Apple river tubing killing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, different situation entirely but similar in the way that no one was willing to back down. A guy from my high school in northern virginia was, like 15 years ago, walking down the street in Philly at like 1am after going to some bars when he was 22 or 23. He ended up in an altercation with a group of other young men who were also leaving the bars. Unclear how it started, I think the other group was swinging from a piece of scaffolding and the guy from my high school (his name was Gerald Ung, you can look up this case) bumped into them initially, by mistake? Anyways it was the same sort of thing where Gerald did try to walk away a few times, the bigger group kept following him, and then finally Gerald stopped walking away and brandished a gun at them, and then one of the other group ran up to him to attack him and Gerald shot him. (The guy survived but was very seriously hurt).

There was a trial, and Gerald was found not guilty based on his self defense claim, even though he was the only one who had a weapon and he brandished the weapon at the group. Because the other group was trying to escalate the situation/ follow him, and he only shot them once they ran at him (although of course they only ran at him because he brandished a gun, probably). But he was able to argue that he feared for his life and he had tried to retreat but was followed. And he got off.

I wonder if Mr miu will also be able to claim he tried to retreat and only came back because he kept being harassed?

Why in the world would anyone run at someone brandishing a gun? This really seems like natural selection at work, sorry.

They were probably drunk as a skunk and not thinking straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, different situation entirely but similar in the way that no one was willing to back down. A guy from my high school in northern virginia was, like 15 years ago, walking down the street in Philly at like 1am after going to some bars when he was 22 or 23. He ended up in an altercation with a group of other young men who were also leaving the bars. Unclear how it started, I think the other group was swinging from a piece of scaffolding and the guy from my high school (his name was Gerald Ung, you can look up this case) bumped into them initially, by mistake? Anyways it was the same sort of thing where Gerald did try to walk away a few times, the bigger group kept following him, and then finally Gerald stopped walking away and brandished a gun at them, and then one of the other group ran up to him to attack him and Gerald shot him. (The guy survived but was very seriously hurt).

There was a trial, and Gerald was found not guilty based on his self defense claim, even though he was the only one who had a weapon and he brandished the weapon at the group. Because the other group was trying to escalate the situation/ follow him, and he only shot them once they ran at him (although of course they only ran at him because he brandished a gun, probably). But he was able to argue that he feared for his life and he had tried to retreat but was followed. And he got off.

I wonder if Mr miu will also be able to claim he tried to retreat and only came back because he kept being harassed?

Why in the world would anyone run at someone brandishing a gun? This really seems like natural selection at work, sorry.

They were probably drunk as a skunk and not thinking straight.

I don't know why the teenagers are getting a bad rap. Sounds like the group of 20 somethings who intervened bore the brunt of it. They tried to help out when Miu was harassing the teens and they called for help and he flipped out when he realized he was outnumbered. Miu started and ended this whole situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:anyone else get the vibe that the college kids actually stole the phone and that’s why they made such a massive deal over him continuing to search their area for it? And he knew they had it, hence why he didn’t leave?

Makes the most sense to me IMO. Because otherwise why were the college kids so fixated on him looking for his phone and screaming names at him, and why else was he so fixated on continuing to look right in that area despite the big group harassing him

What's even the point of stealing a phone in 2022? If you steal a phone, it'll be locked down as soon as the owner realizes it wasn't left behind at the restaurant/bar (whatever). Phone stealing was a big concern when I was in my early 20s and in the bar scene (2010 ish), but it doesn't seem likely that a bunch of college age kids don't already all have the latest iPhone and need to steal someone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, different situation entirely but similar in the way that no one was willing to back down. A guy from my high school in northern virginia was, like 15 years ago, walking down the street in Philly at like 1am after going to some bars when he was 22 or 23. He ended up in an altercation with a group of other young men who were also leaving the bars. Unclear how it started, I think the other group was swinging from a piece of scaffolding and the guy from my high school (his name was Gerald Ung, you can look up this case) bumped into them initially, by mistake? Anyways it was the same sort of thing where Gerald did try to walk away a few times, the bigger group kept following him, and then finally Gerald stopped walking away and brandished a gun at them, and then one of the other group ran up to him to attack him and Gerald shot him. (The guy survived but was very seriously hurt).

