Bama Basketball murder case

[kg01]

Not sure where to ask this but is anyone following this shooting investigation with the Bama player that shot some folks a few months ago?

I find it really strange that they've determined the current leading scorer actually brought the gun to the perpetrator at which point he carries out the shooting.

Police saying there's "nothing they can charge him with".

I'm no attorney but I feel like I've seen guys much less involved with shootings get caught up in them legally via tangential connections. Not saying that's right, just saying it seems odd they're acting as if their hands are tied.

I'm sure he's cooperating, but aren't most folks coerced to cooperate under the threat of charge?

Am I off here? Seems strange and, if your antenna is even remotely up, yes I'm suggesting they're allowing the sports program and their top-rank status to influence this process.

 

[slugboy]

Not a lawyer, but if a reasonable person would have thought Miles was up to no good, then “accessory” comes to mind as a charge for Miller.

It sounds like the ADA isn’t at all interested in Miller, or willing to try.

Police: Tide's Miller delivered gun used in shooting

Alabama basketball star Brandon Miller brought a teammate the handgun that was used to kill a woman last month, according to police.

www.espn.com

 

[lv20gt]

Not sure where to ask this but is anyone following this shooting investigation with the Bama player that shot some folks a few months ago?

I find it really strange that they've determined the current leading scorer actually brought the gun to the perpetrator at which point he carries out the shooting.

Police saying there's "nothing they can charge him with".

I'm no attorney but I feel like I've seen guys much less involved with shootings get caught up in them legally via tangential connections. Not saying that's right, just saying it seems odd they're acting as if their hands are tied.

I'm sure he's cooperating, but aren't most folks coerced to cooperate under the threat of charge?

Am I off here? Seems strange and, if your antenna is even remotely up, yes I'm suggesting they're allowing the sports program and their top-rank status to influence this process.

From what I can tell....

Michael Davis did the actual shooting. Darius Miles was the owner of the gun. Miller had dropped Miles off at the club but then had left. Afterwards Miles texted Miller "I need my joint" to which Miller went back to the scene. It then seems that Miles told Davis where his gun was in the car, Davis went and got it, and then Davis went and shot at the girl and her boyfriend.

My guess, and likewise I am no attorney, is that because Miller was delivering the gun to Miles and that it was Davis that did the shooting, it would be argued that it wasn't reasonable for Miller to foresee Miller would give the fun to Davis to shoot someone, especially since Miller wasn't present for the prior actions. In contrast it is reasonable to expect Miller to know that Harris would do something when he told Davis where the gun was because he had knowledge of what had happened before between the victim and the shooter.

I think the reality is likely the sports program aspect doesn't play much of a part and because Miles admitted to providing the gun, it would be hard to bring charges against Miller from that aspect unless they had strong proof that he knew Miles planned to give Davis the gun or use it himself which doesn't seem to be the case. Otherwise there is probably smaller charges that could maybe be tacked on, but if he's already cooperating they likely see no need to do so. As far as the bold goes, I wouldn't agree with that. In his situation, I think it's very believable that he is cooperating because he feels it's the right thing to do, and likely feels somewhat guilty about the role he played, even if he wasn't aware of what was going on. I think the using charges to leverage cooperation would likely more often be used for people more directly involved.

Also, it needs to be said that in cases such as this the talk of legality is not the same with what is right or wrong. Miller certainly messed up, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of legal issue or not.

 

[BuzzStone]

How old is he? Was he legally allowed to possess the handgun? Was the handgun legal? Either way if you are involved with a felony you are guilty. If he drove the guy to the store and he robbed the store and shot and killed the clerk he would be guilty of murder, not sure that delivering a handgun is any different.

 

[kg01]

From what I can tell....

Michael Davis did the actual shooting. Darius Miles was the owner of the gun. Miller had dropped Miles off at the club but then had left. Afterwards Miles texted Miller "I need my joint" to which Miller went back to the scene. It then seems that Miles told Davis where his gun was in the car, Davis went and got it, and then Davis went and shot at the girl and her boyfriend.

