Another fairly high profile self defense case that has relevant video but unfortunately not of every angle and there were witnesses on both sides that either lied to investigators or only recently came up with new purported information. Wondering who's been following this and what your thoughts are. I got sucked into it after it started but have watched hours of testimony at this point. The case is now in the hands of the jury.The analysts I was watching said their polling (not sure how accurate it might be) suggest viewers of the trial are polarized and split. Would be interesting to see breakdowns based upon age given the facts. I can kinda see both sides. I'd be surprised if he gets murder 1 but hard for me to imagine he won't be found guilty of some lesser charge, which prosecutors apparently added after the evidence. Overview and Video: Article Summary: Verdict possible Thursday in Nicolae Miu's Apple River stabbing trial They could soon decide whether to convict 54-year-old Nicolae Miu of killing 17-year-old Isaac Schuman and hurting four others during a fight on the river on July 30, 2022, near Somerset. The question for the jury isn't whether Miu killed Schuman. Instead, it's this: Did he pull out his knife because he wanted to hurt people or did he do it in self-defense? *** Anderson said Miu knew what he did wasn't in self-defense because he initially tried to "slink away" from law enforcement near the river and repeatedly lied to investigators. He also said Miu falsely claimed two of the teens were armed, not him, and he used one of their knives to protect himself. **** "You have to look at those 14 seconds through Nic Miu's eyes as he was standing there in the river," Chirafisi said. "He told you (on Tuesday) that he believed he was going to die, but he doesn't have to believe that. He just has to believe that he's going to suffer serious bodily injury."
Looks like the teens started some crap with a stranger and it turned out real bad. Hard to say if he really felt he was in danger. He was out numbered big time and things happen a lot faster in real time than they do going back over everything later and deciding he should have done something different. It does seem he could have shown the knife and told them to back off and made his way back to his group of people.
Jury: Nicolae Miu guilty of reckless homicide in Apple River stabbing The St. Croix County jury convicted Nicolae Miu, 54, of reckless homicide for fatally stabbing Isaac Schuman, 17, at the popular recreation spot in western Wisconsin. He was also convicted of recklessly endangering the safety of four other people he stabbed.
Yeah, there were bad decisions all around, and alcohol and weapons are a dangerous mix. I kept expecting the defense to argue (similar to some cases we've seen with firearms) that once he pulled and/or used the knife, he became concerned that it would be taken from him and used on him. I didn't hear that argument made though. I also wonder if the case might have gone much differently had he not chosen to talk to (and lie to) the police.
Being in MN, we heard quite a bit about this case up here and the coverage tended to paint an image of a lunatic killer. I didn't know the other circumstances of the event: Drunk teens, heckling, etc. It's a terrible set of circumstances where blame will be difficult to accurately attribute. Do you think it was self-defense? (I don't have an impression based upon the little I know)
I've been following this for the past few days. While I do not know every detail, from what I know, I would not have returned a guilty verdict. A lot of people are saying "Well, he should have walked away" and not "Drunk teens shouldn't have assaulted a 50-something year old man."
As a general rule, you don't get introduce a deadly weapon into an altercation where no other weapons were involved. The level of force you use to defend yourself must be commensurate to the level of force threatened against you. In other words, you don't get to take a knife to a fist fight. Also, no one has mentioned it, but Wisconsin is NOT a "Stand Your Ground" state. He had a duty to retreat before using deadly force.
I was a little confused about the law but didn't take the time to read the jury instructions myself. Seems it was stipulated that it's not a "Stand Your Ground" state but I could have sworn one of the attorneys said that there's no affirmative duty to retreat (but that the jury can consider whether retreat was an option as part of the analysis)? I'm also not clear about when and how the existence of a weapon may matter. Not saying the cases were the same, but I was thinking back to the Rittenhouse trial since he had a firearm, used deadly force, and was found not guilty based on self defense. The Miu case was a bit more convoluted since some witnesses claimed Miu threw the first punch at one of the women, and I'm not sure what role that might have played either. Ultimately, I suspected he would get convicted on a lesser included so I can't say I'm entirely surprised. But all of the laws get a little convoluted to me.