There was a trial, and Gerald was found not guilty based on his self defense claim, even though he was the only one who had a weapon and he brandished the weapon at the group. Because the other group was trying to escalate the situation/ follow him, and he only shot them once they ran at him (although of course they only ran at him because he brandished a gun, probably). But he was able to argue that he feared for his life and he had tried to retreat but was followed. And he got off.

I wonder if Mr miu will also be able to claim he tried to retreat and only came back because he kept being harassed?

Why in the world would anyone run at someone brandishing a gun? This really seems like natural selection at work, sorry.

They were probably drunk as a skunk and not thinking straight.

I don't know why the teenagers are getting a bad rap. Sounds like the group of 20 somethings who intervened bore the brunt of it. They tried to help out when Miu was harassing the teens and they called for help and he flipped out when he realized he was outnumbered. Miu started and ended this whole situation.

Are there more than those two links in this thread? This doesn't sound like what I read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, different situation entirely but similar in the way that no one was willing to back down. A guy from my high school in northern virginia was, like 15 years ago, walking down the street in Philly at like 1am after going to some bars when he was 22 or 23. He ended up in an altercation with a group of other young men who were also leaving the bars. Unclear how it started, I think the other group was swinging from a piece of scaffolding and the guy from my high school (his name was Gerald Ung, you can look up this case) bumped into them initially, by mistake? Anyways it was the same sort of thing where Gerald did try to walk away a few times, the bigger group kept following him, and then finally Gerald stopped walking away and brandished a gun at them, and then one of the other group ran up to him to attack him and Gerald shot him. (The guy survived but was very seriously hurt).

There was a trial, and Gerald was found not guilty based on his self defense claim, even though he was the only one who had a weapon and he brandished the weapon at the group. Because the other group was trying to escalate the situation/ follow him, and he only shot them once they ran at him (although of course they only ran at him because he brandished a gun, probably). But he was able to argue that he feared for his life and he had tried to retreat but was followed. And he got off.

I wonder if Mr miu will also be able to claim he tried to retreat and only came back because he kept being harassed?

Why in the world would anyone run at someone brandishing a gun? This really seems like natural selection at work, sorry.

They were probably drunk as a skunk and not thinking straight.

I don't know why the teenagers are getting a bad rap. Sounds like the group of 20 somethings who intervened bore the brunt of it. They tried to help out when Miu was harassing the teens and they called for help and he flipped out when he realized he was outnumbered. Miu started and ended this whole situation.

Are there more than those two links in this thread? This doesn't sound like what I read.

Look who is in the hospital. So why is it the "teens" everyone is complaining about? Obviously the 17 year old died, but the rest are definitely not teens.

The injured were described as two men ages 20 and 22 from Luck, Wis.; a woman, 24, from Burnsville, Minn.; and a 22-year-old man from Elk River, Minn., Sheriff Knudson said in a statement on Sunday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/30/us/apple-river-wisconsin-stabbing.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this article....His wife was with him, so I don't think he was looking for underage girls.

https://www.startribune.com/charges-could-come-monday-in-fatal-stabbing-of-teen-while-tubing-on-apple-river/600194716/

It is possible (and of course I don’t know, but it will come out in trial) that if they started calling him a child molester, he leaned into that and asked stuff like that to antagonize them. Which no matter how you slice it will look bad for him at trial. Because the prosecution will ask yes or no, did you ask them where to meet young girls; they won’t allow him to answer anything but yes or no.

That’s not how it works in a trial.

[Anonymous]

People are digging into the 24 year old woman's past. It's not good. Two felony convictions and an aiding to a violent assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found a New York Times article on this incident. It's hard to tell what happened. This article gives few details to indicate the boys were so bad they were threatening this man's life. Who knows what really happened.

I will say, the young adults inner tubing on the Potomac can get rowdy and a bit of out of hand. I see large groups of them floating down river, with cases of beer in floating devices. They're having a good time, yelling and laughing. They're having a good time. Too loud for me, but that's my problem, not theirs.

