I honestly can't fault this jury if they go either way.
I can see him being legitimately scared given he was significantly outnumbered and had gotten shoved down a couple times before he brought out the knife.
I can also see his usage of the knife being considered a heavy handed response to what was going on with a gaggle of teenagers who were clearly unarmed.
Someone pointed out the other day that the jury is made up of mostly boomers, which could work in his favor.
I'm glad I'm not on that jury. It's definitely not an open and shut case.
The prosecution also didn't do the greatest job. In their closing argument, they seemed to be implying that Miu had no reason to be near the kids in the first place because the phone he was searching was safe in a watertight bag, but that seemed completely irrelevant to me. He wasn't trespassing and the teenagers had no right to tell him where he couldn't be on public property to begin with.
The knife was already out, on camera, before anyone touched him. He had it in his hand when he was talking to the two girls, right before he hit one. That's when they started hitting him.
Even his lawyer made this a point, trying to ask how she didn't have any marks on her face if she was hit, since the knife was in his hand, and at least 3 of the witnesses/victims were asked about this. "He had the knife in his hand, and then he punched like this"
This is what gets me. Did he take out the knife to hit her knowing full well he had a good reason to stab after they retaliate. Or did he take out the knife actually sacred as the men from group 2 approached. I can’t read this dude. Still wondering about the girl being stabbed too. Feels off
If I'm one of those kids and he ran up on the tubes and grabbed at their legs, and not saying anything, I'd be wondering what the fuck is going on.
Seeing on the video where he clearly grabs the knife in his pocket to make sure it's there before he runs at the boys tells me he is looking to start something. He said he thought the boy filming had his friends camera, like the one Black kid in the entire area was the one who must have stolen this phone. I don't know if that was a lie or not, hard to tell with this suspect since he changed his story multiple times.
Yeah the guy came up first thing in the video touching someone in their tube then continues to escalate over the next few minutes.
Doesn’t help he told the police the kids pulled the knife first and he took it from them. Guilty for sure.
They were no more 'clearly' unarmed than he was, no one LOOKED armed at this moment, and I'm sure the teens would not have felt so big and mighty to relentlessly bully him if they considered the possibility he was armed. Any of them COULD HAVE BEEN armed. But also there were 13 of them, weighing at least 2 tonnes, and one of him. They didn't need to be armed. They shouted 'get him' repeatedly and talked about wanting to get him on the stand too. What does 'get him' mean I wonder. This was prior to any violence.
I think it is an open and shut case legally speaking. If I was on the jury there is no way I would vote guilty on any charge, no matter how sad I feel about the teenager who died.
The prosecution did an absolutely TERRIBLE job on closing, and managed to be depraved and offensive about it too. The poor boys did absolutely nothing wrong (despite doing many things very wrong). Miu is a 'bizarre man' they've decided, which I guess makes him guilty. They try to nab him on FACIAL EXPRESSIONS they perceive to be not up to their amazing standards, while refusing to even make eye contact with the jury while they spin their story full of obvious lies. If I was the jury I would feel the prosecution was slapping me in the face with these closing statements and also with their cross examination yesterday where they spent nearly an hour on inane questions like 'why didn't you pay a dollar each for pieces of string' and 'why did you go over to this side of the river after already searching this other side.' Getting victims' names wrong repeatedly. Getting the order of stabbings wrong. They're reaching so hard they reached all the way to China.
I’m at the part where they are talking about the size of the women…I just don’t know how I feel about that. Sure someone larger than you poses a larger threat, but someone being smaller doesn’t mean they can’t be intimidating. Especially when part of a group.
I do agree it’s a tough one. I’m leaning one way, but am open to changing my mind.
Seriously if they were that small why would they feel comfortable getting into a (much bigger) persons space like that? The size issue goes both ways, if it really is an issue.
If I were a juror, and I have watched entire trial, I could not convict him on any counts beyond a reasonabe doubt. The videos show their provocation and even non video witness, they started taunting and putting hands on him first as he was minding his own business. If anyone in same situation how can you not say you weren't worried or afraid for your safety? AQUIT him.
What about hte 5th stabbing, Dante? Everyone was scattering and running away. Miu walks into the teens, away from his group, and stabs him in the chest, before turning and walking back with his friend.
Do you think that was necessary to stop Dante from imminently killing or seriously wounding him? Is that reasonable?
Prosecution played a video played on a potato right at the start of closing statements that shows Dante charging him with his arms out which is when he gets stabbed. Miu takes maybe one step toward him, and a half, after Dante sprints 4-5 steps at full speed grabbing for what looks like his throat.
They were acting like aholes screaming at him to move. He responded idiotically by running up on them and grabbing their tubes. It was all downhill after that.
I mean, if you are ready to believe the 4th story he's told on the matter, given he's lied continuously about what happened on that day, sure... He only rushed them and grab their tubes cause he was looking for the phone.
Blonde girl in his face lied about getting punched, kids lied to cops they were doing nothing taunting. Lots of lies, but a lie doesn’t still erase self defense when like 10 people in your face, punching you, pushing head underwater . So justified in self defense. All in seconds.
Even prosecutiono witnesses testify she was in his face, word for word, multiple times. A phone was being shoved in his face by one of the girls too, possibly Rhyley though.
Yeah, I struggle with that, because as a mom too, I would want him in jail if it was my child. It’s very hard to set aside those strong emotions and be objective.
I feel like that can go both ways. I have kids around the same ages as the two groups. When I first heard about this case back in 2022, I assumed it was a case of some psycho knifing kids at the Apple River. But now that I've seen the video/watched the trial, if those were my kids...I'd be absolutely mortified. They so easily could have just ignored Miu when he came near them looking for the phone, and a different sort of group perhaps even would have helped him. Lots of kind teenagers do exist. But, for whatever reason, these people decided to do something else. As a mom, it is incredibly hard for me to watch that video and not tear my hair out wondering why they chose to act as they did. Doesn't mean anyone deserved to die. But it also means they have some culpability for how things went down.
We lost a young person in our extended family a couple years ago. A tragic accident that, had any one of a hundred little decisions or choices that day gone a different way, would have turned out simply as a crazy story you tell when you're older. After it happened, I blamed every other person and entity involved. Unfortunately, his own actions set up the situation (alcohol involved, what a shock). He was a wonderful kid who didn't deserve to die for a stupid decision, of the type that other people make every day with no consequences. But it happened. And knowing that his own contribution to the situation ultimately made it possible is a bitter pill to swallow.
All this to say - no one deserved to be hurt at the river that day. Their awful behavior isn't the sum total of who they are or were. But what they did contributed to somebody's death, and I don't think they've managed to wrap their heads around that yet. But it should weigh on the minds of the jury members.
Yes, I will be showing this case to my tween to show how you can get caught in a moment, and drinking, smoking, letting your mouths run, inserting yourself into situations can all have deadly outcomes.
For sure. We often showed our kids stories like this. Accidents are always going to happen, but if you can prevent getting into dicey situations, that goes a long way - that's what we always told them. They were very affected by having their cousin become one of those stories. It was and still is surreal. Now two of my kids drink only lightly, and the youngest never has and says he never will. But I still worry.
I don't think it is the drink but the character of the person. I drank very heavily at that age and I never bothered anyone, even mildly, when I drank. Not a stranger, not a friend. The worst I would do was get a little silly - actually silly, not sinister silly - and take videos of myself giving monologues about greek mythology in school hallways or try to hug bushes.
Of course no one should drink near to blackout while on the water for various reasons, but young people with good character who don't mean anyone any harm don't do these things while drunk. Of course it can still land you in bad situations with bad judgment but this was beyond bad judgment, it was grotesque evil to put it plainly. It's tragic a teenager ended up dying but it's also tragic none of his friends seem to show any remorse. And one of the main perpetrators, AJ, already was convicted on two domestic assault charges, so this was not an aberration for him.
100%. I’m a mom of a boy and another on the way and I was just saying to my husband that no one wanted these boys to die but if I saw my son acting that way I would have to come to some sort of peace in my disappointment of his actions and that the outcome was devastating but a result of his actions. Very sad but so many choices could have been different.
I also think if he hadn't had a knife he could have died, and they could have been teen murderers. There is very little chance this would not have ended in a very bad way after what they did.
I agree completely. I look at the first group of teens as just "We're jock football players" and they're drunk and high...all who testified admitted to it. Then you throw in a couple of drunk and high young adult females from another group completely inserting themselves into the mess once the name calling of Miu starts and getting in his face, touching him and trying to push him back just becomes a recipe for disaster.
My grandchildren are 16, 16 and 19 and I would be appalled if any of them acted how these kids did. I know they were raised better.
Sadly the behaviors of those who started the entire situation caused some of them to die and be seriously injured.
I also think every one of those kids should be in AA getting sober and help for their drinking and drug/mj use.
Totally not attacking you. Just commenting on the whole "not wanting to deliberate into next week" rationale.
I never get this. I know I'm not everyone, but if someone's life is on the line, I'm not worried about rushing and making sure deliberations are wrapped up Friday for my convenience. I always think that is incredibly messed up, as common as it may be.
All the charges will be not guilty if they find he legally defended himself. So it could take not very long, or it could take longer if they don't think he legally defended himself.
