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

[nhbbear]

Yo

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.

u must be soft if you don’t think a 52 year old man with heart problems can’t win that fight

 

[Darkballs]

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.

Wrong again. This isn't how the law works.

The state need only prove the elements of reckless homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that self-defense applies.

 

[nhbbear]

Wrong again. This isn't how the law works.

The state need only prove the elements of reckless homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that self-defense applies.

That wasn’t the charge. It was intentional homicide. The state did not prove its case.

And I believe the defense and my own arguments, have made it clear that Miu’s life was in danger and that he could not have stopped the attack or been allowed to flee once it started, using conventional hands and feet-not should he have to 5:1 with a heart condition. The jury was swayed by the loss of a 17 year old’s life and were emotional. If it was five adults attacking a 17 year old, there would be no question as to whether it was justified. My argument is that 5 young adults are even more dangerous because the victim can’t flee and has a heart issue.

We are not going to agree or sway the other person and we both feel we are in the right, so what’s the point?

 

[blaseblase]

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.

"13 teenagers" = various young people in a popular river where a crazed man armed with a knife created a public nuisance. I don't know why you keep trying to portray this as a gang attack. It would be like if you started a ruckus at a public pool, were asked to leave, then assaulted two people and everyone there jumped in to stop you. There is no self defense argument in that situation. He created the situation, he assaulted people, and then he escalated it to murder. You guys are insane. Future murderers over here.

I can't help but notice the same people defending this guy were completely fine with the homeless black guy in the subway who also started a public nuisance getting choked to death. You seem to flip your understanding of the law based on skin color.

 

[Hog-train]

"13 teenagers" = various young people in a popular river where a crazed man armed with a knife created a public nuisance. I don't know why you keep trying to portray this as a gang attack. It would be like if you started a ruckus at a public pool, were asked to leave, then assaulted two people and everyone there jumped in to stop you. There is no self defense argument in that situation. He created the situation, he assaulted people, and then he escalated it to murder. You guys are insane. Future murderers over here.

I can't help but notice the same people defending this guy were completely fine with the homeless black guy in the subway who also started a public nuisance getting choked to death. You seem to flip your understanding of the law based on skin color.

"crazed man" - He was barely even talking by the time the karen was screaming in his face, getting physical (watch the video, she clearly initiated physical contact) and then everybody stared pushing him into the water and hitting him.

 

[Darkballs]

We are not going to agree or sway the other person and we both feel we are in the right, so what’s the point?

I get that. And it's a point I brought up in the first post. Which was, legally, there isn't much to discuss about the law in cases of self-defense. It just comes to where each of us sit on the fact pattern and whether or not we think there was a genuine threat of serious bodily injury or death before the man started stabbing.

I do think there is more to discuss though on why we are coming down on completely different sides of the spectrum here. And it does seem to come down around partisan lines. I'm not trying to rag on you for that. But I think it's worth exploring how you see the same event through one lens and I see it through another, despite us both looking at the same evidence.

What gets me about your take, is that you seem to view one side with a hell of a lot more leeway than the other. You've given me about six or seven different hypotheticals on how the main could have died. He could have had a heart attack. He could have gotten piled on if all of them actually attacked him en masse. He could have hit his head after a shove. Etc. But none of these came to pass.
Yet when presented with another hypothetical: man with knife approaches group he's arguing with, you somehow can't wrap your head around anything going wrong. And that's what I'm struggling with.

 

[nhbbear]

I get that. And it's a point I brought up in the first post. Which was, legally, there isn't much to discuss about the law in cases of self-defense. It just comes to where each of us sit on the fact pattern and whether or not we think there was a genuine threat of serious bodily injury or death before the man started stabbing.

I do think there is more to discuss though on why we are coming down on completely different sides of the spectrum here. And it does seem to come down around partisan lines. I'm not trying to rag on you for that. But I think it's worth exploring how you see the same event through one lens and I see it through another, despite us both looking at the same evidence.