My guess, and likewise I am no attorney, is that because Miller was delivering the gun to Miles and that it was Davis that did the shooting, it would be argued that it wasn't reasonable for Miller to foresee Miller would give the fun to Davis to shoot someone, especially since Miller wasn't present for the prior actions. In contrast it is reasonable to expect Miller to know that Harris would do something when he told Davis where the gun was because he had knowledge of what had happened before between the victim and the shooter.

I think the reality is likely the sports program aspect doesn't play much of a part and because Miles admitted to providing the gun, it would be hard to bring charges against Miller from that aspect unless they had strong proof that he knew Miles planned to give Davis the gun or use it himself which doesn't seem to be the case. Otherwise there is probably smaller charges that could maybe be tacked on, but if he's already cooperating they likely see no need to do so. As far as the bold goes, I wouldn't agree with that. In his situation, I think it's very believable that he is cooperating because he feels it's the right thing to do, and likely feels somewhat guilty about the role he played, even if he wasn't aware of what was going on. I think the using charges to leverage cooperation would likely more often be used for people more directly involved.

Also, it needs to be said that in cases such as this the talk of legality is not the same with what is right or wrong. Miller certainly messed up, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of legal issue or not.

So he apparently got there, gave the killer his gun, and blocked the victims car from leaving.

There's lots of folks in jail for murder or accessory after having been far less involved.

I'm saying, if his defense(sic) flies, then why have cars full of non-offenders been rung up for murder when another passenger commits a crime unbeknownst to them?

I'm saying either he should bring charged or none of them should be.

 

[lv20gt]

So he apparently got there, gave the killer his gun, and blocked the victims car from leaving.

There's lots of folks in jail for murder or accessory after having been far less involved.

I'm saying, if his defense(sic) flies, then why have cars full of non-offenders been rung up for murder when another passenger commits a crime unbeknownst to them?

I'm saying either he should bring charged or none of them should be.

It doesn't sound like he gave the gun to the killer. He brought the gun to the scene at the request of Miles and it was Miles who instructed Davis on where the gun was. Davis then went and retrieved it. Miles is being charged with providing the gun as it's reasonable to believe he should have known what Miles was going to do. I doubt that could extend to Miller. As far as blocking the victims car from leaving, I read that in one article but I also read that the boyfriend of the victim drove away and it made no mention having to ram the car so I'm not exactly clear on that aspect.

As far as the bold goes, you would have to compare specifics. My guess is in the cases you are thinking of the "non-offenders" were actual participants in a separate crime which resulted in the death of someone and so were charged with felony murder. For instance if they were planning on robbing a store, but the person who went in killed the cashier, then the driver of the getaway car could be charged with felony murder. That doesn't really apply here since what Miller was doing likely doesn't meet the criteria needed to charge someone with felony murder.

Probably the closest would be accessory before the fact but that would probably be hard for the charges to stick for since it was Davis and not Miles who did the shooting and the action Miller took was to bring Miles his gun. I believe one of the criteria for accessory is that the person being charged had to have the intent on helping the person who committed the crime. Since that was Davis and not Miles, and Miller brought Miles the gun, it probably would make it hard for that charge to stick. Especially since Miles has reportedly confessed to providing the gun to Davis.

 

[TooTall]

Bama played at USCe last night. Miller dropped 41 to chants of "Lock him up".
Its just a bad look all the way around.

 

[kg01]

It doesn't sound like he gave the gun to the killer. He brought the gun to the scene at the request of Miles and it was Miles who instructed Davis on where the gun was. Davis then went and retrieved it. Miles is being charged with providing the gun as it's reasonable to believe he should have known what Miles was going to do. I doubt that could extend to Miller. As far as blocking the victims car from leaving, I read that in one article but I also read that the boyfriend of the victim drove away and it made no mention having to ram the car so I'm not exactly clear on that aspect.

As far as the bold goes, you would have to compare specifics. My guess is in the cases you are thinking of the "non-offenders" were actual participants in a separate crime which resulted in the death of someone and so were charged with felony murder. For instance if they were planning on robbing a store, but the person who went in killed the cashier, then the driver of the getaway car could be charged with felony murder. That doesn't really apply here since what Miller was doing likely doesn't meet the criteria needed to charge someone with felony murder.

