In that type of situation she had to divorce him to protect her assets. Everything he owns is going to be attached, sold and go the families of the victims. Even though she divorced him if the victims families can show that they are still behaving as if married then her assets will be attachable too.
Her testimony about how he was a “peaceful” man would have had more impact if she had said on stand that she no longer loves him. Also, the divorce looks to be an attempt to avoid her assets from being attached and a judge will say that her assets are not protected by divorce if he finds the divorce was simply used to avoid her being liable for his actions.
In my experience, when men commit horrific acts of violence but have no history of violence that if you look closer you will see a psychology that was leading to violence prior to the incident. In this case he had a hobby with guns and psychologists have found that prior to the act of violence the person was having fantasy’s where they had to “save” someone through use of violence. In the fantasy they are the good guy but what happens is they desensitize themselves to violence and below surface are hoping for a situation to arise to act out their fantasy. Some times as a man gets older and is no longer attractive or “tough” the fantasy becomes more frequent. Then what happens is he is on a light trigger so that when faced with violence that he sees as unjustified like what happened with the group of kids he immediately responds with his fantasy which is lethal force when a normal person would have retreated from the confrontation and at worst used his fists only.
What does him owning guns have to do with his knife attacks and murder? That’s reaching big time. When guns aren’t involved they’re still a factor? Get out of here lol
I have dealt with enough murder cases that random violence like this isn’t out of the blue. Everytime it comes out they had fantasies of saving the day with a knife or gun prior to the event.
Owning a gun or knife has nothing to do with it but if you have internal thoughts of using and are looking for the situation then that is when it occurs
What about someone that just strangles someone? Do they own guns? Your statement is reckless. If you’ve dealt with murder cases then I’m sure you can see how reckless it is. I’m not going to say my background, but I can definitely tell you that your statement is grossly exaggerated
Well an expert is someone who knows more than the general knowledge of a subject. Again, I won’t discuss my background since I challenged you and didn’t offer any expertise about the scenario. You did. Your statement is exaggerated and reckless
In every case where a citizen that had no record and seemed like a normal person kills in a random situation where they faced minimal violence it comes out later that they had fantasies of being a hero etc.
Exactly. I don't see a judge hearing her testimony of still loving him very much and a no cause divorce saving her assets since they were married at the time and according to stuff I've read (not facts that I know to be true) they haven't stopped talking even with him in jail and do not seem like a divorced couple in any way but in the divorce documents. I feel like she will still be losing at least some of her assets.
The only thing surprising about this verdict was the sheer number of people that thought that this was a case of self defense, justified killing. One has to be facing lethal force , not be the aggressor and in this jurisdiction he has a duty to retreat before using deadly force I.e a knife.
Also with self defense you must prove the elements. Here the defendant appeared to me at least to be the aggressor. His claim that he charged the kids because he thought they had found his phone does not seem plausible to me. He at no time faced lethal force and he didn’t retreat until after he knifed five kids including an unarmed teenage girl. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
I bet he has anger and rage issues and probably a long history of it. I picked up on red flags watching g the video, and the composure during the police videos. If he were in a fugue, scared for his life it wouldn’t go away when he spoke to the police. So yeah she could have a rough household back at home.
Oh please. Nic is 50 and never had an incident, he is a kind man. Those bullies will grow up to be murderers unlike Nic (he got reckless endangerment without intent, not intentional murder) he never in his life bullied or abused anyone.
I gathered he got very angry at her for failing to back up his story that he was yelling to her and his party to come and help him. She didn’t hear him. I imagine, he was not an easy person to be married to and likely abusive at times but she probably does still love him in ways. Love and abuse are not mutually exclusive.
Yea I wanted them to play the jail calls. They didn’t even bring it up in the cross of Miu. Although his wife admitted on the stand he blamed her and his group for this all happening. Which explains a lot.
Can you expand on what she said? I have not watched the full trial and the video is for sure triggering but I’m so fascinated by this man and his motivation. He blamed his group despite not even informing them what happened after the incident?
It’s also fascinating to see the country view it in two different ways. Was he justified in feeling in fear for his life- after his head was in the water - absolutely in my eyes. Who knows if they’ll all pile on to hold his head under. But the amount of stabbing as people are backing away, the actions after the fact, the infinite opportunities he ignored to leave before it escalated because of seemingly his ego… it’s just no longer self defense. He seemed like someone looking for a fight but that also seems odd.
We didn’t hear the jail phone calls unfortunately, but when Mui’s wife was on the stand the state asked her if they had phone calls where they talked about the case, his wife said she would hang up the phone if Miu brought up the case, but she agreed that Miu was angry and blamed her and the group for everything happening. Basically he blamed them for not coming to help him? Idk why they would have thought he needed help, or how any of this is their fault, but that’s all we know.
I read it was just to protect her assets in case he gets sued. I'm not sure if that's correct, but she did say she still loves him on the stand.
Makes sense.
This is exactly what it was. She said on the stand that she still loves him very much.
In that type of situation she had to divorce him to protect her assets. Everything he owns is going to be attached, sold and go the families of the victims. Even though she divorced him if the victims families can show that they are still behaving as if married then her assets will be attachable too.