What gets me about your take, is that you seem to view one side with a hell of a lot more leeway than the other. You've given me about six or seven different hypotheticals on how the main could have died. He could have had a heart attack. He could have gotten piled on if all of them actually attacked him en masse. He could have hit his head after a shove. Etc. But none of these came to pass.
Yet when presented with another hypothetical: man with knife approaches group he's arguing with, you somehow can't wrap your head around anything going wrong. And that's what I'm struggling with.

Fair enough. Remember, when dealing with me, I am all over the place politically, so you can’t accurately predict what side of the line I will come down on. I really do hate both sides. And I don’t like either side here, either. I think the kids are dicks and this guy is playing dumb, which gives me hints that he has a dark side.

But it’s not about whom I dislike more, it comes down to at what point do I think self defense is allowed. Which side do I see myself ending up on? Which side do I see myself at risk from?

I don’t ever see myself on the side that beats someone up 5-1. I don’t see myself getting stabbed by a guy for fucking with him or attacking him. I can definitely see myself getting ganged up on by five or more people.

When I look at self defense in this case, I am looking at it through the lens of what does this guy have to do to protect himself? I am never going to agree that he should just wait for the beating to stop or what actions to take/not take to make it worse- is never the answer unless you have nothing to protect yourself with. IMO, nothing short of deadly force could have stopped this attack on this man until they decided to stop attacking him. So your answer is that he takes his beating and they will quit or someone will intervene in a minute or two. I am not down with that. If you have the means to defend yourself, a knife/gun, and you are getting beaten up by superior numbers, use your weapon. They brought theirs-their numbers.

 

[blaseblase]

"crazed man" - He was barely even talking by the time the karen was screaming in his face, getting physical (watch the video, she clearly initiated physical contact) and then everybody stared pushing him into the water and hitting him.

He's obviously crazed by the fact he was carrying around a knife and pulled it out to stab 5 people. He assaulted someone my guy. Then he punched a woman who got in his face. I've experienced multiple women talking bullshit to my face and never have I thought to assault them let alone pull out a knife to stab a bunch of people who came to her defense in a situation I created. You're stuck in your pre-conceived bias and not thinking rationally about what happened. There is no argument for self defense. He started the engagement, refused to leave, started the physical assault, introduced a lethal weapon, stabbed a bunch of people and murdered someone, then lied to cops about it. Luckily his other 4 victims survived.

 

[Andy Capp]

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.

I'd say there is debate on the topic is because none of us were on the jury.

 

[nhbbear]

I'd say there is debate on the topic is because none of us were on the jury.

You gotta wonder whether the people thinking he was only defending himself just wanted to get out of there and realized the others wouldn’t budge

 

[Andy Capp]

You gotta wonder whether the people thinking he was only defending himself just wanted to get out of there and realized the others wouldn’t budge

No, I don't.

 

[nhbbear]

He's obviously crazed by the fact he was carrying around a knife and pulled it out to stab 5 people. He assaulted someone my guy. Then he punched a woman who got in his face. I've experienced multiple women talking bullshit to my face and never have I thought to assault them let alone pull out a knife to stab a bunch of people who came to her defense in a situation I created. You're stuck in your pre-conceived bias and not thinking rationally about what happened. There is no argument for self defense. He started the engagement, refused to leave, started the physical assault, introduced a lethal weapon, stabbed a bunch of people and murdered someone, then lied to cops about it. Luckily his other 4 victims survived.

He had a knife to cut the ropes on the inner tubes. And he didn’t have to leave. Simply because he was being yelled at to leave doesn’t mean he has to listen. The woman he supposedly hit never even spilled her drink or lost her sunglasses. She shoved his phone in her face and he probably knocked it to the side. Not one of those kids or adults had any justification whatsoever to put their hands on him. Every shove, punch, and kick was not justified.