Anonymous wrote:if you’re a teenager and see a guy who you think looks “creepy”, You leave. You leave and you call the police. They had time to leave and call the police. At the end of the day, it was just a guy looking for a cell phone. Leave. You can’t get back a dead teen.

You leave and you call the police.

It’s like we tell our kids: you don’t fight, you don’t hit, you don’t get violent, you walk away and ask for help.

Fix it for ya.

Boggles my mind the lengths people will go to excuse drunk white boys for their behavior.

Anonymous wrote:I could see how the kids thought he was a creeper, wearing goggles and snorkel and being underwater looking at their undersides as they floated by. What happened afterward sounds completely out of control on the part of everyone. Seems odd he would have a big knife with him to look for a lost cell phone. And in order to get the clip as stated was he already filming them (why??) when the attack started? It was his lawyers that made the self defense statements to the press; they’re trying to paint him in the best light possible but like everything, I’m sure there’s more to this story.

He grabbed one of their tubes at the start of it all. Likely with only the intention of stabilizing himself, but still. Touching their tube + goggles/snorkel and generally being all up in their space = not a great start to the interaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leave. You leave and you call the police. He had time to leave and call the police. At the end of the day, it was a cell phone. Leave it. You can get a new cell phone; you can’t get back a dead teen, or your ruined life.

You leave and you call the police.

It’s like we tell our kids: you don’t fight, you don’t hit, you don’t get violent, you walk away and ask for help.

He was under no obligation to leave. He wanted to keep looking for the phone. They didn’t have to surround him, continue to harrass him, and start a physical altercation first.

Never said they were justified in doing what they did. What I did say was—in any escalating, dangerous situation—YOU LEAVE. And he had the opportunity to do so. Now a teen is dead, and he will go to jail for life or will have some other significant sentence. He will be separated from his family. He will pay exorbitant legal fees. He will think about this every day for the rest of his life. And a teen is dead. If that was your teenage son or daughter, would you have wanted this guy to “stand his ground”? You walk away. Period.

NP

I hate living in a world like this. Where people get to be aggressive a$$holes and my only option (according to you) is to walk away. It ain’t right. Eff that sh!t.

An elderly Asian lady was trying to walk away from 4 teens. She got a beating and when they left, she got up, and tried to get a door to the building shut that (you guessed it) was propped open and wedged that way. Teens came back, beat her again, and took her keys. The guy walked away once. They came back for more

Anonymous wrote:I could see how the kids thought he was a creeper, wearing goggles and snorkel and being underwater looking at their undersides as they floated by. What happened afterward sounds completely out of control on the part of everyone. Seems odd he would have a big knife with him to look for a lost cell phone. And in order to get the clip as stated was he already filming them (why??) when the attack started? It was his lawyers that made the self defense statements to the press; they’re trying to paint him in the best light possible but like everything, I’m sure there’s more to this story.

It was a 3 inch folding pocket knife. In what universe is that a ‘big knife’?

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the reasonable beliefs of the person claiming self defense were paramount when making the claim. So it doesn’t matter if a time elapsed video shows he may have had time to leave, it’s matters if he reasonably believed, in that moment, that he was able to flee.

I also agree “fleeing the scene” has two meanings here. If he wasn’t aware he caused significant, debilitating harm, he was fleeing to safety. Otherwise he was fleeing potential prosecution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the self defense claim doesn't exonerate the electrical engineer, seems--at first glance--that he should receive the lightest sentence allowed under the law. Hopefully the prosecutors will offer a reasonable plea deal if the self defense claim fails.

The arrested 52 year old claims that the group of teenagers displayed knives during the encounter. I wonder whether this is supported by the video.

Hopefully the prosecutors will lose their jobs for going forward with this

Nope, they’re going to come back—again and again—to each and every moment where he had time to leave. They’re also going to come back to the fact that he tried to flee the scene rather than call the police and explain and ensure that the other wounded had care. They’re also going to point out that he grabbed someone’s tube before anything else started. They’re also going to make the point that he was an adult and the murdered victim was a teenager. They’re also going to make the point that the wounds inflicted were so severe that “intestines were hanging out of bodies” and “exposing internal organs,” as in defensive attack is one thing, rage mode is another.