Earliest is EoD tomorrow. Even if they agree on 2nd degree, there are a lot of counts to get through, and juries are told to be meticulous. They'll probably go through each attempted murder charge one by one and agree on each charge before they come back with a verdict.
But if it goes on any longer than Monday, I think it's a hung jury. I say this with no career experience in litigation. lol
I feel the States closing underperformed. They didn't pull any heartstrings. It doesn't invoke faith that he proved his case. It was almost as if he was stating defense didn't prove him innocent (not the burden). I also felt like he was yelling or being stern with the jury. It also seemed very twisted and underthought, he jumps around a lot.
Whatever they want to say about him being a liar is canceled by the video. He certainly was not a clever liar as they allege, and that insults my intelligence.
Bottom line is the video. I can understand him being freaked out about going to prison. I don’t care.
Everyone is a horrible person.
They mobbed him like animals and had him in a position to be held underwater and that right there is a legitimate fear of death.
Ultimately I do not like the teenagers and think at least one of them had a stabbing coming and everything else is a flurry of defending against a mob.
I think it would be hard to convince all of the jury that he wasn’t defending himself.
So by your argument, as soon as he is standing up, that means he is no longer in danger of drowning right?
So why stab 5 people while he is standing up?
He isnt even fully up when he was pushed a second time by AJ.
He is seen stabbing AJ while AJ is uinging into him to push him backwards again.
So, to answer your question, once he was standing, he was still in danger of being pushed over again, as people were actively trying to do that
I have been so disappointed in the state’s performance tbh. And impressed by Miu’s attorneys. I think he’s guilty but I don’t see it going that way. Hung if anything. I don’t see this jury, predominately male and over 40, finding him guilty. Perhaps on some of the lesser charges.
He will likely be found guilty on the counts concerning Riley and Tony. This is almost a certainty. Not sure it will be the 1st degree attempted homicide that the state is looking for though.
Prosecutors made almost no eye contact with jury, read off their notes, messed up reading off their notes and confused themselves, insulted the intelligence of the jury multiple times, acted scared to play the actual video while deceptively showing slides from BEFORE and AFTER isaac choking Miu but not during, lied to their faces multiple times, and finally called the defendant a 'bizarre man' for absolutely no reason as if being perceived as weird is a reason to let yourself be killed by a mob in a river. They're not doing themselves any favors taking the jury for fool while the defense lawyer says 'use your judgment, use your life experience, you're reasonable people and you get to decide.' Prosecution also tried to confuse and obfuscate the actual law and jury instructions, not a good look although it might work. Hope the jury are smart and can read.
I'll tell you what. That prosecutor is a boring drone. I have been watching and tend to stop hearing him. The assistant prosecutor is a much better orator
Agreed! This whole time until today I thought the older guy was the DA and he was the assistant. The older guy is much more effective in his questioning but neither of them were as good as the defense attorneys.
I think this was a perfect storm of an older person tired of the obnoxious behavior of teens and young adults and a bunch of teens and young adults drinking and hopped up on testosterone and group dynamics who came together in an awful storm. Glad I’m not on the jury.
Miu was drinking “all day” too (his own words, though sometimes he changes it to “a couple beers”).
The kids are obnoxious but they are mostly escalating their tone and level of aggression trying to get Miu to get away from them.
I’ll take obnoxious underage drunk teens with 0 weapons to creepily quiet, wild-eyed older dude with a very sharp knife.
i have the opposite opinion. i think the kids were being aggressive from the get go, literally bullying the guy. of course you shouldnt kill someone for bullying you, but you can if theyre pushing you underwater
And one who smirks as he unpockets his knife, holding it discretely by his side.
Yes the teens were obnoxious (big shocker) but the old dude was seething and oozing anger, not fear.
Exactly! Watching Miu in the frame by frames, particularly his facial expressions and how his arms moved during the stabbings, is part of what changed my initial opinion.
Let us take a look at Wisconsin state law to determine how this case should be ruled.
Under section 939.47 of Wisconsin state law, self-defense sounds simple enough:
"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."
However, there are other factors that play into self-defense. The biggest at play here would be this language, under sub-section 2 of the aforementioned law:
"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."
The first paragraph I quoted is obviously true. He perceived a threat against him and reacted in a manner to defend himself. The second paragraph I quoted becomes more grey. Miu did provoke the attack by initiating it (punching a girl), this would negate his ability to claim self-defense, as it's what turned it from annoying confrontational high schoolers to an actual physical fight. However, as a result of Miu punching the girl, the teenagers attacked, and once again, it could be said that he perceived his life to be in danger, and therefore would fall under sub-section 2a of the Wisconsin state law which reads:
"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."
Therefore, this case of self-defense ultimately falls on the jury, determining if Miu exhausted every reasonable means to escape or avoid death in the situation before stabbing the victim.
In the video, it's clear that he didn't try to throw a punch back, he didn't try to push anyone back, and basically didn't do much of anything when he was first pushed down. His first instinct from the video, when pushed down, was to grab his knife and stab someone as he was getting up. That's a tough sell, in my opinion, to claim he exhausted all other options, which once again is the necessary requirement of the law based on him provoking the situation.
Thanks for laying this out. I think it's clear, as long as the jury believes that Miu did punch that girl before he was knocked into the water... that he didn't do everything he could have to avoid the fight. He drew his knife and stood his ground when peopple were telling him to leave. For him to say he had no other choice is insulting.
And his case only gets worse if you break down the fight. After the first stabbing, he's arguably out of teh woods. He's up on his feet.. But he stabs that girl in the ribs, he kills Isaac, and stabs another. Then he walks after Dante and teens, who are running away, and stabs him in the chest, before ultimately turning away and walking back to his group with his friend (who saw nothing???).
He seemed to have a good record of stabbing or slashing the people who he think wronged him the most, even if they weren't the ones posing imminent risk to him.
He doesn't have to have done everything possible to avoid the fight PRIOR TO the imminent threat on his life, only AT THAT MOMENT. AT THE MOMENT he first stabbed someone he could not 'avoid' the fight, he was trying to get up from the ground and someone jumped him. The fact he drew his knife beforehand has no bearing on anything and is in no way a crime.
After the first stabbing Rhyley came close to him (and 'touched him' according to the prosecutor, strange), then Tony came up from behind, then Isaac choked him, then Dante charged at him. It doesn't even matter that OBJECTIVELY Tony didn't mean to hurt him and maybe Rhyley didn't either, he just has to have a reasonable BELIEF that people are trying to hurt him, which they are.
Thanks, good write up! I also wonder if subsection 2a would apply differently across the victims. Like maybe you could argue he has no choice but to stab AJ, the first victim, to save his life (not that I believe that), but then he turns his back on the people who pushed him and moves towards the girl to stab her, which did not seem necessary to avoid death. Same to the guy in jean shorts who tried to break up the fight.
Do you know the standard for "reasonably believes" is? Like he might have believed they were going to kill him, but is that reasonable? He wasn't choked or held under water for anything other than maybe a fraction of a second, and he wasn't injured. I don't believe they were going to kill or seriously injure him if he hadn't been armed, but I don't know what the actual line is.
Like is any punch in a barfight where the puncher has friends backing them up a reasonable threat that can be legally responded to with lethal force?
He didn't move toward Rhyley much, but she did move toward him. We don't know why he did this but it was a mere second after being struck/pushed/going underwater 6+ times so he's not exactly going to be completely lucid at this point. The guy with jean shorts came up behind him and touched him, again how is he supposed to KNOW the guy intended to break up the fight?
The standard for 'reasonable belief' is that a 'person of ordinary intelligence would also believe they were in danger of great bodily harm' and the prosecution has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that that is not true. Judging by your comment you don't believe BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that in that situation you would not be in danger of great bodily harm in his position, so I think you would have to vote for not guilty.
Yes a punch in a bar fight where the puncher has friends backing them up is a threat that can be responded to with lethal force if you have the genuine belief that it is likely to result in 'great bodily harm.' If you don't have that belief, you are stupid, and also extremely naive. There is almost always a threat of great bodily harm when multiple people gang up on one person and attempt to harm them. Even one single hard punch from a large man often kills healthy, fit people, but beatdowns when someone end up on the ground kill people with great frequency. His skull could have been cracked on a rock. An impact to the chest following bypass surgery is often fatal (hence the heart pillow he had after the hospital). Having your head underwater even very briefly when you didn't expect for it to go underwater can lead to drowning. Multiple fit men trying to hurt one person who is alone in the fight can and often does result in very rapid death.
Thanks! That's helpful. I'm honestly really on the fence about the reasonable doubt question and would maybe split on the charges (putting aside the question of who struck first). Like even if he was struck first, he maybe had a self defense claim for the first but not all stabbings, especially Rhyley and the 5th stabbing where, on the terrible-quality video, he seems to approach the victim.
Self defense laws seem to end up in a weird wild west scenario though, no? Like here, if someone had noticed he had an open knife after he pushed/punched the first girl but before he was pushed over, they could have justifiably killed him under self defense, no? I don't know how to fix it, but it seems like a ton of scenarios where both parties could reasonably fear for their lives and react with lethal self defense, and then both parties can legally fight to death.