One of my friends is from the area around where the stabbing happened. The people on the Potomac are nowhere near as drunk, bullying, and rowdy as the people on the Apple River. My friend is surprised there haven't been more publicized incidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are digging into the 24 year old woman's past. It's not good. Two felony convictions and an aiding to a violent assault.

😳

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this article....His wife was with him, so I don't think he was looking for underage girls.

https://www.startribune.com/charges-could-come-monday-in-fatal-stabbing-of-teen-while-tubing-on-apple-river/600194716/

It is possible (and of course I don’t know, but it will come out in trial) that if they started calling him a child molester, he leaned into that and asked stuff like that to antagonize them. Which no matter how you slice it will look bad for him at trial. Because the prosecution will ask yes or no, did you ask them where to meet young girls; they won’t allow him to answer anything but yes or no.

That’s not how it works in a trial.

I never said there wouldn’t be cross-examination. And yes, that is how it works when the attorney poses it as a yes or no question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are digging into the 24 year old woman's past. It's not good. Two felony convictions and an aiding to a violent assault.

I had a feeling this would turn up. Do you possibly have a link? Is it websleuths or maybe Reddit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are digging into the 24 year old woman's past. It's not good. Two felony convictions and an aiding to a violent assault.

I had a feeling this would turn up. Do you possibly have a link? Is it websleuths or maybe Reddit?

Did she gut anyone with a pocketknife? If not, she's an aggressive person but not as aggressive as Miu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are digging into the 24 year old woman's past. It's not good. Two felony convictions and an aiding to a violent assault.

I had a feeling this would turn up. Do you possibly have a link? Is it websleuths or maybe Reddit?

Did she gut anyone with a pocketknife? If not, she's an aggressive person but not as aggressive as Miu.

What if she were the aggressor? Should the recipient of her aggression fight back or run?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this article....His wife was with him, so I don't think he was looking for underage girls.

https://www.startribune.com/charges-could-come-monday-in-fatal-stabbing-of-teen-while-tubing-on-apple-river/600194716/

It is possible (and of course I don’t know, but it will come out in trial) that if they started calling him a child molester, he leaned into that and asked stuff like that to antagonize them. Which no matter how you slice it will look bad for him at trial. Because the prosecution will ask yes or no, did you ask them where to meet young girls; they won’t allow him to answer anything but yes or no.

That’s not how it works in a trial.

I never said there wouldn’t be cross-examination. And yes, that is how it works when the attorney poses it as a yes or no question.

No offense, but I have sat through 42 criminal trials and I have never seen a judge cut off a witness who started with “yes, but” or “no, but.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know if anyone has posted this article....His wife was with him, so I don't think he was looking for underage girls.

https://www.startribune.com/charges-could-come-monday-in-fatal-stabbing-of-teen-while-tubing-on-apple-river/600194716/

It is possible (and of course I don’t know, but it will come out in trial) that if they started calling him a child molester, he leaned into that and asked stuff like that to antagonize them. Which no matter how you slice it will look bad for him at trial. Because the prosecution will ask yes or no, did you ask them where to meet young girls; they won’t allow him to answer anything but yes or no.

That’s not how it works in a trial.

I never said there wouldn’t be cross-examination. And yes, that is how it works when the attorney poses it as a yes or no question.

If he even takes the stand then he specifically always maintains a 5th amendment right not to incriminate himself. He can assert that in response to any question or testifying at all. Usually a defendant who is testifying will be advised of their right specifically on record to prevent future problems with the case. If he does not testify the judge will instruct the jury they cannot consider that in deliberations and in closing prosecutors also can’t draw any inference about that specifically. If the defendant did testify, it’s possible that a judge might direct him to answer only the question asked, usually after reminding him again he can assert his 5th amendment rights (when a defendant is testifying). Otherwise it could be an issue on appeal. If you just choose to answer things badly after being advised of your rights, that’s another story and does happen.

Based on what’s preliminarily known in this case I would imagine he might choose to take the stand since it would most likely be instrumental testimony to the heart of the case: whether he reasonably believed he feared for his life at the time he used the knife. I personally don’t think we really know enough yet to know the exact calculus his attorney is dealing with.