Probably the closest would be accessory before the fact but that would probably be hard for the charges to stick for since it was Davis and not Miles who did the shooting and the action Miller took was to bring Miles his gun. I believe one of the criteria for accessory is that the person being charged had to have the intent on helping the person who committed the crime. Since that was Davis and not Miles, and Miller brought Miles the gun, it probably would make it hard for that charge to stick. Especially since Miles has reportedly confessed to providing the gun to Davis.

I get what you're saying, I really do. I just disagree with the level of thin-slicing being done here from a legal standpoint. If he hadn't been involved, the girl is likely alive today. That's a fair assessment, imho. It just feels wrong that he's considered untouchable, especially when that is decidedly not the norm when it comes to situations like these.

He shouldn't be playing. As has been said, it was a terrible 'look' at that SC game and it's just gonna get worse.

Based on all you said, he'll probably skate criminally. The civil suit will hammer him though and they'll probably go after Alabama. Won't succeed but it'll be a terrible look. At what cost?

 

[GTpdm]

I get what you're saying, I really do. I just disagree with the level of thin-slicing being done here from a legal standpoint. If he hadn't been involved, the girl is likely alive today. That's a fair assessment, imho. It just feels wrong that he's considered untouchable, especially when that is decidedly not the norm when it comes to situations like these.

He shouldn't be playing. As has been said, it was a terrible 'look' at that SC game and it's just gonna get worse.

Based on all you said, he'll probably skate criminally. The civil suit will hammer him though and they'll probably go after Alabama. Won't succeed but it'll be a terrible look. At what cost?

Bama is hoping that the principal 'cost' is Miller winning them a Men's National Championship.

 

[BuzzStone]

What message is this saying to our youth? Doesn't matter if you engage in gun play, if you are a gifted athlete you can get away with anything. As a coach myself even if he was not legally responsible he would get kicked off the team. I don't understand how hard that is. I know there is still a lot of information we don't know but for the information we have he should at least be suspended pending further investigation.

 

[lv20gt]

I get what you're saying, I really do. I just disagree with the level of thin-slicing being done here from a legal standpoint. If he hadn't been involved, the girl is likely alive today. That's a fair assessment, imho. It just feels wrong that he's considered untouchable, especially when that is decidedly not the norm when it comes to situations like these.

He shouldn't be playing. As has been said, it was a terrible 'look' at that SC game and it's just gonna get worse.

Based on all you said, he'll probably skate criminally. The civil suit will hammer him though and they'll probably go after Alabama. Won't succeed but it'll be a terrible look. At what cost?

From a legal stand point I doubt it's much thin slicing. Most charges have specific criteria that must be proven before it can even go to a grand jury, much less a trial. Here is a statement made by a former Alabama prosecutor.

Birmingham defense attorney Richard Jaffe told The Associated Press that prosecutors would have to prove that Miller knew a crime would occur, and Jaffe hasn’t seen anything to indicate that he had knowledge or intent.

“Without the element of knowledge and intent provable, there’s not really any way legally that he can be held accountable,” said Jaffe, a former Tuscaloosa prosecutor who is not involved in the case. “People cannot be held accountable for someone else’s actions unless they know what they are and intend that criminal activity occur, specifically in this case that a weapon will be used.”

When you say it is the norm, I'm skeptical of how you came to that conclusion because my guess is you're drawing equivalences between situations that have key differences.

Also, all the details are not likely reported all at once, which is usually the case with the nature of the media. The way it was initially reported makes it sound like Miller was called specifically back to return the gun, but it has sense been reported that he was the planned ride for Miles before the incident took place and that they had been texting setting up Miller picking him up for an hour. That would make sense because I believe Miller dropped him off to begin with iirc. So even the point that "he brought the gun to the scene" is looking less like a motivating factor and more of a product of an action that was already going to take place.

I know there is still a lot of information we don't know but for the information we have he should at least be suspended pending further investigation.

What further investigation? Two men have been charged with capital murder and it's going to a grand jury. He hasn't been charged, and the statements made by those in charge make it pretty definitive that he won't be. So why do you think his role in the matter is still being investigated?

