Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The DA saying "we didn't have anything we could charge him with" is the most blatant example of protecting a star player I have ever seen.
The dude got a call, retrieved the co-defendant's gun, brought it TO the scene for him, gave it to him and then parked his car in a way that blocked the other vehicle's escape.
If Darius Miller is being charged with murder for giving his gun to a guy who then used it to kill someone, the dude who went and grabbed the gun and gave it to Miller is equally culpable. And the DA says 'nah, we couldn't charge him...'
Dafuq? It's just complete dereliction by the DA.
Yeah, he may get drafted. But truth be told, if what was discovered during the Miles hearing is even 70% accurate, the kid should go to prison.
Oh, I certainly agree. I've more or less said the same thing in the KU thread the past couple of days. There's way too much there to believe his story about having no idea what was going on (and don't forget leaving the scene of the crime after his vehicle was shot up). If it was anybody else other than the best player on the team (and the sole reason Alabama is a national championship favorite), I'm betting the DA charges him with something here.
Still, so long as it stays that way, he's getting drafted. He's too good not to. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
Oh, I certainly agree. I've more or less said the same thing in the KU thread the past couple of days. There's way too much there to believe his story about having no idea what was going on (and don't forget leaving the scene of the crime after his vehicle was shot up). If it was anybody else other than the best player on the team (and the sole reason Alabama is a national championship favorite), I'm betting the DA charges him with something here.
Still, so long as it stays that way, he's getting drafted. He's too good not to.
I was SHOCKED by the comments of @AlabamaMBB Nate Oats yesterday but I am doubly SHOCKED that superstar Brandon MIller is scheduled to play tonight.Isn’t providing a gun to a teammate that was used in a murder a serious offense?
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The DA saying "we didn't have anything we could charge him with" is the most blatant example of protecting a star player I have ever seen.
The dude got a call, retrieved the co-defendant's gun, brought it TO the scene for him, gave it to him and then parked his car in a way that blocked the other vehicle's escape.
If Darius Miller is being charged with murder for giving his gun to a guy who then used it to kill someone, the dude who went and grabbed the gun and gave it to Miller is equally culpable. And the DA says 'nah, we couldn't charge him...'
Dafuq? It's just complete dereliction by the DA.
Yeah, he may get drafted. But truth be told, if what was discovered during the Miles hearing is even 70% accurate, the kid should go to prison.
Depends on the reports you read. I've read your version. I've also read that he was already on the way to pick up the other guy when he got the texts with the gun hidden in the back seat without him knowing it was there. And then another car parked behind him after he had parked. That would be understandable that he's not getting charged. The question of if he should be playing or not is a different conundrum. [Reply]
I was SHOCKED by the comments of @AlabamaMBB Nate Oats yesterday but I am doubly SHOCKED that superstar Brandon MIller is scheduled to play tonight.Isn’t providing a gun to a teammate that was used in a murder a serious offense?
What would be the statute of limitations on that. I give somebody else their gun. 30 minutes later they kill someone with it. Am I in trouble? 2 hours later? A day later? A week later? I still provided them their gun. Where is the line? [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Depends on the reports you read. I've read your version. I've also read that he was already on the way to pick up the other guy when he got the texts with the gun hidden in the back seat without him knowing it was there. And then another car parked behind him after he had parked. That would be understandable that he's not getting charged. The question of if he should be playing or not is a different conundrum.
Which is why I qualified it a bit. The old 'my story, his story, the truth is somewhere in the middle' rule is usually a pretty good one to follow. But man, even in the middle of the respective stories is a REAL bad look here.
And by the way, if the gun is hidden in the back seat of HIS car and he doesn't know its there, A) how does that pass the sniff test and B) how's that jibe with texts saying 'get my gun...'?
I mean that's a REAL easy story to blast holes in, isn't it?
I just have to ask myself what any halfway reasonable human being does in that situation. I mean at WORST you just don't go, right? And what just about any of us would do is say "hey man, hop in the car..." and you get that dude the !@#$ out of dodge. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
What would be the statute of limitations on that. I give somebody else their gun. 30 minutes later they kill someone with it. Am I in trouble? 2 hours later? A day later? A week later? I still provided them their gun. Where is the line?
Rule's pretty simple - did you in some way encourage or aid in the commission of the crime.