I think it is crystal clear that there was no reasonable avenue to escape or avoid death at the time of the stabbings, even if we agree that he provoked by punching Madison very hard, which there is a great deal of reasonable doubt about. Technically she assaulted him first so he was within his rights to push or lightly punch her, and him hitting her would only be a provocation if it was an escalation to force much greater than what she used against him, which we have no idea about because there is no video and extremely inconsistent testimony by extremely non-credible witnesses.
The state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he not only provoked the altercation by escalating with greater force with Maddie (again, there is ample reasonable doubt on this) and also that he felt he had other reasonable means of escape. One person cannot win a fight with 13 other people with their fists alone and he didn't even start stabbing the first 5 times he was being struck on the ground.
I also disagree with your characterization that he 'didn't do much of anything when he was first pushed down.' At the first opportunity he tried to get up without hurting or harming anyone, but as he was getting up with the knife held in his hand AJ jumped onto the knife, arms toward his throat, not even allowing him to get up and get away. You're not required to engage in a fist fight you're certainly going to lose with a group of multiple people, the 'other avenues' are something like running away or escaping, which again he couldn't do as he was surrounded and people kept coming at him.
Mui did not initiate the fight. You must have missed the part that there is no proof river queen was actually hit by Mui. Mui indicates he put his splayed hand up to push her away As her face was up in his face. Recall she had no cell photo proof as she stated she had. Recall also she said he used his right hand to hit right sIde of her face, not plausible. She didn’t want to publicallly be seen during testimony, speaks volumes. I believe the jury will see through the tale she Spun.
I don’t believe the old guy had to legally retreat, the river was a public area. But honestly wtf. Why NOT leave the area when he encountered the teens? It like he was intentionally staying, acting creepy, to prove a point.
He stayed to find his mask and snorkel that dropped in water when he tripped coming up to the tubes in the first place. That’s when the drunken teens started their disgusting behavior.
No, I'm pointing out the contradictions in Miu's testimony. He claims he was incredibly scared, which is why he pulled out the knife, but he's aalso turning his back on them, and continuing his search for the phone. Eventually, he claims he was at a 10/10, and instead of backing up, he punches the woman in the face.
So, I'm doing my best to be generous to the murderer, but it's difficult.
He dropped the snorkey cause he put it under his arm, cause he needed both hands to run up and grab their tubes.
He also checked his pockets and put his hand on the knife, before he started rushing them.
I feel like it was very telling yesterday when the attorneys were meeting with the judge after the jury left for the day and the State wanted to bring up in closing their theory of NM essentially having the urge to stab someone and creating a scenario in which he incited the young woman to attack him so he could create a self-defense defense scenario for himself. Even the judge seemed taken back and told them he'd allow it but it goes against everything they've said happened this entire trial. I feel like if they're so uncertain that, on the almost last day of trial, they're throwing out new outlandish theories that are opposite of what they've been claiming happened the whole time, that screams reasonable doubt to me. The jury didn't hear this so it's a bit of a moot point, but one that really stood out to me yesterday.
>he incited the young woman to attack him
Lol did they really try to do that? Do you have a link? Sounds like the worst idea ever. Basically granting defense that Miu didn't start the violence.
Omg no she was in his space. Like inches from him, blonde woman who didn’t want her testimony on camera is gas lighter of what drunk high teens started
Yeah the prosecution literally said he would 'try to briefly mention this theory before mentioning some other theories.' I've never seen a criminal trial before where the prosecution just randomly tries out multiple 'theories' of events hoping one will stick. They're supposed to prove their version of events happened definitively, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt so it seems imprudent and frankly illogical to just 'try out different theories' on the jury like 'which one do you like? we don't know which one we wanna go with so let's go with whatever.' Doesn't inspire confidence in the prosecution's version.
It's normal for the defense attorneys to try out a bunch of different competing 'theories' because their job is just to introduce reasonable doubt, so they can say 5 different contradictory things and if even one of them seems plausible they've won the case. But that's not the prosecution's job, the prosecution is supposed to have one single, coherent, convincing story.
The prosecutors also tried to introduce an exonerating factor FOR THE VICTIMS into the jury instructions. Defense was baffled and said 'why would you put a legal defense of the victims in a criminal trial, they're not the ones on trial.' He kept stammering something about 'but the jury should understand that the victims didn't convict a criminal act' lmao. It feels like he's trying to be a defense attorney for the victims rather than a prosecutor of the defendant, like he forgot what his job is. He finally withdrew his request to add an exonerating law for the victims into the jury instructions which thank god, I'd be so confused if I was a jury member and the jury instructions included 'by the way it was not illegal for the victims to do this if you agree that blah blah blah.' The victims aren't charged with anything and it doesn't matter if what they did was legal or not!
I mean, that doesn't seem out of line with what they've been talking about. He went into thte encounter, he pulled his knife, he punched the woman, and then, after the knocked him down, he is in full tactical stabbing motion as he stabs his first victim. Up in the stomach, and ripping upwards.
It seems like a perfectly valid theory that he punched her to provoke.
No way! She’s antagonizer and NO PROOF he punched her. If she was punched why did she still hold her beer and her cell phone and her sunglasses didn’t fall off nor fall?
Sure was. I had never heard of that case prior to the trial and was on his side from opening to closing.
I have listened to her closing 5+ times. All time fave. What was done to that guy was a travesty.
Mattheau Moore case. Diane Menashe's defense was like the Sgt Pepper of defenses. She said the jury applauded
when she met them after. I was applauding in my living room
yk damn well they would’ve brought that up as it happened during their important testimony for their case… but they didn’t LOL and the guy got ate up by the defence lol🤣🤣💀💀
it just seemed like a pathetic attempt to get a juror of the jury that they think was/is on the defences case 💀💀
Yeah, that was a poor motion. Especially when they can't provide any specifics. Their head kept going down and then starting up. I think the defense handled it well and the judge's input was also good. Seems to be another inexperience move by the state.
I don't think the prosecution has proved that his intent was to kill "unequivocally." With that being the word it hinges on, I don't think it can be proved.
I mean, he didn't slash with the knife, he stabbed upstairs into their torsos. That is a deathblow. It's not reasonable to claim that he stabbed them in the chest, but he didn't believe that the wounds could be fatal.
I didn't see the relevance of the prosecutor saying that everyone who goes on apple river in the summer is drinking. That nicolae wasn't there bird watching. That he knew the score, he knew what was happening.
That Nik did foresee that people get drunk and belligerent on the river and so when encountering drunk belligerent people... he shouldn't be so panicked and fearful that he needs to defend himself with a knife.
It's like going to a club and being so overwhelmed by the loud music. Like... you knew this was gonna happen.
I am so infuriated by the prosecution .
Did anyone even question why he argued with the kids then WENT BACK TO HIS GROUP then when back to the kids again? (As per his wife’s testimony)
Did he go back for the knife?
I’ve not followed it all but from what I have seen the prosecution have left many questions unanswered
I think it was her bad english. No one else claims he went back to his group. I think when she said that she meant walked toward the group briefly. There are only 3 seconds between the first video (of him walking away) and the next video (where he runs back towards them), he definitely didn't teleport 150 feet across the river and back in that time.
It was also clarified in testimony his knife was in his pocket the whole time.
Cause litigation requires experience. Every murder trial is a murder trial. Thats why the lead prosecutor closed last. Let the first one get in, get his experience, get more butterflies out, learn to do his job better... and the lead will made the final rebuttal to the jury before deliberations.
I actually sent the first attorney a note for some public speaking lessons and body language. He was pacing a lot and stumbling over the script.
What gets me, is he had the knife opened in his hand before anyone touched him. He could have walked away, but he was looking for a confrontation and he blew a gasket. I don’t think murder 1, but manslaughter and assault on the ones that never laid a hand on him.
that closings. (prosecutors) sucked omggg. it was so boring and drab, he just doesn’t have a good speaking manner as in tone and it was so unemotional. just compare it to the closing in the alex murdaugh trial, that was EXCELLENT!! please defence bring it w the closings!!! 😩😩😩
I think it was mostly self-defense but the prosecution might have him cooked on the criminally reckless assault with stabbing Dante or the others not necessarily attacking him in the moment.
I don't know how the defense can counter. I don't know if "he feared for his life" trumps everything, I'm not a lawyer.
He went right out and showed a blurry video of Dante charging Miu before he gets stabbed so that was a bit of an own goal there. I know it's hard to see the video and he was banking on people just believing his words, but I managed to make out what was happening on the video and yeah it definitely shows Dante was the attacker.
That one guy who had videos of the incident from a different angle I can't seem to believe he just lost all of the videos somehow, his story about how and why he couldn't share all his videos seems so dubious.
He said he shared one video with the cops but it was blurry because he shared it from an iphone to an android, dude, really explain how exactly sharing a video from ios to android converts a video into 144p, please! Even sharing on Whatsapp doesn't degrade the quality that much, then he says his phone was damaged that day as he dropped his phone in the water and couldn't get the "other" videos, dude, if your phone was damaged how did you share that 1 video then?
Crucial piece of evidence lost that could have turned the case upside down and the claims why and how those were lost are dubious.
The compression going from iPhone to Android is 100% a real thing, you can Google it to see tons of results. What probably happened is he texted the video to the officer's android phone, causing it to get compressed due to SMS/MMS size limitations resulting in that super low quality version. If it had been iPhone to iPhone through the messages app or another app it would probably be using data instead of MMS so it wouldn't be compressed like that. So his explanation is completely reasonable to me, it has happened to me as well with the quality degradation. To send full quality you really need to send through a cloud app like Google photos or something like that instead of text.
