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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ba
g 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?