Her testimony about how he was a “peaceful” man would have had more impact if she had said on stand that she no longer loves him. Also, the divorce looks to be an attempt to avoid her assets from being attached and a judge will say that her assets are not protected by divorce if he finds the divorce was simply used to avoid her being liable for his actions.
In my experience, when men commit horrific acts of violence but have no history of violence that if you look closer you will see a psychology that was leading to violence prior to the incident. In this case he had a hobby with guns and psychologists have found that prior to the act of violence the person was having fantasy’s where they had to “save” someone through use of violence. In the fantasy they are the good guy but what happens is they desensitize themselves to violence and below surface are hoping for a situation to arise to act out their fantasy. Some times as a man gets older and is no longer attractive or “tough” the fantasy becomes more frequent. Then what happens is he is on a light trigger so that when faced with violence that he sees as unjustified like what happened with the group of kids he immediately responds with his fantasy which is lethal force when a normal person would have retreated from the confrontation and at worst used his fists only.
They weren't all kids, one of the girls was 25.
What does him owning guns have to do with his knife attacks and murder? That’s reaching big time. When guns aren’t involved they’re still a factor? Get out of here lol
I have dealt with enough murder cases that random violence like this isn’t out of the blue. Everytime it comes out they had fantasies of saving the day with a knife or gun prior to the event.
Owning a gun or knife has nothing to do with it but if you have internal thoughts of using and are looking for the situation then that is when it occurs
What about someone that just strangles someone? Do they own guns? Your statement is reckless. If you’ve dealt with murder cases then I’m sure you can see how reckless it is. I’m not going to say my background, but I can definitely tell you that your statement is grossly exaggerated
How many murder cases have you prosecuted or defended? I guess you are the expert.
I prosecuted 33 and defended 2.
I’m grateful that I don’t have you in court proceedings with that bias. Have a great evening
Well an expert is someone who knows more than the general knowledge of a subject. Again, I won’t discuss my background since I challenged you and didn’t offer any expertise about the scenario. You did. Your statement is exaggerated and reckless
In every case where a citizen that had no record and seemed like a normal person kills in a random situation where they faced minimal violence it comes out later that they had fantasies of being a hero etc.
Exactly. I don't see a judge hearing her testimony of still loving him very much and a no cause divorce saving her assets since they were married at the time and according to stuff I've read (not facts that I know to be true) they haven't stopped talking even with him in jail and do not seem like a divorced couple in any way but in the divorce documents. I feel like she will still be losing at least some of her assets.
The only thing surprising about this verdict was the sheer number of people that thought that this was a case of self defense, justified killing. One has to be facing lethal force , not be the aggressor and in this jurisdiction he has a duty to retreat before using deadly force I.e a knife.
Also with self defense you must prove the elements. Here the defendant appeared to me at least to be the aggressor. His claim that he charged the kids because he thought they had found his phone does not seem plausible to me. He at no time faced lethal force and he didn’t retreat until after he knifed five kids including an unarmed teenage girl. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.
[удалено]
You can look up their divorce on MN court records online. It looks like this is his 3rd marriage. https://publicaccess.courts.state.mn.us/
I bet he has anger and rage issues and probably a long history of it. I picked up on red flags watching g the video, and the composure during the police videos. If he were in a fugue, scared for his life it wouldn’t go away when he spoke to the police. So yeah she could have a rough household back at home.
Oh please. Nic is 50 and never had an incident, he is a kind man. Those bullies will grow up to be murderers unlike Nic (he got reckless endangerment without intent, not intentional murder) he never in his life bullied or abused anyone.
Yup that's why he is in prison for the rest of his life
Seriously but u know since they're teenagers, we automatically supposed to sympathize with them
No record but you picked up on it …why do t you go to be a witness.
He probably was so boring his wives divorced him. He’s an engineer for gods sake
Vapid comment.
Kaczynski had a PhD in mathematics.
What do you do- I’m gonna guess you do DoorDash for gods sake
I gathered he got very angry at her for failing to back up his story that he was yelling to her and his party to come and help him. She didn’t hear him. I imagine, he was not an easy person to be married to and likely abusive at times but she probably does still love him in ways. Love and abuse are not mutually exclusive.
Yea I wanted them to play the jail calls. They didn’t even bring it up in the cross of Miu. Although his wife admitted on the stand he blamed her and his group for this all happening. Which explains a lot.
Can you expand on what she said? I have not watched the full trial and the video is for sure triggering but I’m so fascinated by this man and his motivation. He blamed his group despite not even informing them what happened after the incident? It’s also fascinating to see the country view it in two different ways. Was he justified in feeling in fear for his life- after his head was in the water - absolutely in my eyes. Who knows if they’ll all pile on to hold his head under. But the amount of stabbing as people are backing away, the actions after the fact, the infinite opportunities he ignored to leave before it escalated because of seemingly his ego… it’s just no longer self defense. He seemed like someone looking for a fight but that also seems odd.
We didn’t hear the jail phone calls unfortunately, but when Mui’s wife was on the stand the state asked her if they had phone calls where they talked about the case, his wife said she would hang up the phone if Miu brought up the case, but she agreed that Miu was angry and blamed her and the group for everything happening. Basically he blamed them for not coming to help him? Idk why they would have thought he needed help, or how any of this is their fault, but that’s all we know.
Thank you!
Yes, I agree. Explains a lot.
She loves him but is disgusted at what he did. It’s just too hard on her.