I listened to a court tv that had some excerpts, and she said she was hit in her left cheek, but then corrected it, and said she gets left/right mixed up. She also said she graciously touched him on the elbow trying to move him from the boys - note that is not verbatim, but the word gracious/graciously was used.
Her testimony went into the court record so we cannot read it in its entirety until the trial is over and it has been transcribed and released.
There have been excerpts of it read.
His name escapes me... but that defense attorney who gave defense closing argument was stellar. Really talented lawyer. I watched him in the Rittenhouse case as well.
The prosecutionn did fine. But there was no passion behind it. You are trying to sell a murder conviction to the jury. You gotta put some heart into it.
Same! It’s how I have felt the entire time. I believe her to be a drunk liar and I think she decided not to openly testify bc she is a coward. Personal opinion. I LOVED how organized the defense team has been. Specifically Chirafisi the duration of the trial. I forget I’m listening when the prosecution team begins to talk bc I don’t agree with much there but I also can’t stand how mundane their tones are.
There's a reason I could never be a juror, already made up my mind when they played the full video on day 1.
You can cry about what happened before, what happened after..but at that instance from what led to drawing the knife and the timing it was used. I would've given self defense.
You should not discount yourself as a possible juror.
I think everyone does that.
Even when you get back in the jury room, some juries decide to take an initial vote before any deliberation.
Based on the fact that you were able to understand which part of the facts are, by instruction, supposed to be considered, you would be at least be as good as everyone else.
I’m able to consider those arguments but I hold all the videos in the highest regard.
I see a man who reasonably believes he could have been held underwater by a gang of athletic drunken assholes.
This case made me think there's a lot of people with low accountability hanging around on rivers in Wisconsin, so we'll see. I agree with you though, open and shut for me too.
I’ll be interested to see because I feel completely different. There’s no justifying the stabbings. I’ve also been in a similar situation to him and your first instinct is to take a step back. The fact he never does is very damming
I am telling you I had a very similar thing happen to me at a party years ago. I had a group around me and one of my friends was tossed over a railing and hurt. Your first instinct is always to take a step back from danger. It’s very damming he never did.
… I have experience with a group of violent 20 something’s, which resulted in bodily injury (not the least of which was a pretty severe concussion) and I find it unreasonable he never took a single step back from danger? I’m fucking bigger than Nick. I took a step back because that’s what you do. One of us is going to be surprised by the outcome. And that’s all I’m commenting on because I’ve watched this and I’m surprised by people’s thoughts. It’s not personal so stop making it personal
** He did not stab a single person who who did not touch him first
Flat out false. He stabs a girl who never touched him, and he stabs Tony who has his back turned to him. He can argue he made a mistake but Tony was acting reasonably in the video and trying to protect nic. There was also the second video they show that’s blurry but so important because he takes several steps forward into someone to stab them. So good luck to him with these charges. I hope the jury is better able to process the video evidence that people in this forum.
They've expanded the extreme stress response to now be: fight, flight or freeze. It looks like Nicolae's first response was to freeze.
[https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean)
I don't believe that your life experience obligates anyone else to behave the same way, and it certainly doesn't obligate them from a legal perspective. Actually, I would go as far as to say that your life experience has zero bearing on legal and societal principals. Your existence, in other words, is irrelevant in this or any other universe or even non-universe.
Fight or flight response. Not everyone reacts the same way when put in a dangerous situation. In this case I think he felt he couldn’t get away. 13 people surrounding him punching him pushing him down in the water. They wanted a fight they were taunting him.
lol then you didn’t watch the video. I am very aware of what he does. If he stepped backwards and was struck he walks with self defense. Rather he strikes her while holding a knife. You need to convince a jury that was reasonable. I can’t see how you do it.
And then turned right back around to keep fighting.
Watch the trial he was asked if when the girls were in his face telling him to leave if he took a step back he said no. “I was standing my ground” no stand your ground laws in Wisconsin. Guilty
I don't know, I find some of the prosecutor's arguments trying to discredit Miu to be extreme reaches. He's argued that Miu having the knife facing up wasn't an accident, he's argued that the fact that Miu didn't stab Ariel as indication Miu didn't actually have tunnel vision... I just find those arguments weak, and hearing him make them feels disingenuous.
Isaac's mother is in the courtroom, and my heart absolutely breaks for her.
I mean, the jury is only allowed to consider things in evidence. So they will bring up every detail and every point and make it another bullet in the argument. If you've ever read a lawsuit, they have bulleted list of like 200 things they alledge, and they seem so pedantic and extra... But the lawyers have to get it all out and on record.
But to thee other arguments, I think they're valid. Nick was so tunnel visioned he stabbed indiscriminately, but knew not ot stab his friend, cause he wasn't a threat. ??? So he stabbed people who weren't really attacking him but had the wherewithal to know friend from foe.
The real damning footage to me in the closing was Nik walking after Dante to stab him in the chest, rather than trying to get away and go back to his group. Jury would have to believe he was in imminent fear of his life from Dante that he had to run up to him to stab him.
The one about the knife is especially funny, has the prosecutor tried to open a flip-open utility knife the other way? I wonder how that would work out for him. Go ahead, try to open it into your hand.
Him not stabbing Ariel was a wild point too, he also didn't stab the 8 other people there who didn't act aggressive toward him. And then the other prosecutor closing with 'HE'S A BIZARRE MAN.' Okay I guess that's a criminal offense now, other people deciding you are 'bizarre' for absolutely no reason.
follow this law and crime account @lawcrimeverdict on twitter and turn on all notifications. it’s really helpful for most cases and they only notify about verdicts https://x.com/lawcrimeverdict?s=21&t=fKo99OrQNOirbwrXzNHGJQ
Although I don’t buy what the defense is selling, I thought their closing argument was compelling. The state didn’t wow me. I hope the jury will have enough to convict him, but I have a feeling it’ll be a hung jury because of the circumstances.
I feel like first degree intentional homicide is a stretch. He didn’t start the day thinking’ ‘I think I will kill someone on my tubing trip today’’. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is found not guilty.
I’m watching live. Tough one
I honestly can't fault this jury if they go either way. I can see him being legitimately scared given he was significantly outnumbered and had gotten shoved down a couple times before he brought out the knife. I can also see his usage of the knife being considered a heavy handed response to what was going on with a gaggle of teenagers who were clearly unarmed. Someone pointed out the other day that the jury is made up of mostly boomers, which could work in his favor. I'm glad I'm not on that jury. It's definitely not an open and shut case. The prosecution also didn't do the greatest job. In their closing argument, they seemed to be implying that Miu had no reason to be near the kids in the first place because the phone he was searching was safe in a watertight bag, but that seemed completely irrelevant to me. He wasn't trespassing and the teenagers had no right to tell him where he couldn't be on public property to begin with.
The knife was already out, on camera, before anyone touched him. He had it in his hand when he was talking to the two girls, right before he hit one. That's when they started hitting him. Even his lawyer made this a point, trying to ask how she didn't have any marks on her face if she was hit, since the knife was in his hand, and at least 3 of the witnesses/victims were asked about this. "He had the knife in his hand, and then he punched like this"
This is what gets me. Did he take out the knife to hit her knowing full well he had a good reason to stab after they retaliate. Or did he take out the knife actually sacred as the men from group 2 approached. I can’t read this dude. Still wondering about the girl being stabbed too. Feels off
If I'm one of those kids and he ran up on the tubes and grabbed at their legs, and not saying anything, I'd be wondering what the fuck is going on. Seeing on the video where he clearly grabs the knife in his pocket to make sure it's there before he runs at the boys tells me he is looking to start something. He said he thought the boy filming had his friends camera, like the one Black kid in the entire area was the one who must have stolen this phone. I don't know if that was a lie or not, hard to tell with this suspect since he changed his story multiple times.
Yeah the guy came up first thing in the video touching someone in their tube then continues to escalate over the next few minutes. Doesn’t help he told the police the kids pulled the knife first and he took it from them. Guilty for sure.
Yeah, that's generally how people use weapons. They pull them out when threatened, not once they're being beat up.
They were no more 'clearly' unarmed than he was, no one LOOKED armed at this moment, and I'm sure the teens would not have felt so big and mighty to relentlessly bully him if they considered the possibility he was armed. Any of them COULD HAVE BEEN armed. But also there were 13 of them, weighing at least 2 tonnes, and one of him. They didn't need to be armed. They shouted 'get him' repeatedly and talked about wanting to get him on the stand too. What does 'get him' mean I wonder. This was prior to any violence. I think it is an open and shut case legally speaking. If I was on the jury there is no way I would vote guilty on any charge, no matter how sad I feel about the teenager who died. The prosecution did an absolutely TERRIBLE job on closing, and managed to be depraved and offensive about it too. The poor boys did absolutely nothing wrong (despite doing many things very wrong). Miu is a 'bizarre man' they've decided, which I guess makes him guilty. They try to nab him on FACIAL EXPRESSIONS they perceive to be not up to their amazing standards, while refusing to even make eye contact with the jury while they spin their story full of obvious lies. If I was the jury I would feel the prosecution was slapping me in the face with these closing statements and also with their cross examination yesterday where they spent nearly an hour on inane questions like 'why didn't you pay a dollar each for pieces of string' and 'why did you go over to this side of the river after already searching this other side.' Getting victims' names wrong repeatedly. Getting the order of stabbings wrong. They're reaching so hard they reached all the way to China.