If you give someone your gun to go target shooting and instead he kills someone, the requisite mens rea doesn't exist even if he does it within 5 minutes of you giving it to him. But if your felon buddy says "Hey, I wanna kill my wife but I can't buy a gun because of my felony" and you give him yours, then a year later he uses that gun to kill her, you're probably boned.
A stopwatch doesn't determine the outcomes here. It's the intent. When your buddy is fighting someone and you hand him a gun and say "there's one in the pipe"...gonna be hard to say that your intent wasn't to aid in the commission of a crime, no?
If Miles told Miller "hey, get my gun and meet me at the club" - just exactly what the fuck other intent might Miller have had by giving it to him? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Rule's pretty simple - did you in some way encourage or aid in the commission of the crime.
If you give someone your gun to go target shooting and instead he kills someone, the requisite mens rea doesn't exist even if he does it within 5 minutes of you giving it to him. But if your felon buddy says "Hey, I wanna kill my wife but I can't buy a gun because of my felony" and you give him yours, then a year later he uses that gun to kill her, you're probably boned.
A stopwatch doesn't determine the outcomes here. It's the intent. When your buddy is fighting someone and you hand him a gun and say "there's one in the pipe"...gonna be hard to say that your intent wasn't to aid in the commission of a crime, no?
If Miles told Miller "hey, get my gun and meet me at the club" - just exactly what the **** other intent might Miller have had by giving it to him?
It seems pretty crazy that he hasn't been charged. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Rule's pretty simple - did you in some way encourage or aid in the commission of the crime.
If you give someone your gun to go target shooting and instead he kills someone, the requisite mens rea doesn't exist even if he does it within 5 minutes of you giving it to him. But if your felon buddy says "Hey, I wanna kill my wife but I can't buy a gun because of my felony" and you give him yours, then a year later he uses that gun to kill her, you're probably boned.
A stopwatch doesn't determine the outcomes here. It's the intent. When your buddy is fighting someone and you hand him a gun and say "there's one in the pipe"...gonna be hard to say that your intent wasn't to aid in the commission of a crime, no?
If Miles told Miller "hey, get my gun and meet me at the club" - just exactly what the fuck other intent might Miller have had by giving it to him?
According to this article, Miller was going to the night club with Davis and Miles.
Miller decided not to go and drop them off instead.
Miles and Davis got into some sort of altercation with a guy and his girlfriend. The couple may have had a gun too.
Miles texts Miller and tells him that he needs his gun because someone was “fakin” (slang for like trying to intimidate someone).
Miller comes back and brings them the gun in his car (attorney says he never touched it). Miles and Davis get involved in the shooting. Davis is believed to have shot her.
Miller might not have touched the gun or pulled the trigger, but it sounds pretty clear that 1) he knew there was an altercation, 2) knew his friend wanted him to bring the gun, and 3) did drive to the club with the gun so his friend could have it.
That may not be enough to prove in court that Miller was involved, but at a minimum it’s pretty obvious that he isn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time. [Reply]
According to this article, Miller was going to the night club with Davis and Miles.
Miller decided not to go and drop them off instead.
Miles and Davis got into some sort of altercation with a guy and his girlfriend. The couple may have had a gun too.
Miles texts Miller and tells him that he needs his gun because someone was “fakin” (slang for like trying to intimidate someone).
Miller comes back and brings them the gun in his car (attorney says he never touched it). Miles and Davis get involved in the shooting. Davis is believed to have shot her.
Miller might not have touched the gun or pulled the trigger, but it sounds pretty clear that 1) he knew there was an altercation, 2) knew his friend wanted him to bring the gun, and 3) did drive to the club with the gun so his friend could have it.
That may not be enough to prove in court that Miller was involved, but at a minimum it’s pretty obvious that he isn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When I read this in particular the other day, I found it just bizarre that he wasn't charged. He had to know full well the kind of situation he was driving himself into/bringing the gun for, but they've decided to believe his story that he was clueless as to his friends' intent (seemingly just because he's really, really good at basketball). [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
When I read this in particular the other day, I found it just bizarre that he wasn't charged. He had to know full well the kind of situation he was driving himself into/bringing the gun for, but they've decided to believe his story that he was clueless as to his friends' intent (seemingly just because he's really, really good at basketball).
He 100% had the chance to go pick his friend up and take him home.