I was honestly a bit conflicted but can't really argue with what the jury did (I generally try not to second-guess juries since they've heard and seen more than I). The group of teens did not come across as innocent or credible to me but I an also see why they may have thought the guy was acting weird and invading their space. One of the guys Miu stabbed was from the other group and was apparently trying to help him. That seems at least criminally reckless IMO. Ultimately, I'm not sure how much different the sentencing will look given his age and given the number of counts involved.
A group of young men attack me (59) and I will certainly introduce deadly force. A group of young men attacking you in a river do not need a weapon to do serious bodily harm. Nobody got stabbed that didn't go at him. No way I could convict him when they were the instigators and closed space on him after previously attacking him. How far was he supposed to retreat? It appeared that he did move away from the group and they pursued him.
Here's the way I see it.. He didn't bring a knife to a fist fight. He went on a phone hunt and happened to have a knife in his pocket. If he had a duty to retreat, where do you retreat to? When he was behind the tied up tubes, he left that area by taking approximately a dozen steps away from the teens to talk to an adult. That, to me, is him leaving the immediate area of the teens. He disengaged with them. Then they, the teens, followed him to the new area by the adult. He has five to six people walk up behind him in the area he just got to. As soon as he turns around, he's either punched pushed to the ground, while he's there, he gets the fire slapped of him by one dude, and then a second dude punches him in the face. After this dude punches him, he follows it up by shoving him down into the water. After getting, pushed down to the ground, smacked, then punched, he defended himself during the fifth act of violence, which was a shove to the ground from the same kid that just punched him. The dude went high for the shove and Mui went low and stuck him at the same exact same time. To me, if you are getting attacked by multiple people (with other guys on standby that could jump in) and you use a weapon at the same exact time on of them is attacking you, that is self defense. I'm watching the cell phone video while typing this out realized I missed a key detail, lol. I noticed Mui had the knife out already while he was talking to the two girls. I, for some reason, thought he had pulled it out while he was getting up from being pushed down into the water. We all know when something is off.. he felt it (rightly) and was prepared. He had it out for 3 seconds before he was attacked. I'm going to think it over some more.
Should he have pulled out a bunch of drunk teenagers instead of a knife? Not sure he had those on him at the time. Having said that. I think he was more angry than in fear of his life. Hard to get into his head though.
From what I saw in the prosecution's breakdown of the video was that Miu instigated the violence first by punching a girl. Granted the girl and her female friend (who ended up getting stabbed) had touched him immediately before he threw the punch. After that everything hit the fan.
I'll have to check that out. The defense argued that if a 250 lb man squared up on a woman and punched her, it would have at least knocked her glasses off, or left a mark. And you're right, it went to shit quickly. I can't say that if it were me, I wouldn't consider anyone approaching me a that point as a threat. Those loud ass teens, being vastly outnumbered, getting beat up, bet that guy's adrenaline was at 100.
You can see in the video that her glasses were knocked off. It's so fast and blurry but the frame by frame breakdown helped sort it out. It's just a horrible situation. The fact that everything happened so quickly didn't give anyone time to realize what was truly going on and potentially give him space. It's a miracle only the one kid died.
Thanks, counselor. Is it possible that the number of teens surrounding the older man presented a substantial threat to bodily harm? Maybe you or another poster here knows the legal terminology in WI. I have recently been shooting with a gun trainer in MN. He trains live shooter, fire & other safety, but also concealed carry & LEO shooter trainings, like to re-up their firearms certs. We talked about the use of firearms/force laws in MN and his explanation was nuanced, down to the size of the people in the situation (i.e. likelihood of substantial body harm or something to that effect). Otherwise, in MN there is a duty to retreat. Maybe it's the safe in WI. Another question, as you have legal expertise: Might these considerations impact sentencing? (thanks)
I've never heard of this. How did this guy end up in an altercation with a bunch of teenagers? Was he at some popular spot or creeping on kids?
It's a popular spot. He was looking for a cell phone floating down the river. The teens are hooting and hollering calling him a creeper and whatnot for no apparent reason than being drunk teens. He has the knife on him because a friend asked him to bring it to cut rope for the tubes.