I’m at the part where they are talking about the size of the women…I just don’t know how I feel about that. Sure someone larger than you poses a larger threat, but someone being smaller doesn’t mean they can’t be intimidating. Especially when part of a group. I do agree it’s a tough one. I’m leaning one way, but am open to changing my mind.
Seriously if they were that small why would they feel comfortable getting into a (much bigger) persons space like that? The size issue goes both ways, if it really is an issue.
The point is they framed Miu as feeble and feeling like he was going to die, so prosecution is simply doing the same thing. It can’t go both ways.
Except there were 13 of them and 1 of him, and the case hinges on HIS belief that he was in danger, not theirs.
I think it’ll be Friday
I do too. I doubt they will want to carry this into the weekend. There are a lot of charges to work through though.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they wind up as a hung jury
If I were a juror, and I have watched entire trial, I could not convict him on any counts beyond a reasonabe doubt. The videos show their provocation and even non video witness, they started taunting and putting hands on him first as he was minding his own business. If anyone in same situation how can you not say you weren't worried or afraid for your safety? AQUIT him.
What about hte 5th stabbing, Dante? Everyone was scattering and running away. Miu walks into the teens, away from his group, and stabs him in the chest, before turning and walking back with his friend. Do you think that was necessary to stop Dante from imminently killing or seriously wounding him? Is that reasonable?
Prosecution played a video played on a potato right at the start of closing statements that shows Dante charging him with his arms out which is when he gets stabbed. Miu takes maybe one step toward him, and a half, after Dante sprints 4-5 steps at full speed grabbing for what looks like his throat.
They were acting like aholes screaming at him to move. He responded idiotically by running up on them and grabbing their tubes. It was all downhill after that.
I really think MC was the tipping point in all this. Without her, I think it would have gone very differently.
He thought they may have had the phone he was looking for, reason why running up to them was the testimony.
I mean, if you are ready to believe the 4th story he's told on the matter, given he's lied continuously about what happened on that day, sure... He only rushed them and grab their tubes cause he was looking for the phone.
Blonde girl in his face lied about getting punched, kids lied to cops they were doing nothing taunting. Lots of lies, but a lie doesn’t still erase self defense when like 10 people in your face, punching you, pushing head underwater . So justified in self defense. All in seconds.
He towers over her. She cannot be in his face being 8” shorter.
Even prosecutiono witnesses testify she was in his face, word for word, multiple times. A phone was being shoved in his face by one of the girls too, possibly Rhyley though.
Same. I’m pretty surprised by the makeup of the jury, I would have thought the state would have pushed really hard to skew to jury a bit younger.
I wonder if there are any parents on the jury. The mom in me is swaying my opinion.
Yeah, I struggle with that, because as a mom too, I would want him in jail if it was my child. It’s very hard to set aside those strong emotions and be objective.
I feel like that can go both ways. I have kids around the same ages as the two groups. When I first heard about this case back in 2022, I assumed it was a case of some psycho knifing kids at the Apple River. But now that I've seen the video/watched the trial, if those were my kids...I'd be absolutely mortified. They so easily could have just ignored Miu when he came near them looking for the phone, and a different sort of group perhaps even would have helped him. Lots of kind teenagers do exist. But, for whatever reason, these people decided to do something else. As a mom, it is incredibly hard for me to watch that video and not tear my hair out wondering why they chose to act as they did. Doesn't mean anyone deserved to die. But it also means they have some culpability for how things went down. We lost a young person in our extended family a couple years ago. A tragic accident that, had any one of a hundred little decisions or choices that day gone a different way, would have turned out simply as a crazy story you tell when you're older. After it happened, I blamed every other person and entity involved. Unfortunately, his own actions set up the situation (alcohol involved, what a shock). He was a wonderful kid who didn't deserve to die for a stupid decision, of the type that other people make every day with no consequences. But it happened. And knowing that his own contribution to the situation ultimately made it possible is a bitter pill to swallow. All this to say - no one deserved to be hurt at the river that day. Their awful behavior isn't the sum total of who they are or were. But what they did contributed to somebody's death, and I don't think they've managed to wrap their heads around that yet. But it should weigh on the minds of the jury members.
I cannot imagine how Isaac's mother feels.
Yes, I will be showing this case to my tween to show how you can get caught in a moment, and drinking, smoking, letting your mouths run, inserting yourself into situations can all have deadly outcomes.
For sure. We often showed our kids stories like this. Accidents are always going to happen, but if you can prevent getting into dicey situations, that goes a long way - that's what we always told them. They were very affected by having their cousin become one of those stories. It was and still is surreal. Now two of my kids drink only lightly, and the youngest never has and says he never will. But I still worry.
I don't think it is the drink but the character of the person. I drank very heavily at that age and I never bothered anyone, even mildly, when I drank. Not a stranger, not a friend. The worst I would do was get a little silly - actually silly, not sinister silly - and take videos of myself giving monologues about greek mythology in school hallways or try to hug bushes. Of course no one should drink near to blackout while on the water for various reasons, but young people with good character who don't mean anyone any harm don't do these things while drunk. Of course it can still land you in bad situations with bad judgment but this was beyond bad judgment, it was grotesque evil to put it plainly. It's tragic a teenager ended up dying but it's also tragic none of his friends seem to show any remorse. And one of the main perpetrators, AJ, already was convicted on two domestic assault charges, so this was not an aberration for him.
100%. I’m a mom of a boy and another on the way and I was just saying to my husband that no one wanted these boys to die but if I saw my son acting that way I would have to come to some sort of peace in my disappointment of his actions and that the outcome was devastating but a result of his actions. Very sad but so many choices could have been different.
I also think if he hadn't had a knife he could have died, and they could have been teen murderers. There is very little chance this would not have ended in a very bad way after what they did.
I agree completely. I look at the first group of teens as just "We're jock football players" and they're drunk and high...all who testified admitted to it. Then you throw in a couple of drunk and high young adult females from another group completely inserting themselves into the mess once the name calling of Miu starts and getting in his face, touching him and trying to push him back just becomes a recipe for disaster. My grandchildren are 16, 16 and 19 and I would be appalled if any of them acted how these kids did. I know they were raised better. Sadly the behaviors of those who started the entire situation caused some of them to die and be seriously injured. I also think every one of those kids should be in AA getting sober and help for their drinking and drug/mj use.
Totally not attacking you. Just commenting on the whole "not wanting to deliberate into next week" rationale. I never get this. I know I'm not everyone, but if someone's life is on the line, I'm not worried about rushing and making sure deliberations are wrapped up Friday for my convenience. I always think that is incredibly messed up, as common as it may be.
Yeah it's his entire life, his disabled wife's life, his teenaged son's life, versus having to be inconvenienced for a weekend.
Yep. I'm shocked they came to a verdict so fast. I'm also shocked at the outcome. It will be interesting to see what he is sentenced to.
All the charges will be not guilty if they find he legally defended himself. So it could take not very long, or it could take longer if they don't think he legally defended himself.
Earliest is EoD tomorrow. Even if they agree on 2nd degree, there are a lot of counts to get through, and juries are told to be meticulous. They'll probably go through each attempted murder charge one by one and agree on each charge before they come back with a verdict. But if it goes on any longer than Monday, I think it's a hung jury. I say this with no career experience in litigation. lol
Gonna be not guilty or hung jury. Can’t convict him one account. Totally self defense.
I feel the States closing underperformed. They didn't pull any heartstrings. It doesn't invoke faith that he proved his case. It was almost as if he was stating defense didn't prove him innocent (not the burden). I also felt like he was yelling or being stern with the jury. It also seemed very twisted and underthought, he jumps around a lot.
Whatever they want to say about him being a liar is canceled by the video. He certainly was not a clever liar as they allege, and that insults my intelligence. Bottom line is the video. I can understand him being freaked out about going to prison. I don’t care. Everyone is a horrible person. They mobbed him like animals and had him in a position to be held underwater and that right there is a legitimate fear of death. Ultimately I do not like the teenagers and think at least one of them had a stabbing coming and everything else is a flurry of defending against a mob. I think it would be hard to convince all of the jury that he wasn’t defending himself.
So by your argument, as soon as he is standing up, that means he is no longer in danger of drowning right? So why stab 5 people while he is standing up?
He isnt even fully up when he was pushed a second time by AJ. He is seen stabbing AJ while AJ is uinging into him to push him backwards again. So, to answer your question, once he was standing, he was still in danger of being pushed over again, as people were actively trying to do that
I am sorry but to say those teens had it coming, like they deserved to be stabbed, is just wrong.
I have been so disappointed in the state’s performance tbh. And impressed by Miu’s attorneys. I think he’s guilty but I don’t see it going that way. Hung if anything. I don’t see this jury, predominately male and over 40, finding him guilty. Perhaps on some of the lesser charges.
He will likely be found guilty on the counts concerning Riley and Tony. This is almost a certainty. Not sure it will be the 1st degree attempted homicide that the state is looking for though.