 

[TooTall]

What further investigation? Two men have been charged with capital murder and it's going to a grand jury. He hasn't been charged, and the statements made by those in charge make it pretty definitive that he won't be. So why do you think his role in the matter is still being investigated?

While I agree with most of what you have said, but police investigations aren't closed until the gavel is pounded. The correct phrase is "At this time..."

The civil courts will hear this case and a good chance he is found guilty of aiding and abetting, but that is further down the road.

 

[lv20gt]

The civil courts will hear this case and a good chance he is found guilty of aiding and abetting, but that is further down the road.

So maybe I'm wrong here and you may have a background suited for better speculation, so let me know if you do, but this comes across as bunk from the little I know.

I don't believe civil courts find people guilty. There is a lower bar that must be met but I believe it's a standard for liability not guilt.

I also don't think aiding and abetting, of a criminal act, is what would be brought up as a civil suit. It seems likely be a wrongful death suit (like what got OJ). However based on the elements of a wrongful death I can't see the argument for Miller being the target of that.

Here is an interesting article about that.

 

[kg01]

So maybe I'm wrong here and you may have a background suited for better speculation, so let me know if you do, but this comes across as bunk from the little I know.

I don't believe civil courts find people guilty. There is a lower bar that must be met but I believe it's a standard for liability not guilt.

I also don't think aiding and abetting, of a criminal act, is what would be brought up as a civil suit. It seems likely be a wrongful death suit (like what got OJ). However based on the elements of a wrongful death I can't see the argument for Miller being the target of that.

Here is an interesting article about that.

Trust me, I hear all you're saying. Appreciate the exchange of ideas. We're illustrating folks can differ without devolving to name-calling .... so far.

I do agree @TooTall probably used the wrong terminology but I think he's correct that all parties are probably likely to have difficulty avoiding punishment in the civil courtroom.

Based on the victim's family comments, there's surely a wrongful death suit coming and the future lotto pick will definitely be named there.

I also hear what you're saying w.r.t. me citing examples that may not be precisely the same circumstances as this. I just know of and have seen quite a few people get locked up regardless of knowing intent of the actual perpetrator. Cops seem to charge then ask questions later in those instances. Then decide if they believe you were "just returning his gun, I swear I didn't know he was gonna use it".

I see how the applicable law "exonerates" him. I just don't understand how/why its not the case in other cases .... other than the influence of Alabama.

I also saw a report that the recently relaxed gun/carry laws also save him in some way, so maybe that's the change I'm not factoring in when comparing to prior situations.

 

[lv20gt]

I also hear what you're saying w.r.t. me citing examples that may not be precisely the same circumstances as this. I just know of and have seen quite a few people get locked up regardless of knowing intent of the actual perpetrator. Cops seem to charge then ask questions later in those instances. Then decide if they believe you were "just returning his gun, I swear I didn't know he was gonna use it".

Are you confusing being detained with being charged? Cops don't charge people. They can detain them for question for a limited time if they have meet a probably low bar for criteria for doing so and they may have in this case but considering Miller is by all accounts cooperating and always has it's more likely they just asked him to come in and he did. But charges are brought by the DA and it's most certainly not a charge first and ask questions later thing.

I see how the applicable law "exonerates" him. I just don't understand how/why its not the case in other cases .... other than the influence of Alabama.

Because most likely the people you are thinking of in other cases more closely match up not with Miller but with Miles who is being charged with capital murder. It's not just that Miller didn't know the intent to use the gun. His intent in bringing the gun wasn't even to help the person who committed the crime. AFAIK you can aid and abet without knowledge of the impending crime, but there has to be intent to help the offender (not necessarily with the crime) and that's hard to argue here from what I've told since Miles wasn't the actual offender. If I had to guess, situations that were actually comparable to Miller probably aren't widely known to the public because his status as a a basketball player is the only reason this is a story at all. In any other case the story would be with the two people charged with capital murder and those who aren't charged would be ignored completely by the media.

 

[kg01]

Separate issue from what we've been discussing ...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/m/7c7c9e7e-cd68-35d5-81ea-48bbfc9e3e76/nate-oats-brandon-miller-s.html

The kid shouldn't be playing, for his own good. This is such a bad look.