“…the video and elapsed time shows opportunity for Nicolae to leave the confrontation.” That’s the main point. Fleeing the scene is the other damning point.

I’m not saying he’ll get the harshest possible sentence. I’m not saying the teens were innocent. But no one deserved to die, and he COULD HAVE walked away.

I’ll see you all back here when sentencing comes in.

They may win, but it may cost their boss an election. Again, hopefully they lose their jobs over this

Yeah, they'll lose the election for putting away the guy responsible for the death of a 17-year-old.

I could see how the kids thought he was a creeper, wearing goggles and snorkel and being underwater looking at their undersides as they floated by. What happened afterward sounds completely out of control on the part of everyone. Seems odd he would have a big knife with him to look for a lost cell phone. And in order to get the clip as stated was he already filming them (why??) when the attack started? It was his lawyers that made the self defense statements to the press; they’re trying to paint him in the best light possible but like everything, I’m sure there’s more to this story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leave. You leave and you call the police. He had time to leave and call the police. At the end of the day, it was a cell phone. Leave it. You can get a new cell phone; you can’t get back a dead teen, or your ruined life.

You leave and you call the police.

It’s like we tell our kids: you don’t fight, you don’t hit, you don’t get violent, you walk away and ask for help.

He was under no obligation to leave. He wanted to keep looking for the phone. They didn’t have to surround him, continue to harrass him, and start a physical altercation first.

Never said they were justified in doing what they did. What I did say was—in any escalating, dangerous situation—YOU LEAVE. And he had the opportunity to do so. Now a teen is dead, and he will go to jail for life or will have some other significant sentence. He will be separated from his family. He will pay exorbitant legal fees. He will think about this every day for the rest of his life. And a teen is dead. If that was your teenage son or daughter, would you have wanted this guy to “stand his ground”? You walk away. Period.

The teens could have left as well. They didn’t. They doubled-down

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if the self defense claim doesn't exonerate the electrical engineer, seems--at first glance--that he should receive the lightest sentence allowed under the law. Hopefully the prosecutors will offer a reasonable plea deal if the self defense claim fails.

The arrested 52 year old claims that the group of teenagers displayed knives during the encounter. I wonder whether this is supported by the video.

Hopefully the prosecutors will lose their jobs for going forward with this

Nope, they’re going to come back—again and again—to each and every moment where he had time to leave. They’re also going to come back to the fact that he tried to flee the scene rather than call the police and explain and ensure that the other wounded had care. They’re also going to point out that he grabbed someone’s tube before anything else started. They’re also going to make the point that he was an adult and the murdered victim was a teenager. They’re also going to make the point that the wounds inflicted were so severe that “intestines were hanging out of bodies” and “exposing internal organs,” as in defensive attack is one thing, rage mode is another.

“…the video and elapsed time shows opportunity for Nicolae to leave the confrontation.” That’s the main point. Fleeing the scene is the other damning point.

I’m not saying he’ll get the harshest possible sentence. I’m not saying the teens were innocent. But no one deserved to die, and he COULD HAVE walked away.

I’ll see you all back here when sentencing comes in.

They may win, but it may cost their boss an election. Again, hopefully they lose their jobs over this

Miu, who repeatedly called the attack "self-defense," told Brandie Hart, a lieutenant with St. Croix County court, he approached the group while searching for the cellphone with his snorkeling gear to ask if they had seen the device. He said they started insulting him, took his snorkel gear, threw it into the river and attempted to pull his pants down, according to the complaint.

Miu said he doesn't remember anything after people hit him and got on top of him until he ran back to his wife and friends, according to the complaint.

These all American kids next door, poor innocent victims sound like entitled garbage thugs who got what they earned by their own disgusting and assaultive behavior. Shame on them, and the parents who raised them to behave that way to ANYONE, much less an elder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leave. You leave and you call the police. He had time to leave and call the police. At the end of the day, it was a cell phone. Leave it. You can get a new cell phone; you can’t get back a dead teen, or your ruined life.