He decided to let his friend get the gun and go into the situation instead.
At minimum, he made a HORRIBLE decision that cost a life. At worst, he knew exactly what would happened and helped facilitate it. [Reply]
According to this article, Miller was going to the night club with Davis and Miles.
Miller decided not to go and drop them off instead.
Miles and Davis got into some sort of altercation with a guy and his girlfriend. The couple may have had a gun too.
Miles texts Miller and tells him that he needs his gun because someone was “fakin” (slang for like trying to intimidate someone).
Miller comes back and brings them the gun in his car (attorney says he never touched it). Miles and Davis get involved in the shooting. Davis is believed to have shot her.
Miller might not have touched the gun or pulled the trigger, but it sounds pretty clear that 1) he knew there was an altercation, 2) knew his friend wanted him to bring the gun, and 3) did drive to the club with the gun so his friend could have it.
That may not be enough to prove in court that Miller was involved, but at a minimum it’s pretty obvious that he isn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
By the letter of the law, that set of facts is pretty clear 'accessory before the fact' and at the VERY least, it's sufficient to let a jury decide the matter.
There should be charges brought. This is prosecutorial malfeasance, IMO.
I'm not 100% sure if any sort of transferred intent would apply here. For instance, if you intend to commit ONE sort of crime and in the act of doing so, commit a different but related sort of crime, you can still be charged with the related sort of crime even if you didn't intend to commit THAT crime.
So does that apply to accessory? I really don't know. Because if nothing else, he knew Miles was going to be using the gun if for no other reason than to harass or intimidate. That's a crime in its own right. Can transferred intent apply here? Would they be considered related crimes if it does? Dunno - gets beyond my law school days and I'm far removed from those anyway.
But to my eyes he should absolutely be charged. There's enough 'there' there. [Reply]
According to this article, Miller was going to the night club with Davis and Miles.
Miller decided not to go and drop them off instead.
Miles and Davis got into some sort of altercation with a guy and his girlfriend. The couple may have had a gun too.
Miles texts Miller and tells him that he needs his gun because someone was “fakin” (slang for like trying to intimidate someone).
Miller comes back and brings them the gun in his car (attorney says he never touched it). Miles and Davis get involved in the shooting. Davis is believed to have shot her.
Miller might not have touched the gun or pulled the trigger, but it sounds pretty clear that 1) he knew there was an altercation, 2) knew his friend wanted him to bring the gun, and 3) did drive to the club with the gun so his friend could have it.
That may not be enough to prove in court that Miller was involved, but at a minimum it’s pretty obvious that he isn’t just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not sure what the law is there, but I think he has to be charged, if the above is correct. He's pretty clearly an accessory. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
By the letter of the law, that set of facts is pretty clear 'accessory before the fact' and at the VERY least, it's sufficient to let a jury decide the matter.
There should be charges brought. This is prosecutorial malfeasance, IMO.
I'm not 100% sure if any sort of transferred intent would apply here. For instance, if you intend to commit ONE sort of crime and in the act of doing so, commit a different but related sort of crime, you can still be charged with the related sort of crime even if you didn't intend to commit THAT crime.
So does that apply to accessory? I really don't know. Because if nothing else, he knew Miles was going to be using the gun if for no other reason than to harass or intimidate. That's a crime in its own right. Can transferred intent apply here? Would they be considered related crimes if it does? Dunno - gets beyond my law school days and I'm far removed from those anyway.
But to my eyes he should absolutely be charged. There's enough 'there' there.
Do you think that if he wasn’t a notable person, then he might be charged just so the prosecution could offer him a deal to testify against his friends? [Reply]
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
Do you think that if he wasn’t a notable person, then he might be charged just so the prosecution could offer him a deal to testify against his friends?
If he wasn't a notable person he'd be charged on the off chance he gets convicted alongside 'em.
But yeah, there's a pretty good chance they'd see if they could flip him first. That said, the kind of culture that convinces someone "hey, I should bring my buddy his gun down at the club" is also one that leans pretty heavily into "snitches get stiches..."
Also, he'd get beat to death on cross examination. Witnesses that 'make deals' to testify always get hammered by the defense as being self-interested liars who are just testifying to save their own skins and would gladly say whatever the prosecution needs them to say to avoid jail time. They're not typically great witnesses. [Reply]