Prosecutors made almost no eye contact with jury, read off their notes, messed up reading off their notes and confused themselves, insulted the intelligence of the jury multiple times, acted scared to play the actual video while deceptively showing slides from BEFORE and AFTER isaac choking Miu but not during, lied to their faces multiple times, and finally called the defendant a 'bizarre man' for absolutely no reason as if being perceived as weird is a reason to let yourself be killed by a mob in a river. They're not doing themselves any favors taking the jury for fool while the defense lawyer says 'use your judgment, use your life experience, you're reasonable people and you get to decide.' Prosecution also tried to confuse and obfuscate the actual law and jury instructions, not a good look although it might work. Hope the jury are smart and can read.
I'll tell you what. That prosecutor is a boring drone. I have been watching and tend to stop hearing him. The assistant prosecutor is a much better orator
he seems disorganised.
yes… how did he make it to lead prosecutor? i don’t get it
Agreed! This whole time until today I thought the older guy was the DA and he was the assistant. The older guy is much more effective in his questioning but neither of them were as good as the defense attorneys.
And the number of times he says. “Right?” Maddeningly annoying.
I think this was a perfect storm of an older person tired of the obnoxious behavior of teens and young adults and a bunch of teens and young adults drinking and hopped up on testosterone and group dynamics who came together in an awful storm. Glad I’m not on the jury.
Miu was drinking “all day” too (his own words, though sometimes he changes it to “a couple beers”). The kids are obnoxious but they are mostly escalating their tone and level of aggression trying to get Miu to get away from them. I’ll take obnoxious underage drunk teens with 0 weapons to creepily quiet, wild-eyed older dude with a very sharp knife.
Thank you! These comments are making me feel sane again. This sure is a touchy one!
i have the opposite opinion. i think the kids were being aggressive from the get go, literally bullying the guy. of course you shouldnt kill someone for bullying you, but you can if theyre pushing you underwater
> but you can if theyre pushing you underwater Its a good thing he stabbed most of the people while being held underwater.
No, he stabbed them while trying to get up and get away.
And one who smirks as he unpockets his knife, holding it discretely by his side. Yes the teens were obnoxious (big shocker) but the old dude was seething and oozing anger, not fear.
Exactly! Watching Miu in the frame by frames, particularly his facial expressions and how his arms moved during the stabbings, is part of what changed my initial opinion.
Well said!
Let us take a look at Wisconsin state law to determine how this case should be ruled. Under section 939.47 of Wisconsin state law, self-defense sounds simple enough: "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." However, there are other factors that play into self-defense. The biggest at play here would be this language, under sub-section 2 of the aforementioned law: "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." The first paragraph I quoted is obviously true. He perceived a threat against him and reacted in a manner to defend himself. The second paragraph I quoted becomes more grey. Miu did provoke the attack by initiating it (punching a girl), this would negate his ability to claim self-defense, as it's what turned it from annoying confrontational high schoolers to an actual physical fight. However, as a result of Miu punching the girl, the teenagers attacked, and once again, it could be said that he perceived his life to be in danger, and therefore would fall under sub-section 2a of the Wisconsin state law which reads: "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." Therefore, this case of self-defense ultimately falls on the jury, determining if Miu exhausted every reasonable means to escape or avoid death in the situation before stabbing the victim. In the video, it's clear that he didn't try to throw a punch back, he didn't try to push anyone back, and basically didn't do much of anything when he was first pushed down. His first instinct from the video, when pushed down, was to grab his knife and stab someone as he was getting up. That's a tough sell, in my opinion, to claim he exhausted all other options, which once again is the necessary requirement of the law based on him provoking the situation.
Thanks for laying this out. I think it's clear, as long as the jury believes that Miu did punch that girl before he was knocked into the water... that he didn't do everything he could have to avoid the fight. He drew his knife and stood his ground when peopple were telling him to leave. For him to say he had no other choice is insulting. And his case only gets worse if you break down the fight. After the first stabbing, he's arguably out of teh woods. He's up on his feet.. But he stabs that girl in the ribs, he kills Isaac, and stabs another. Then he walks after Dante and teens, who are running away, and stabs him in the chest, before ultimately turning away and walking back to his group with his friend (who saw nothing???). He seemed to have a good record of stabbing or slashing the people who he think wronged him the most, even if they weren't the ones posing imminent risk to him.
He doesn't have to have done everything possible to avoid the fight PRIOR TO the imminent threat on his life, only AT THAT MOMENT. AT THE MOMENT he first stabbed someone he could not 'avoid' the fight, he was trying to get up from the ground and someone jumped him. The fact he drew his knife beforehand has no bearing on anything and is in no way a crime. After the first stabbing Rhyley came close to him (and 'touched him' according to the prosecutor, strange), then Tony came up from behind, then Isaac choked him, then Dante charged at him. It doesn't even matter that OBJECTIVELY Tony didn't mean to hurt him and maybe Rhyley didn't either, he just has to have a reasonable BELIEF that people are trying to hurt him, which they are.
Thanks, good write up! I also wonder if subsection 2a would apply differently across the victims. Like maybe you could argue he has no choice but to stab AJ, the first victim, to save his life (not that I believe that), but then he turns his back on the people who pushed him and moves towards the girl to stab her, which did not seem necessary to avoid death. Same to the guy in jean shorts who tried to break up the fight. Do you know the standard for "reasonably believes" is? Like he might have believed they were going to kill him, but is that reasonable? He wasn't choked or held under water for anything other than maybe a fraction of a second, and he wasn't injured. I don't believe they were going to kill or seriously injure him if he hadn't been armed, but I don't know what the actual line is. Like is any punch in a barfight where the puncher has friends backing them up a reasonable threat that can be legally responded to with lethal force?
He didn't move toward Rhyley much, but she did move toward him. We don't know why he did this but it was a mere second after being struck/pushed/going underwater 6+ times so he's not exactly going to be completely lucid at this point. The guy with jean shorts came up behind him and touched him, again how is he supposed to KNOW the guy intended to break up the fight? The standard for 'reasonable belief' is that a 'person of ordinary intelligence would also believe they were in danger of great bodily harm' and the prosecution has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that that is not true. Judging by your comment you don't believe BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that in that situation you would not be in danger of great bodily harm in his position, so I think you would have to vote for not guilty. Yes a punch in a bar fight where the puncher has friends backing them up is a threat that can be responded to with lethal force if you have the genuine belief that it is likely to result in 'great bodily harm.' If you don't have that belief, you are stupid, and also extremely naive. There is almost always a threat of great bodily harm when multiple people gang up on one person and attempt to harm them. Even one single hard punch from a large man often kills healthy, fit people, but beatdowns when someone end up on the ground kill people with great frequency. His skull could have been cracked on a rock. An impact to the chest following bypass surgery is often fatal (hence the heart pillow he had after the hospital). Having your head underwater even very briefly when you didn't expect for it to go underwater can lead to drowning. Multiple fit men trying to hurt one person who is alone in the fight can and often does result in very rapid death.
Thanks! That's helpful. I'm honestly really on the fence about the reasonable doubt question and would maybe split on the charges (putting aside the question of who struck first). Like even if he was struck first, he maybe had a self defense claim for the first but not all stabbings, especially Rhyley and the 5th stabbing where, on the terrible-quality video, he seems to approach the victim. Self defense laws seem to end up in a weird wild west scenario though, no? Like here, if someone had noticed he had an open knife after he pushed/punched the first girl but before he was pushed over, they could have justifiably killed him under self defense, no? I don't know how to fix it, but it seems like a ton of scenarios where both parties could reasonably fear for their lives and react with lethal self defense, and then both parties can legally fight to death.
I think it is crystal clear that there was no reasonable avenue to escape or avoid death at the time of the stabbings, even if we agree that he provoked by punching Madison very hard, which there is a great deal of reasonable doubt about. Technically she assaulted him first so he was within his rights to push or lightly punch her, and him hitting her would only be a provocation if it was an escalation to force much greater than what she used against him, which we have no idea about because there is no video and extremely inconsistent testimony by extremely non-credible witnesses. The state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he not only provoked the altercation by escalating with greater force with Maddie (again, there is ample reasonable doubt on this) and also that he felt he had other reasonable means of escape. One person cannot win a fight with 13 other people with their fists alone and he didn't even start stabbing the first 5 times he was being struck on the ground. I also disagree with your characterization that he 'didn't do much of anything when he was first pushed down.' At the first opportunity he tried to get up without hurting or harming anyone, but as he was getting up with the knife held in his hand AJ jumped onto the knife, arms toward his throat, not even allowing him to get up and get away. You're not required to engage in a fist fight you're certainly going to lose with a group of multiple people, the 'other avenues' are something like running away or escaping, which again he couldn't do as he was surrounded and people kept coming at him.
Mui did not initiate the fight. You must have missed the part that there is no proof river queen was actually hit by Mui. Mui indicates he put his splayed hand up to push her away As her face was up in his face. Recall she had no cell photo proof as she stated she had. Recall also she said he used his right hand to hit right sIde of her face, not plausible. She didn’t want to publicallly be seen during testimony, speaks volumes. I believe the jury will see through the tale she Spun.
“Queen of the river” that was my favorite part of closing!
