Apple River Stabbing /Nicolae Miu Trial

Here's a pretty detailed explanation. TL/DR version, he was snorkeling looking for a lost phone and the teens (who were drunk, I guess) accused him of peeping at the females in their group, shit went downhill, neither party backed down ...

Video of deadly fight that led to Apple River stabbing shown during opening arguments of Nicolae Miu trial - CBS Minnesota (cbsnews.com)

 

In watching the video, the defendant was the initial aggressor. He moved in on the group, he struck the woman with the cellphone, a weapon of sorts and the first act of actual violence. The young men, while clearly trying to provoke him, were not armed. They were not physically violent until after he was.

In my experience people with a valid or even imperfect claim of self-defense assert it when questioned by law enforcement....they can't wait to. Our defendant lied repeatedly to the cops, from claiming he "heard" there was a stabbing when he was sitting in the cop car, to denying he had a knife, to accusing members of the other side of having knives. That is not consistent with someone who believed he was lawfully defending himself. It is consistent with someone who had a guilty mind.

"How far was he supposed to retreat" before using deadly force? All the way...leave that area of the river, get out of the river, leave the park, go to the next county, if necessary. Retreat until you get home where there is not duty to retreat and the castle doctrine kicks in. I'm not being flippant, I'm addressing your question. Edit: Apparently, Wisconsin does not impose a duty to retreat if you are in your car or your business, in addition to your home, so he had to retreat until he got to his car. Even then, though, the level of force was excessive.

I watch that video and, even with the number of people there "on the other side," conclude it was not necessary for him to kill someone and try to kill others.

To me it is clear the jury considered the other group's provocations and that's why they returned a guilty verdict for a lesser.

 

My understanding is that he was at a popular river float spot - think Ichetucknee for people in WI who are coincidentally on the next level of beerness. I mention beer because it's such a prominent culture in WI where they are pretty dedicated. The guy (lower 50s) was with a group of similar-aged friends, one who dropped a phone in the river. He was trying to find it with snorkel and mask (which were probably rare among the river float crowd), ran into a group of 17yr old drunks, was accused of snooping and escalation ensued. If you are so willing, I'd be interested in hearing your take on it after watching available video/written accounts.

 

According to the link I posted, one of the teens can be heard in the video saying he's looking for little girls ...

Miu approached Schuman's group. In the first video, approximately nine seconds in length, Jawahn C. is heard yelling "(Miu) says he's looking for little girls!"

But you are correct, after reading it again, the females involved the fight were part of a group of adults that joined the teenagers in telling Miu to leave. I corrected my post.

 

Is it possible? Yes, but that's not the test. You have to reasonably believe that level of harm is imminent. I did not see that.
Wisconsin's self-defense statute (in part)
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  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.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

Another problem our defendant has is that in order to claim self-defense, he could not have been engaged in criminal activity. I saw no legal justification for striking that woman with the phone.
Same statute:
"(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

 

I think you are right. Yelling something like that, knowing it wasn't true, is a pretty good way to escalate things...

 

Thanks - I still get caught up in interpretations of preventing imminent great bodily harm, but you make an important point about the defendant striking the girl first.

 

I think it is really shitty when people are put in an extraordinary situation, through no fault of their own, and at complete fault of others and a sequence of events happens with quick decisions, such that the person who really is the victim becomes the criminal.

 

He was surrounded and being acosted by a large group of people. Knocked down then attacked by 5 young men clearly physically superior. He didn't go after the woman, she went after him and got in his face and most likely contacted him before he tried to get separated from her. Falsely accused, surrounded, outnumbered, physically assaulted. Still looks like self defense to me but someone young died so they had to punish someone. Looked like play stupid game, win stupid prize to me

 

Take another look at the YouTube video linked in the op. What do you see happening at the 9:55 mark? 10:28? Ignoring his altercation with the woman, which we see differently and is admittedly in some dispute, he is clearly the first physical aggressor there. Those actions create issues under Wisconsin law (and also in Florida, btw) for him to be able to claim self defense. He admitted he approached the woman, not the other way around and falsely told her the teens had taken his goggles. She was telling him to leave..."go, go, go." You also ignored his multiple lies to the police, including lying about the fact he had tampered with the evidence by throwing away the knife. He lied about the teens knocking his goggles off his face. He had been drinking and for some odd reason was using a mask and snorkel to search for the phone that was in a float bag. He also chose to leave his group and go over 100 feet to search where the teens were.

Watch the defendant's cross examination linked below, he did not help himself. He testified he removed the knife he had in his pocket and opened it prior to ever being struck. He testified that he had the opportunity to leave. I suspect if you listen to him your perception of the events and his actions might change. His lack of reaction when he watches the video of him literally gutting 3 people is troubling. Listen to his testimony about the last person he stabbed. The last half hour is just going through his lies to the police...two of the teens had knives and he struggled with one and managed to stab him with his own knife. I'm not suggesting the group of teens is blameless here and I think that accounts for the verdict on the lesser. I understand why you don't like them. In my view, however, there was no necessity to kill one of them and to try to kill 4 others.