All these kids do deserve to die because of their incomprehensible yelling, but not sure if this guy was in reasonable fear of substantial bodily harm. Maybe I would acquit because of the water/drowning factor, but I think he could have just left at some point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568783)

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1777377832248758650

It's worth a watch, the star witness implodes pretty spectacularly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568821)

The video seems more important

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568858)

Caught in a lie. Auto acquit. Retard black accusing random dude looking for his phone of being a pedo, crowd gathers insulting him. He is struck. Yeah 12-0 acquit lmao. Wisconsin never not overcharging send defensemos.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571159)

Some kind of manslaughter "feels" right but idk what the law says. He basically started an altercation drunkenly, continued to escalate, then killed someone and stabbed multiple others. The law probably shouldn't be designed to justify or incentivize that kind of behavior.

He also just got back in his group's tube flotilla and continued down the river while a guy was bleeding out in the water, and tossed the knife in the woods (they found it).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568853)

im 100% for zoomer stabbings tho and the 90iq boomer jury will 100% side w him as well so no one who watched the video

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568871)

That said, the youths/teens were apes too. Where were their parents??

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47569112)

Back in 2020, Wisconsin lifted its pandemic restrictions before Minnesota. This led to a flood of Minnesotans pouring into Hudson, Wisconsin to party at the bars there (Hudson is basically just an exurb of the Twin Cities). It was absolute pandemonium in Hudson for a while. In the chaos, a group of blacks stabbed a white kid to death.

Shontez Cole took a plea deal and got 9 years. Another dude pled to battery and got just a couple months. There was no media coverage of the case after they got arrested.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47568899)

That’s all I needed to hear. Should be an automatic death sentence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47570716)

this guy shouldn't be convicted. he's being surrounded by a bunch of teens who started attacking him first. the whole altercation lasted 10 seconds. in a heated moment like that it must feel like an instant. all i know is from this video, so i guess it depends on how much he "started it" by coming over first? he was helping someone look for a phone or something?

either way, a pocket knife against a group of 5 teens attacking you and shouting seems very reasonable. reasonable he could have feared for his life after being pushed into the water and slapped while you're under. especially in the heat of the moment like that. if i was surrounded by 5 people who were younger and seemed strong i'd grab whatever weapon was nearby. and it's not like you'd really expect to kill someone with a pocket knife.

not a legal analysis, just what i think regardless of the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571144)

He does not seem like the aggressor in the video. The guy taking the vid got caught in a lie when he told detectives that he had seen the man taking pictures of underage girls and called him a pedo. But in testimony admitted that he had not seen such a thing.

This is the same way Crispus Attucks whipped a crowd into a frenzy and started pelting the British soldiers with rocks for no goddamn reason. +1 Cpt. Preston auto acquit. History just repeats whereby baboons can't help escalating situations. The White thing to do is let the man go free.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571197)

the things that irks me about these situations is everyone looks at the video frame by frame. this guy was pushed, head under water, slapped, and had a bunch of teens yelling at him. it's perfectly reasonable to by terrified in that situation and grab the closest weapon. i'm a little surprised people itt think he should be convicted of something. seems like ordinary self-defense to me. it was a pocket knife and the injury seems to have caused a freak fatal injury, delivered while he was being attacked. it's not like he busted out a rifle and mowed them all down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571230)

If evidence emerged he was sitting there in his tube for an hour filming some chicks ass it would make him a lot less sympathetic. But the group had no evidence of this. It was just something the black dude lied about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571313)

of course, the creep shot thing is all bullshit in reality. just speaking hypothetically.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571353)

I mean we're now arguing hypotheticals of a non existent case which is pointless in itself. The facts of this case are clear as day auto acquit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571439)

Makes me wonder how earl would've fared if he'd had a pocket knife.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571199)

Everyone in this video is essentially worthless to the rest of society outside of being a slave in an Amazon warehouse. It's incoherent and pointless to try to punish this random subhuman prole for semi-accidentally killing another random subhuman prole. None of these people's lives matter at all

The appropriate restitution is for the killer to pay a reasonable civil monetary penalty to the victim's family. Each of these people's lives is worth about 50 grand. I don't know how many people died in this but the killer should be ordered to pay each of them 50 grand and then the judge should declare the matter settled and over with

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47571196)

It's obviously the correct way to deal with this sort of thing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47575086)

Can they prosecute any of the other instigators?

Heartbreaking for the boy and his family.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47572789)

1. Multiple witnesses say he punched one of the chicks in the face before anyone attacked him. This is when the camera pans just before he gets jumped. If that's true, he instigated and can't claim self defense, at least not until he retreats. He had an opportunity to retreat before at least some of the stabbings.

2. There's a still frame from the video shown at trial with him holding the deployed knife already when talking to the chicks. It's a bit confusing, but seems like he had the knife out before getting knocked down and before any of the boys touched him. The chicks had grabbed his arm and pushed his shoulder at that point. Makes it seem like he was planning on stabbing before there was any reasonable fear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47573722)

some crime in there.

but if you get pushed down into water and then struck while down by a crowd of youths, you have a pretty good s-d case imo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47573867)

idk if you skipped this day in 1L crim at chicago, but self defense requires proportionality. all weapons, including your fist, have the potential to be deadly. a $20 swiss army pocket knife and a KA-BAR are both "knives." their lethal potential could not be more different. people have died getting hit by rubber buckshot and survived 12ga slugs, which can both be fired from an identical shotgun.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574346)

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/video/knife-used-in-apple-river-stabbings-shown-during-nicolae-mius-trial/

Looks like a 3.5" blade from Walmart. Upon the further review it appears to have a bulky handle larger than the blade itself. You can get a good grip on this thing. It's probably over 7" when fully extended (erect).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574356)

stabbing someone with a small knife, which is the only weapon available, is absolutely reasonable and proportionate if you reasonably feared 5 unarmed people were going to murder you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574378)

You sound like a guy saying he only shot him with a .22.