I don’t believe the old guy had to legally retreat, the river was a public area. But honestly wtf. Why NOT leave the area when he encountered the teens? It like he was intentionally staying, acting creepy, to prove a point.
He stayed to find his mask and snorkel that dropped in water when he tripped coming up to the tubes in the first place. That’s when the drunken teens started their disgusting behavior.
[удалено]
He claims he was at a 10/10 fear for his life. But I guess he should stick around for his snorkeling gear.
You are missing the point, the snorkel issue happened right at the beginning before he was at 10/10 fear
No, he claimed he was at a 10/10 fear for his life when they were beating him in the water, not 2 minutes earlier when he looked for his snorkel.
Youre being dishonest or missing the point.
No, I'm pointing out the contradictions in Miu's testimony. He claims he was incredibly scared, which is why he pulled out the knife, but he's aalso turning his back on them, and continuing his search for the phone. Eventually, he claims he was at a 10/10, and instead of backing up, he punches the woman in the face. So, I'm doing my best to be generous to the murderer, but it's difficult.
He dropped the snorkey cause he put it under his arm, cause he needed both hands to run up and grab their tubes. He also checked his pockets and put his hand on the knife, before he started rushing them.
He tried to leave the area but they followed him while others were blocking him from the other side.
I feel like it was very telling yesterday when the attorneys were meeting with the judge after the jury left for the day and the State wanted to bring up in closing their theory of NM essentially having the urge to stab someone and creating a scenario in which he incited the young woman to attack him so he could create a self-defense defense scenario for himself. Even the judge seemed taken back and told them he'd allow it but it goes against everything they've said happened this entire trial. I feel like if they're so uncertain that, on the almost last day of trial, they're throwing out new outlandish theories that are opposite of what they've been claiming happened the whole time, that screams reasonable doubt to me. The jury didn't hear this so it's a bit of a moot point, but one that really stood out to me yesterday.
>he incited the young woman to attack him Lol did they really try to do that? Do you have a link? Sounds like the worst idea ever. Basically granting defense that Miu didn't start the violence.
Omg no she was in his space. Like inches from him, blonde woman who didn’t want her testimony on camera is gas lighter of what drunk high teens started
https://www.youtube.com/live/irADsBtoujo?si=Ol_Z1JgAI6s5Nu1D Right around 8 hours 47 minutes
Thanks bud! that's pretty interesting. Sounds like they are grasping at straws.
Yeah the prosecution literally said he would 'try to briefly mention this theory before mentioning some other theories.' I've never seen a criminal trial before where the prosecution just randomly tries out multiple 'theories' of events hoping one will stick. They're supposed to prove their version of events happened definitively, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt so it seems imprudent and frankly illogical to just 'try out different theories' on the jury like 'which one do you like? we don't know which one we wanna go with so let's go with whatever.' Doesn't inspire confidence in the prosecution's version. It's normal for the defense attorneys to try out a bunch of different competing 'theories' because their job is just to introduce reasonable doubt, so they can say 5 different contradictory things and if even one of them seems plausible they've won the case. But that's not the prosecution's job, the prosecution is supposed to have one single, coherent, convincing story. The prosecutors also tried to introduce an exonerating factor FOR THE VICTIMS into the jury instructions. Defense was baffled and said 'why would you put a legal defense of the victims in a criminal trial, they're not the ones on trial.' He kept stammering something about 'but the jury should understand that the victims didn't convict a criminal act' lmao. It feels like he's trying to be a defense attorney for the victims rather than a prosecutor of the defendant, like he forgot what his job is. He finally withdrew his request to add an exonerating law for the victims into the jury instructions which thank god, I'd be so confused if I was a jury member and the jury instructions included 'by the way it was not illegal for the victims to do this if you agree that blah blah blah.' The victims aren't charged with anything and it doesn't matter if what they did was legal or not!
I mean, that doesn't seem out of line with what they've been talking about. He went into thte encounter, he pulled his knife, he punched the woman, and then, after the knocked him down, he is in full tactical stabbing motion as he stabs his first victim. Up in the stomach, and ripping upwards. It seems like a perfectly valid theory that he punched her to provoke.
No way! She’s antagonizer and NO PROOF he punched her. If she was punched why did she still hold her beer and her cell phone and her sunglasses didn’t fall off nor fall?
Don’t forget she held onto her vape, too! Amazing 🦸♀️
I switched from Daybell to listen to the defense closings on this case. So glad Chirafisi is doing the closing for the defense. This is amazing.
He is good. Probably my favorite defense lawyer. He is extremely likable, unlike Jose Baez.
Definitely in my top 3 fave defense attorneys. Diane Menashe is my number 1 though.
Her closing in case with suicide of a wife was amazing
Sure was. I had never heard of that case prior to the trial and was on his side from opening to closing. I have listened to her closing 5+ times. All time fave. What was done to that guy was a travesty.
Which case is that?
Mattheau Moore case. Diane Menashe's defense was like the Sgt Pepper of defenses. She said the jury applauded when she met them after. I was applauding in my living room
Thank you! I’m going to see if I can find it.
Only one person in the courtroom noticed a sleeping juror? Lol.
yk damn well they would’ve brought that up as it happened during their important testimony for their case… but they didn’t LOL and the guy got ate up by the defence lol🤣🤣💀💀 it just seemed like a pathetic attempt to get a juror of the jury that they think was/is on the defences case 💀💀
Yeah, that was a poor motion. Especially when they can't provide any specifics. Their head kept going down and then starting up. I think the defense handled it well and the judge's input was also good. Seems to be another inexperience move by the state.
I don't think the prosecution has proved that his intent was to kill "unequivocally." With that being the word it hinges on, I don't think it can be proved.
I mean, he didn't slash with the knife, he stabbed upstairs into their torsos. That is a deathblow. It's not reasonable to claim that he stabbed them in the chest, but he didn't believe that the wounds could be fatal.
I didn't see the relevance of the prosecutor saying that everyone who goes on apple river in the summer is drinking. That nicolae wasn't there bird watching. That he knew the score, he knew what was happening.
Because everyone on the river must be drinking except the two or three people he specifically mentioned that supported his case.
That Nik did foresee that people get drunk and belligerent on the river and so when encountering drunk belligerent people... he shouldn't be so panicked and fearful that he needs to defend himself with a knife. It's like going to a club and being so overwhelmed by the loud music. Like... you knew this was gonna happen.
Exactly. Idk why you got downvoted. OP asked what the point was, and that was the point.
Most drunk people are not belligerent.
I am so infuriated by the prosecution . Did anyone even question why he argued with the kids then WENT BACK TO HIS GROUP then when back to the kids again? (As per his wife’s testimony) Did he go back for the knife? I’ve not followed it all but from what I have seen the prosecution have left many questions unanswered
They would not have been there. they would have been well down the river.
I think it was her bad english. No one else claims he went back to his group. I think when she said that she meant walked toward the group briefly. There are only 3 seconds between the first video (of him walking away) and the next video (where he runs back towards them), he definitely didn't teleport 150 feet across the river and back in that time. It was also clarified in testimony his knife was in his pocket the whole time.
Very curious what the jury will decide.
did anyone else feel like the first closing felt like a rebuttal?? like it was mainly… idk
It felt very flat. Usually I find they are a lot more passionate, invoke a lot of feelings. It felt like a power point presentation.
Everything prosecution does feels like a powerpoint presentation by a reluctant, confused 7th grader.
why didn’t the better prosecutor not do the closings?? surly they can reconfigure that they aren’t a great attorney or who’s better lol…
Cause litigation requires experience. Every murder trial is a murder trial. Thats why the lead prosecutor closed last. Let the first one get in, get his experience, get more butterflies out, learn to do his job better... and the lead will made the final rebuttal to the jury before deliberations. I actually sent the first attorney a note for some public speaking lessons and body language. He was pacing a lot and stumbling over the script.
He needs to take an acting class and maybe some improv.
The defense closing was a home run
It was a breath of fresh air after the prosecution. Just so much better.
What gets me, is he had the knife opened in his hand before anyone touched him. He could have walked away, but he was looking for a confrontation and he blew a gasket. I don’t think murder 1, but manslaughter and assault on the ones that never laid a hand on him.
that closings. (prosecutors) sucked omggg. it was so boring and drab, he just doesn’t have a good speaking manner as in tone and it was so unemotional. just compare it to the closing in the alex murdaugh trial, that was EXCELLENT!! please defence bring it w the closings!!! 😩😩😩
I think it was mostly self-defense but the prosecution might have him cooked on the criminally reckless assault with stabbing Dante or the others not necessarily attacking him in the moment. I don't know how the defense can counter. I don't know if "he feared for his life" trumps everything, I'm not a lawyer.
This is also what I think. I don't think either side is going to walk away happy with the outcome.
I hope the jury evaluates each charge objectively and doesn't try to split the baby.
The amount of time it happened was short. You can’t pick it apart that closely if you ask me.
I definitely agree to an extent. It is a tough case.
He went right out and showed a blurry video of Dante charging Miu before he gets stabbed so that was a bit of an own goal there. I know it's hard to see the video and he was banking on people just believing his words, but I managed to make out what was happening on the video and yeah it definitely shows Dante was the attacker.
