Author Topic: Brandon Miller situation  (Read 3762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2023, 02:19:57 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14930
  • Tommy Points: 1365
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

Lol all of this 100% Vermont. I take glee in seeing how far Mo will go with this contrarian takes on stuff like this. We literally want to charge a guy with a crime for not confiscating another adults property.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2023, 03:10:49 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15553
  • Tommy Points: 1796
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2023, 03:38:28 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31685
  • Tommy Points: 1470
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.
exactly.  He got a specific request to bring a guy at a club a gun after he was already asked to pick him up.  he absolutely knew he wanted the gun to use it.

And I don't buy Roy's argument about the illegality because there is no reason for him to take that gun out of the car when they had already asked Miller to pick them up so they could go somewhere else.  The only reason to ask for the gun is to use it and in that scenario there are almost no legal uses of the gun.
I was finally wrong. Boston not only didn't win in 5, but didn't win at all.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2023, 04:24:09 PM »

Offline Amonkey

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1956
  • Tommy Points: 199
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.
exactly.  He got a specific request to bring a guy at a club a gun after he was already asked to pick him up.  he absolutely knew he wanted the gun to use it.

And I don't buy Roy's argument about the illegality because there is no reason for him to take that gun out of the car when they had already asked Miller to pick them up so they could go somewhere else.  The only reason to ask for the gun is to use it and in that scenario there are almost no legal uses of the gun.

Call me naive about guns but if you have a gun, isn't the most prudent thing to do is have on you if not locked at home? Why would you want your gun at somebody's car all loosey goosey. Now I think it's irresponsible for a gun owner to have a gun where there's drinking involved but some gun right activist seem to believe it's perfectly okay to bring guns to bars and other places.
Baby Jesus!

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2023, 04:30:18 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 55804
  • Tommy Points: -25777
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.
exactly.  He got a specific request to bring a guy at a club a gun after he was already asked to pick him up.  he absolutely knew he wanted the gun to use it.

And I don't buy Roy's argument about the illegality because there is no reason for him to take that gun out of the car when they had already asked Miller to pick them up so they could go somewhere else.  The only reason to ask for the gun is to use it and in that scenario there are almost no legal uses of the gun.

Arenít there, though?  Itís the United States.  He doesnít have to justify why he wants to possess or carry a gun.  If he wants to wear it around his neck as a fashion accessory heís allowed to do so in most places.

Unfortunately, we do live in a country where a gun can be treated as casually as an iPhone or a hand bag most of the time.

If Miller committed a crime, charge him.  Was there illegal transport of a loaded weapon?  Some sort of obstruction after the fact?  But, if the point is ďhe should have shown better judgmentĒ, you get to Rittenhouse, Zimmerman and countless others:  he did something arguably stupid, but not illegal.

As an aside (again, I know no facts):  is there an argument that Miller didnít know the gun had been in his car, and wanted no part of it?  So, he just took it to the legal owner ASAP? 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2023, 04:38:18 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 55804
  • Tommy Points: -25777
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Wait, the guy Miller picked up / returned the gun to wasnít even the shooter?  Is that right?

It was Miles gun.  Miller never touched it.  Miles gets it out of the back seat, hands it to a third party, and then that third party murders somebody?

Iím curious what strong evidence there is against Miles, let alone Miller.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2023, 04:44:03 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHERóóó AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2023, 04:48:00 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14930
  • Tommy Points: 1365
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.

As others have noted they kind of are like an iPhone. You have a lot of rights in owning one. If people start constantly taking away their friends guns cause they didnít like how they used them or were making judgements on when they should return them we would actually end up with a lot more shootings. The police also called Miller a cooperative witness. I get from an optics perspective wanting to suspend him a few games but the rest of this is just nonsense with a lot of guesses.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2023, 07:06:06 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7715
  • Tommy Points: 534
Wait, the guy Miller picked up / returned the gun to wasnít even the shooter?  Is that right?

It was Miles gun.  Miller never touched it.  Miles gets it out of the back seat, hands it to a third party, and then that third party murders somebody?