I would absolutely bet on the boomer with the knife. Stab one and the others are pussying out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47575068)

Also he should be punished for what he did to those teens

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574069)

Not guilty on the intentional homicide charge

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/nicolae-miu-apple-river-stabbing-trial-verdict/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574144)

The question is whether his response was proportional. Heat of the moment is very hard to convey to juries. He also may have contributed however slightly to the escalation, made no attempt to retreat or deescalate. Whipped the knife out fast maybe before it was necessary. Discarding the knife and lying to police didn't help him.

Not saying I agree but I can see how the jury reached those verdict.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574250)

1) did he have an actual and honest belief in imminent death or great bodily harm

2) was that belief reasonable

3) absence of a reasonable means to retreat

considering the attitude of the kids laughing at him, pushing him, slapping him, etc. i can see how a jury could find that he didn't reasonably fear for his life. and he almost certainly could have retreated, which is an element in minnesota. if he actually and reasonably feared he was going to get beaten by 5 kids and he couldn't retreat, defending himself with a pocket knife was certainly satisfy the proportionality requirement.

jury probably came to the right result here under the law. however, the law here is wrong, and he was ethically and morally right to stand his ground and defend himself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574363)

If your state has a stand your ground provision the case is fundamentally different.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574386)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574421)

the kids seem to know he was being a weirdo and was white knighting for some chick who didn't need his help. but being a doofus isn't an instigation. and you can tell from their behavior they weren't instigated. they were just clowning on him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574581)

Rittenhouse was a much better slam dunk than this. They were chasing him with guns drawn while he was fleeing and hit him with a skateboard. Much better case. Fat gypsy was a lot less relatable as a self defensemo when you add it all up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574445)

these are all separate elements. if you reasonably feared that five young men were going to beat to to death and you had no ability to retreat, there is no jury on earth that would think defending yourself with a small knife is a disproportionate response.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574520)

if woman is throwing dishes at her husband from across the room he could reasonably fear he could be severely injured or even die. but that doesn't mean he is entitled to pull out a revolver and shoot her when he could surely have rushed her and physically stopped her.

the degree of force you're allowed to defend yourself with doesn't slide based on how reasonable your fear is. it slides based on what is necessary to defend yourself and how serious your potential injury is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574573)

yes, reasonably fear of death justifies use of deadly force. hence, proportionality is not at issue here because if he thought he was going to be jumped and killed then deadly force was justified.

i think you're using proportionality in a general sense and may not be aware that proportionality is an separate element that must be established in a self defense claim. and that proportionality refers to the type of force used to defend yourself. i'm using proportionality as the legal term of art in a self defense claim

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574615)

Wisconsin code 939.48(6)  Self-defense and defense of others.

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other."

My God the unwritten but distinct and separate proportionality claim!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574630)

"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. ***The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.*** The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

note my highlighted parts. that is the proportionality element. the section regarding deadly force, and the case you cited applying it, just says that deadly force can only be considered proportionate in those circumstances. thus, whether his response was proportionate is not at issue here, only whether his fear of grievous injury/death was reasonable and necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574703)

correct, which is what i've been saying the entire time

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&mc=158&forum_id=2#47574452

the rest of what you said is incorrect. the clause establishes that it is not proportional to use deadly force except in those limited situations. other states don't have that clause, and juries have found that deadly force was proportionate in situations that wouldn't fly under a statute like this.

it has nothing to do with continuing to use deadly force to defend yourself after the threat has been neutralized.

i don't see how that texas case is relevant at all. self defense is an affirmative defense to homicide. it has nothing to do with the degree of the homicide. if self defense was established in your example, that person could not be convicted of anything. and clearly it wasn't even from the facts you lay out because an *imminent* threat is also an element.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574814)

You still have zero examples of a case where the defendant had reasonable belief but his response was disproportionate to the imminent threat. That's because such a case does not exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574829)

you don't seem to understand the difference between an affirmative defense to a crime and a crime. self defense is an affirmative defense to a crime. if it is established, there is no crime. you don't convicted of a lesser crime once you've established an affirmative defense.

i can certainly find you hundreds of cases regarding proportionality easily because proportionality is a major element of self defense. do you want me to pull the 50 state survey on the proportionality element of self defense?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574843)

You can find cases about disproportionate force such as a guy punched someone in a bar fight and the other guy pulled out a gun. Of course those exist. What you can't find for all the tea in China is a case where someone REASONABLY FEARED for their lives and took a disproportionate action to remedy it. I know in Texas law for example if someone pulls a gun on you and you shoot the assailant and your stray bullets kill a bystander it's still justified. You don't have once instance where there's disproportionate force applied after reasonable belief of imminent danger is established. The clause you cited really is in there to distinguish between cases where someone with reasonable belief later committed a separate crime. 100% you're wrong here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47574948)

self-defense requires the defense to be proportionate. whether the defense is proportionate is a matter of fact for the jury. all that clause does is not allow a jury to find that the use of deadly force establishes self-defense except in the situations it states. it has absolutely NOTHING to do was SEPARATE CRIMES. because NONE of the elements of self-defense would be present there.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5515429&forum_id=2#47575070)