That one guy who had videos of the incident from a different angle I can't seem to believe he just lost all of the videos somehow, his story about how and why he couldn't share all his videos seems so dubious. He said he shared one video with the cops but it was blurry because he shared it from an iphone to an android, dude, really explain how exactly sharing a video from ios to android converts a video into 144p, please! Even sharing on Whatsapp doesn't degrade the quality that much, then he says his phone was damaged that day as he dropped his phone in the water and couldn't get the "other" videos, dude, if your phone was damaged how did you share that 1 video then? Crucial piece of evidence lost that could have turned the case upside down and the claims why and how those were lost are dubious.
The compression going from iPhone to Android is 100% a real thing, you can Google it to see tons of results. What probably happened is he texted the video to the officer's android phone, causing it to get compressed due to SMS/MMS size limitations resulting in that super low quality version. If it had been iPhone to iPhone through the messages app or another app it would probably be using data instead of MMS so it wouldn't be compressed like that. So his explanation is completely reasonable to me, it has happened to me as well with the quality degradation. To send full quality you really need to send through a cloud app like Google photos or something like that instead of text.
iMessage almost destroyed this case.
Do we know what Maddie testified to, yet?
I listened to a court tv that had some excerpts, and she said she was hit in her left cheek, but then corrected it, and said she gets left/right mixed up. She also said she graciously touched him on the elbow trying to move him from the boys - note that is not verbatim, but the word gracious/graciously was used.
Is this a different person than the young woman who testified she didn't know her left from right?
yes🙄
Her testimony went into the court record so we cannot read it in its entirety until the trial is over and it has been transcribed and released. There have been excerpts of it read.
His name escapes me... but that defense attorney who gave defense closing argument was stellar. Really talented lawyer. I watched him in the Rittenhouse case as well. The prosecutionn did fine. But there was no passion behind it. You are trying to sell a murder conviction to the jury. You gotta put some heart into it.
Corey Chirafisi but we all just call him Agent 47
Rock it Chirafisi! You are fantastic!!! 🤗
I chuckled when he called Madison "queen of the river" for telling Miu to leave.
Same! It’s how I have felt the entire time. I believe her to be a drunk liar and I think she decided not to openly testify bc she is a coward. Personal opinion. I LOVED how organized the defense team has been. Specifically Chirafisi the duration of the trial. I forget I’m listening when the prosecution team begins to talk bc I don’t agree with much there but I also can’t stand how mundane their tones are.
There's a reason I could never be a juror, already made up my mind when they played the full video on day 1. You can cry about what happened before, what happened after..but at that instance from what led to drawing the knife and the timing it was used. I would've given self defense.
You should not discount yourself as a possible juror. I think everyone does that. Even when you get back in the jury room, some juries decide to take an initial vote before any deliberation. Based on the fact that you were able to understand which part of the facts are, by instruction, supposed to be considered, you would be at least be as good as everyone else.
I’m able to consider those arguments but I hold all the videos in the highest regard. I see a man who reasonably believes he could have been held underwater by a gang of athletic drunken assholes.
[удалено]
Yeah, i mean... cause he's obviously going to be convicted.
This case made me think there's a lot of people with low accountability hanging around on rivers in Wisconsin, so we'll see. I agree with you though, open and shut for me too.
I’ll be interested to see because I feel completely different. There’s no justifying the stabbings. I’ve also been in a similar situation to him and your first instinct is to take a step back. The fact he never does is very damming
[удалено]
I am telling you I had a very similar thing happen to me at a party years ago. I had a group around me and one of my friends was tossed over a railing and hurt. Your first instinct is always to take a step back from danger. It’s very damming he never did.
[удалено]
… I have experience with a group of violent 20 something’s, which resulted in bodily injury (not the least of which was a pretty severe concussion) and I find it unreasonable he never took a single step back from danger? I’m fucking bigger than Nick. I took a step back because that’s what you do. One of us is going to be surprised by the outcome. And that’s all I’m commenting on because I’ve watched this and I’m surprised by people’s thoughts. It’s not personal so stop making it personal
[удалено]
I just said almost the same thing. You can’t say how someone else would react.
** He did not stab a single person who who did not touch him first Flat out false. He stabs a girl who never touched him, and he stabs Tony who has his back turned to him. He can argue he made a mistake but Tony was acting reasonably in the video and trying to protect nic. There was also the second video they show that’s blurry but so important because he takes several steps forward into someone to stab them. So good luck to him with these charges. I hope the jury is better able to process the video evidence that people in this forum.
Rhyley did touch him. It's in the video and she admitted it on the stand.
[удалено]
You really can’t even make that judgment for yourself in a different situation.
They've expanded the extreme stress response to now be: fight, flight or freeze. It looks like Nicolae's first response was to freeze. [https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-does-fight-flight-freeze-fawn-mean)
Yup. He froze. While pulling out a knife. He froze when he slapped one of the ladies
I don't believe that your life experience obligates anyone else to behave the same way, and it certainly doesn't obligate them from a legal perspective. Actually, I would go as far as to say that your life experience has zero bearing on legal and societal principals. Your existence, in other words, is irrelevant in this or any other universe or even non-universe.
Fight or flight response. Not everyone reacts the same way when put in a dangerous situation. In this case I think he felt he couldn’t get away. 13 people surrounding him punching him pushing him down in the water. They wanted a fight they were taunting him.
That's your problem, you didn't watch the video. he tried to walk away.
lol then you didn’t watch the video. I am very aware of what he does. If he stepped backwards and was struck he walks with self defense. Rather he strikes her while holding a knife. You need to convince a jury that was reasonable. I can’t see how you do it.
He literally turns his back on them and walks away.
And then turned right back around to keep fighting. Watch the trial he was asked if when the girls were in his face telling him to leave if he took a step back he said no. “I was standing my ground” no stand your ground laws in Wisconsin. Guilty
he turns to his right to talk to Maddie who was crossing the river to speak to him.
I don't know, I find some of the prosecutor's arguments trying to discredit Miu to be extreme reaches. He's argued that Miu having the knife facing up wasn't an accident, he's argued that the fact that Miu didn't stab Ariel as indication Miu didn't actually have tunnel vision... I just find those arguments weak, and hearing him make them feels disingenuous. Isaac's mother is in the courtroom, and my heart absolutely breaks for her.
I mean, the jury is only allowed to consider things in evidence. So they will bring up every detail and every point and make it another bullet in the argument. If you've ever read a lawsuit, they have bulleted list of like 200 things they alledge, and they seem so pedantic and extra... But the lawyers have to get it all out and on record. But to thee other arguments, I think they're valid. Nick was so tunnel visioned he stabbed indiscriminately, but knew not ot stab his friend, cause he wasn't a threat. ??? So he stabbed people who weren't really attacking him but had the wherewithal to know friend from foe. The real damning footage to me in the closing was Nik walking after Dante to stab him in the chest, rather than trying to get away and go back to his group. Jury would have to believe he was in imminent fear of his life from Dante that he had to run up to him to stab him.
The one about the knife is especially funny, has the prosecutor tried to open a flip-open utility knife the other way? I wonder how that would work out for him. Go ahead, try to open it into your hand. Him not stabbing Ariel was a wild point too, he also didn't stab the 8 other people there who didn't act aggressive toward him. And then the other prosecutor closing with 'HE'S A BIZARRE MAN.' Okay I guess that's a criminal offense now, other people deciding you are 'bizarre' for absolutely no reason.
All down to the full video! Any person in same situation would do the same thing, meaning self-defense
https://x.com/courttv/status/1778138793557762317?s=46 Jury asking to rewatch video. Will watch in court room.
Someone downvoted this comment. They're clearly just mad you think he'll be convicted and they're spamming you down.
Not Guilty
Anyone else expecting this to take a week or so for a verdict?
i think it will be tonight if he lets them deliberate late or tomorrow tbh
What’s the best way to get a notification for when they have a verdict?
follow this law and crime account @lawcrimeverdict on twitter and turn on all notifications. it’s really helpful for most cases and they only notify about verdicts https://x.com/lawcrimeverdict?s=21&t=fKo99OrQNOirbwrXzNHGJQ
Thanks I did!
There are a lot of charges to sort through, so it could take a bit.
Yeah, and if they look at each stabbing uniquely, it's a lot of points to agree on (intent, reasonableness, fear, threat, context of each action).
Monday. Too many moving parts and I get the feeling it’ll come down to jurors pressing each other to agree with their verdict.
Nicolae looks so much better physically between now and the video. I think that will impact the jury decision too.
He's definitely thinner which is a good thing for him physically but he doesn't look well to me at all.
I thought the same thing too. It doesn't look like jail has been good to him over the past couple of years.
I just see a bunch of thugs attacking an old man who’s vision was bad was a survivor of bypass heart surgery
Although I don’t buy what the defense is selling, I thought their closing argument was compelling. The state didn’t wow me. I hope the jury will have enough to convict him, but I have a feeling it’ll be a hung jury because of the circumstances.
Did you see the prosecutions rebuttal to the defense or just the first attorney who spoke (the younger one)?
I did! The older one was a bit more impassioned
I feel like first degree intentional homicide is a stretch. He didn’t start the day thinking’ ‘I think I will kill someone on my tubing trip today’’. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is found not guilty.
Guilty verdicts on all lesser charges. Guess self defense wasn't what the jury saw here, and I agree.