You leave and you call the police.

It’s like we tell our kids: you don’t fight, you don’t hit, you don’t get violent, you walk away and ask for help.

He was under no obligation to leave. He wanted to keep looking for the phone. They didn’t have to surround him, continue to harrass him, and start a physical altercation first.

Never said they were justified in doing what they did. What I did say was—in any escalating, dangerous situation—YOU LEAVE. And he had the opportunity to do so. Now a teen is dead, and he will go to jail for life or will have some other significant sentence. He will be separated from his family. He will pay exorbitant legal fees. He will think about this every day for the rest of his life. And a teen is dead. If that was your teenage son or daughter, would you have wanted this guy to “stand his ground”? You walk away. Period.

You leave? Is that what the police are supposed to do? back down anytime they are challenged or attacked? Thought not.

Let me tell you something to share with any of you who have stupid kids like this. I conceal carry and will absolutely end their lives if they threaten or attack me or a member of my party. That's called real life. I defend myself. I don't rely on others.

Looking forward to seeing your sketchy mugshot on the Fox5 website someday! Enjoy your time in jail. Your “concealed carry” won’t help you when Big Rick and the boys sniff around the fresh meat.

The New York Times article about the incident has a few differences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leave. You leave and you call the police. He had time to leave and call the police. At the end of the day, it was a cell phone. Leave it. You can get a new cell phone; you can’t get back a dead teen, or your ruined life.

You leave and you call the police.

It’s like we tell our kids: you don’t fight, you don’t hit, you don’t get violent, you walk away and ask for help.

He was under no obligation to leave. He wanted to keep looking for the phone. They didn’t have to surround him, continue to harrass him, and start a physical altercation first.

Never said they were justified in doing what they did. What I did say was—in any escalating, dangerous situation—YOU LEAVE. And he had the opportunity to do so. Now a teen is dead, and he will go to jail for life or will have some other significant sentence. He will be separated from his family. He will pay exorbitant legal fees. He will think about this every day for the rest of his life. And a teen is dead. If that was your teenage son or daughter, would you have wanted this guy to “stand his ground”? You walk away. Period.

NP

I hate living in a world like this. Where people get to be aggressive a$$holes and my only option (according to you) is to walk away. It ain’t right. Eff that sh!t.

OK, keep “living in a world” where teenagers get stabbed to death and the guy who inflicted the wounds has his life completely ruined forever, even if he gets a lenient sentence. Because even if he gets minimal time, this will haunt his life forever. You keep living in THAT world. Shrug.

Thanks, I will.

As to allegations he ‘fled the scene’; he slashed wildly in self defense at multiple people surrounding him, using a relatively small knife. He was under attack and disoriented by flight/fight adrenaline rush. He very likely believed that he had inflicted only superficial wounds enough to make them all back off so he could flee in safety and not pursued by a rabid gang of drunken teens. From the description of how law enforcement encountered him and his reaction to being told someone died, he was oblivious to the extent of injuries inflicted.

He gets acquitted, or at worst convicted of manslaughter.

I’m a 51 year old woman and no bleeping way am I turning my back exposing myself to serious injury while under active attack by a group of drunken hostile teenagers.

Anyone suggesting this is a wise or recommended course of action is an idiot. Full stop.

As a former rural red state America prosecutor, I’m sickened at the charges leveled against this man. They aren’t supported by the known evidence. The state is trying to coerce him into a guilty plea to lesser charges rather than grapple with the complexity and gray in the case and enduring the ire of some of the public - as any truly good prosecutor following the mandate to ‘seek justice, not merely convictions’ should expect to every day of his or her career.

The force of nature that is a parent with a dead kid drives far too many prosecutors to doggedly pursue wrongful convictions in order to quiet the outraged victim family. Sadly in some cases, victims are victims of their own idiocy first and foremost.

These kids had ZERO reason to interact with this guy. If they didn’t like the looks of him they could have floated out of his reach, easily. Surrounding him, yelling insults and accusations, touching him - they absolutely provoked a confrontation and it is entirely within the reasonable standard for a man outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1 to muster all means available for self defense.

He’ll be acquitted.