Iím curious what strong evidence there is against Miles, let alone Miller.
You call it a "murder" but that is what the trial is to determine.  The defense is arguing self-defense.  I read they were claiming that they saw a gun being passed from the backseat of the jeep (not Miller's car) to the boyfriend in the front seat.  I'm not sure if they are claiming the boyfriend shot first. 

It is unclear who got the gun from Miller's backseat.  I thought it was Miles and then he handed it to the shooter.  However one story I read said Miles told the shooter where the gun was and the shooter retrieved it.  Regardless apparently the shooting occurred quickly after Miller's arrival. 
I expect the district attorney thinks he has the evidence (e.g. the shooter told Miles) to prove Miles knew the intent of the shooter before the shooter got the gun.  There is obviously no strong evidence against Miller because he'd be charged if there was.  Maybe the district believes Miller's account or maybe he just doesn't think there is enough evidence to prove Miller committed a crime. 

As is typically the case, the story is muddled and incomplete and the timeline is unclear.  With the media focus on Miller, we probably know more about Miller's part than Miles or the shooter.  Even so we don't know if Miller knew the gun was hidden in the backseat.  We don't know if Miller read the gun text.  We don't know when the text was sent in relation to Miller arriving back at the club.   
I'm wondering why Miles would carry a gun with him to the club but then choose to leave it in the backseat of Miller's car.

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2023, 07:21:48 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7715
  • Tommy Points: 534
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.

As others have noted they kind of are like an iPhone. You have a lot of rights in owning one. If people start constantly taking away their friends guns cause they didnít like how they used them or were making judgements on when they should return them we would actually end up with a lot more shootings. The police also called Miller a cooperative witness. I get from an optics perspective wanting to suspend him a few games but the rest of this is just nonsense with a lot of guesses.
I don't see how suspending Miller a few games makes any sense unless there is some violation of team rules that they could tie it to.  Not only is Miller not charged with a crime but he wasn't even arrested.  I think it is all or nothing.  If the Bama officials believe Miller's account, they shouldn't punish him at all.  If they don't believe his account, he should be kicked off the team and out of school.  That also applies to Jaden Bradley who was also there but is barely getting mentioned in the coverage. 

Re: Brandon Miller situation
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2023, 07:25:45 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14930
  • Tommy Points: 1365
https://twitter.com/JournoRyan/status/1628502011317563392

Full biased report from his attorney and it is still bad for Miller.

Obviously this is a very biased version of events but how does this look bad for him? A summary of him giving the guy a ride without knowing thereís a gun, then goes get food, gets a call requesting a ride again so he goes back and the guy shoots somebody while heís in the car. How does this make him look bad?
He knowingly brought a drunk person a gun after they specifically asked for the gun, he let that drunk person grab the gun out of his car, and that drunk person then used said gun to shoot into a car 8 times in which someone was killed.
Where are you getting that Miller knew the gun was in the backseat?  Miles had asked Miller to pick him up.  It was only later when Miller was already on the way to pickup Miles that Miles sent the gun text.  The lawyer statement is clear that Miller never saw or handled the gun.  So Miller may or may not have known the gun was in the backseat.  It isn't clear whether Miller even read the gun text.  I think I read somewhere that it was Davis not Miles who went in the backseat to retrieve the gun. 

I thought I read that there were 8 total shots with 4 into the car and 4 out of it.  The boyfriend in the car shot Davis twice.
The statement is worded in a way to make it seem like he didn't read the text, but if didn't read that text, the lawyer's statement would have said that.  The statement also doesn't say he didn't know there was a gun in the car.  Saying he never saw it or handled it, is not the same thing as not knowing it was there.  The language the lawyer used is telling. 

Miller absolutely knew there was a gun in the car.  He absolutely saw the text asking for the gun before he arrived back at the club.  And there was no reason for Miles to send that text but for retrieving the gun because Miller had already said he was going to come pick him up, at which time Miles could have gathered his gun to go home.  It is obvious that Miles asked for the gun because he wanted to use it.  Miller should have known that and should not have gone to the club with the gun.

The lawyer's statement is meant to get a mass audience to believe Miller knew nothing, but how it is worded it is clear Miller knew what was going on.  Perhaps not the full extent, but certainly enough to know he shouldn't have taken the gun back to his teammates.