 

[bobongo]

Trust me, I hear all you're saying. Appreciate the exchange of ideas. We're illustrating folks can differ without devolving to name-calling .... so far.

I do agree @TooTall probably used the wrong terminology but I think he's correct that all parties are probably likely to have difficulty avoiding punishment in the civil courtroom.

Based on the victim's family comments, there's surely a wrongful death suit coming and the future lotto pick will definitely be named there.

I also hear what you're saying w.r.t. me citing examples that may not be precisely the same circumstances as this. I just know of and have seen quite a few people get locked up regardless of knowing intent of the actual perpetrator. Cops seem to charge then ask questions later in those instances. Then decide if they believe you were "just returning his gun, I swear I didn't know he was gonna use it".

I see how the applicable law "exonerates" him. I just don't understand how/why its not the case in other cases .... other than the influence of Alabama.

I also saw a report that the recently relaxed gun/carry laws also save him in some way, so maybe that's the change I'm not factoring in when comparing to prior situations.

It doesn't look like there's any criminal liability here at all. Miller returned Miles' gun to him, which he said he left in the back seat of Miller's vehicle. Miles then gave his gun to the guy who committed the crime. Miller is fully one step removed from any possible charge. It wasn't Miller's gun, and he didn't supply it to the perp. Unless it can be shown that Miller knew a crime was going to be committed with the gun, which was not his, there's no statute he could be charged under.

I don't know what "prior situations" you're referring to. If you can find an instance of charges applied where a gun was returned to its rightful owner who then supplied that gun to someone else who committed a crime which there's no evidence the person returning the gun had any knowledge was going to occur, I don't see any double standard in applying the law. If Miller did know a crime was going to be committed with the gun, then that changes the equation. But I've seen no indication of any such prior knowledge. If some evidence of prior knowledge emerges, that might change things.

 

[bobongo]

Separate issue from what we've been discussing ...

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/m/7c7c9e7e-cd68-35d5-81ea-48bbfc9e3e76/nate-oats-brandon-miller-s.html

The kid shouldn't be playing, for his own good. This is such a bad look.

I don't know whether he should be playing or not, but it's hard to fathom why these players didn't see this as being in bad taste and downright offensive.

 

[slugboy]

It doesn't look like there's any criminal liability here at all. Miller returned Miles' gun to him, which he said he left in the back seat of Miller's vehicle. Miles then gave his gun to the guy who committed the crime. Miller is fully one step removed from any possible charge. It wasn't Miller's gun, and he didn't supply it to the perp. Unless it can be shown that Miller knew a crime was going to be committed with the gun, which was not his, there's no statute he could be charged under.

I don't know what "prior situations" you're referring to. If you can find an instance of charges applied where a gun was returned to its rightful owner who then supplied that gun to someone else who committed a crime which there's no evidence the person returning the gun had any knowledge was going to occur, I don't see any double standard in applying the law. If Miller did know a crime was going to be committed with the gun, then that changes the equation. But I've seen no indication of any such prior knowledge. If some evidence of prior knowledge emerges, that might change things.

I have not seen what I would consider thorough coverage of this story.

From what I’m reading, Miles and Davis were at “The Strip”, which is a business district with bars and nightclubs. Miles texted Miller to bring him his gun. Miller put the gun in Miles’ car. Miles got the gun out of his car and gave it to Davis “for defense”. Davis shot a woman sitting in a car.

There may have been a gap in time between Miller bringing the gun to Miles and the shooting, but I don’t know how much. Miles just happened to ask for his gun back the same evening that he gave the gun to Davis, who shot someone.

Coincidence is doing a lot of work, here.

“Officer, I just happened to put the gun in the back seat of my friend’s car on the night it was used in a homicide. How could I have known it would be used for foul play?”

I think if the AJC covered Alabama athletics like UGA athletics, Miller would be in a lot of trouble.

 

[bobongo]

“Officer, I just happened to put the gun in the back seat of my friend’s car on the night it was used in a homicide. How could I have known it would be used for foul play?”

Unless prosecutors can dig up an actual answer to that question beyond conjecture, there's no case.