were insane, acting in self-defense, coerced, etc.

The rest of your post is again, just painting the story in the most biased of descriptions. 13-1? This wasn't some poor guy who got jumped by a "gang." He was never getting piled on. He inserted himself (ran over) to a group of kids and immediately started stabbing the moment they reacted with shoves.

And this was the point I'm trying to make. There is no legal issue at debate here. Well, except you completely fudging the burden of proof. But this all comes down to whether a rational person would look at a this situation and think lethal force against five people was necessary. And I contend that you have to be one soft ass motherfucker to thinking getting shoved to the ground by a group of teenagers warrants stabbing all who lay hands on you.

Oh, so he immediately ran over and started stabbing? Not accurate.

And you have to be soft to see that a 5:1 attack on a man with heart problems isn’t serious? Ok. And it wasn’t a simple shove. He was knocked to the ground 2-3 times and struck while down. Then, he only stabbed as he was getting attacked yet again and again.

And I disagree. The state has to prove that he committed crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that there is debate about the topic means there is reasonable doubt.