So what was he supposed to do?  He gets a text that a friend left his gun in your car and that the friends wants you to return the gun to him.  What are you supposed to do?  Not return the gun?  I don't know exactly what the text said.  If the text said "Bring me my gun because I want to murder someone", then I guess the thing to do would be to report it to the police.  Or if the text said, "bring me my gun because I need it to protect myself from some guy" (don't back down), are you supposed to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?

It would be very different if it was "go to my house, get my gun, and bring it to me".  In that case, you could say "I don't want to be involved".  But even then, is that a crime?  Is he supposed to know that he intended to murder someone vs. use the gun for legal purposes (whatever those might be)?  Per the 2nd Amendment folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people.  It is upsetting to me that people have guns and are leaving them in the back seat of friends cars but that is just the American way right now.
He was already on his way to pick him up, the fact that he asked for the gun, tells you the intent of the person asking for the gun.  He absolutely should have known the gun was going to be used, so no he should not have taken it to him.  That arguably makes him an accessory to murder.

I know next to nothing about this case.  But, if weíre deducing intent, is there any reasonable chance that the intent was to use the gun for self-defense?
I don't think so, just get in the car and leave.  And if you are shot at in the car, you have your gun to defend yourself there.

Thatís usually the intelligent thing to do.  If youíre worried about your safety, leave.  But, many states allow people to stand their ground.

Again, I donít know the facts, but if your friend says ďcan you bring me my gunĒ and just leaves it at that, do you necessarily know heís going to commit a crime?  Or, is it valid to assume that there are legal reasons to give somebody their gun?

Without doing my own research, I can buy into the argument that itís negligent to give a drunk person a gun, because risk of harm is foreseeable.  But, drawing moral or criminal conclusions requires knowing more about Millerís knowledge and reasoning.
Miller was already on his way to pick Miles up because he had asked Miller to pick him up earlier in the night.  The only reason for Miles to ask for the gun at the time he did was because he was going to use it or at least felt he might and Miller absolutely knew or should have known that.

Why would Miller be expected to know what Miles was going to do with his gun.  Miles was the rightful owner of the gun.  Miller returned it to him.  Had Miles ever murdered someone with that gun in all the prior time that he owned the gun?  The time before he left it in Miller's car?

And even if he suspected or thought maybe he was going to murder someone, would that give him the right to basically confiscate Miles gun?  The Police probably couldn't even do that and you think a private citizen "should" have taken Miles gun away from him, which is what refusing to give it back to him would have been?

If a private citizen is somehow culpable for what someone does with their own gun, what about the shop that sold him the gun.  If Miles went into a gun shop and said I want a gun right now, some dude is messing with me.  Should the gun shop not sell the gun?

I don't see any case here against Miller.  This is all about Miles.  Miles decided to own a gun and then use that gun to shoot someone.

You make the gun sound like an iPhone or a hand bag.   C'mon, it's a freaking gun.

As others have noted they kind of are like an iPhone. You have a lot of rights in owning one. If people start constantly taking away their friends guns cause they didnít like how they used them or were making judgements on when they should return them we would actually end up with a lot more shootings. The police also called Miller a cooperative witness. I get from an optics perspective wanting to suspend him a few games but the rest of this is just nonsense with a lot of guesses.
I don't see how suspending Miller a few games makes any sense unless there is some violation of team rules that they could tie it to.  Not only is Miller not charged with a crime but he wasn't even arrested.  I think it is all or nothing.  If the Bama officials believe Miller's account, they shouldn't punish him at all.  If they don't believe his account, he should be kicked off the team and out of school.  That also applies to Jaden Bradley who was also there but is barely getting mentioned in the coverage.

Eh I donít really care if they do or donít suspend miller but itís not a big deal if they made him miss a game or two. Hey guys we are focused on winning a championship. I donít want us driving around picking up teammates at 2am right now. Plenty of coaches have run their programs like that. There are not professional athletes even though it seems like that. Heck even short of that you can just say I donít want it to be a distraction right now and even Oates admitted some of his teammates probably were.