Bama/Oats/Miller

[WhiteTrash]

Oats is a trainwreck in front of the media (maybe elsewhere). What is worse; admitting you didn't know about the "pat down" or admitting you did know about the "pat down"?

Didn't know = clueless, failed by player, coaches and administrators
Did know = clueless and admission of being unaware of the reality of the situation.

Then the genius doubles down by claiming its a TSA pat down. As if patted down by law enforcement for weapons in an airport is less offensive. The TSA reference is laughable to anyone with a room temperature IQ.

Someone needs to get Oats away from the press ASAP.

[Pakuni]

Accessory to murder.  You don't have to agree with me, but if he hadn't brought the murder weapon to the scene - a young boy would still have a mother.

Nope. The Alabama accessory statute is linked below. As you can read, it requires proof that the defendant act with "intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense." So, you need to prove not only that Miller brought the gun, but that he brought the gun either intending or knowing that it would be used to kill someone.

From the statute:
"A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a
statute defining an offense, when his/her purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.

So, how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller brought the gun either knowing or intending that someone would wind up dead?

https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/docs/13A-2-23.pdf

[Carl Spackler]

So, what are you charging him with?
It's not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.

If that gun was used to commit murder, it most certainly COULD be an accessory crime. DA is choosing not to, for various reasons. 

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided. 

Anyone who thinks the DA is treating this case they would absent the AL bb start factor has their head in the sand.

[StillAWarrior]

Alabama's accessory statute:

A person is legally accountable for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense:

(1) He procures, induces or causes such other person to commit the offense;  or

(2) He aids or abets such other person in committing the offense;  or

(3) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, he fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.


Defining intent: "A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, when his purpose is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct."

The highlighted language is why he's not being charged. To be an accessory, he had to intend to help in the commission of the crime. Intent is a very difficult standard to meet. It's more than "knowing" and it's more than "reckless." They would have to show that "his purpose" in driving to the scene of the shooting was to cause the shooting. It sounds like they just don't have the evidence of that.


Edited to add: Should have checked the new posts. Pakuni beat me to the punch.

[The Sultan]

If that gun was used to commit murder, it most certainly COULD be an accessory crime. DA is choosing not to, for various reasons. 

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided. 

Anyone who thinks the DA is treating this case they would absent the AL bb start factor has their head in the sand.

Why do you say that? Are there instances where the DA has charged someone in similar circumstances?

[MDMU04]

If that gun was used to commit murder, it most certainly COULD be an accessory crime. DA is choosing not to, for various reasons. 

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided. 

Anyone who thinks the DA is treating this case they would absent the AL bb start factor has their head in the sand.

This is completely wrong.  The prosecutor needs to have evidence to prove intent to assist in committing a murder to bring a conspiracy charge.  That's the bar for prosecution for a criminal conspiracy.

I am very thankful some of you aren't prosecutors.  And I hope you pay very close attention to jury instructions upon deliberation if you're ever asked to sit on a jury.

[Jay Bee]

If he received a text that essentially said I need a gun to address an issue w someone, and it's provided, and the issue is "addressed" I think that fits accessory

Not saying that's what happened, but could have

[StillAWarrior]

If that gun was used to commit murder, it most certainly COULD be an accessory crime. DA is choosing not to, for various reasons. 

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided. 

Anyone who thinks the DA is treating this case they would absent the AL bb start factor has their head in the sand.

But this is not correct. It doesn't matter what the owner of the gun does with the gun -- it matters what the person who brought the gun intended. It doesn't matter if the gun was "knowingly provided" -- it matters what the person who brought the gun intended. You might not like the accessory law, but you don't get to rewrite it.

[Carl Spackler]

This is completely wrong.  The prosecutor needs to have evidence to prove intent to assist in committing a murder to bring a conspiracy charge.  That's the bar for prosecution for a criminal conspiracy.

I am very thankful some of you aren't prosecutors.  And I hope you pay very close attention to jury instructions upon deliberation if you're ever asked to sit on a jury.

Obviously, you cant read.  I stated:

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided.

It could be a crime, it might not be a crime.  It CLEARLY depends on why the person brings it, and what is done with it.  Bringing someone a gun they legally own does not get Miller off the hook automatically.  That was my point - which you obviously missed. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

So, what are you charging him with?
It's not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.

So on the books gun laws weren't followed by 2 people charged with murder.

Got it.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

So on the books gun laws weren't followed by 2 people charged with murder.

Got it.

Nearly passed out from rolling my eyes so hard at this. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Nearly passed out from rolling my eyes so hard at this.

Don't hit your head.

[MDMU04]

Obviously, you cant read.  I stated:

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided.

It could be a crime, it might not be a crime.  It CLEARLY depends on why the person brings it, and what is done with it.  Bringing someone a gun they legally own does not get Miller off the hook automatically.  That was my point - which you obviously missed.

Thanks for that.

I was addressing your comment:
"If that gun was used to commit murder, it most certainly COULD be an accessory crime. DA is choosing not to, for various reasons.

It is clearly false that it is not a crime to bring someone their legally owned gun.  It depends what the owner of that gun does with the gun, that was knowingly provided. "

It's more than knowing about the gun and what the gun winds up being used for.

From the Alabama Criminal Code § 13A-4-3
(a) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with the intent that conduct constituting an offense be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one or more of such persons does an overt act to effect an objective of the agreement.

For Miller to be charged with accessory to murder, or in this case criminal conspiracy to commit murder, a prosecutor needs to have evidence of three things:
- Miller provides someone the murder weapon
- The weapon is used to commit a murder
AND
- Miller provided the weapon with the intent that conduct constituting an offense be performed ie specific evidence of Miller's intent that the gun he provides is used to commit a murder.  Not to simply shoot someone, not to intimidate them, but to murder them.

It doesn't matter if he knew he was bringing the person the gun or not.  It doesn't even matter if the gun winds up being used in a murder.

The way the law in Alabama is written, unless Miller brought that gun AND specifically intended for that gun to be used to commit a murder, AND someone winds up being murdered with the gun that he brought, there is no charge for conspiracy to commit murder.

[Pakuni]

So on the books gun laws weren't followed by 2 people charged with murder.

Which ones?

[Jay Bee]

From the Alabama Criminal Code § 13A-4-3
(a) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with the intent that conduct constituting an offense be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one or more of such persons does an overt act to effect an objective of the agreement.

For Miller to be charged with accessory to murder, or in this case criminal conspiracy to commit murder, a prosecutor needs to have evidence of three things:
- Miller provides someone the murder weapon
- The weapon is used to commit a murder
AND
- Miller provided the weapon with the intent that conduct constituting an offense be performed ie specific evidence of Miller's intent that the gun he provides is used to commit a murder.  Not to simply shoot someone, not to intimidate them, but to murder them.

It doesn't matter if he knew he was bringing the person the gun or not.  It doesn't even matter if the gun winds up being used in a murder.

The way the law in Alabama is written, unless Miller brought that gun AND specifically intended for that gun to be used to commit a murder, AND someone winds up being murdered with the gun that he brought, there is no charge for conspiracy to commit murder.

There is a difference between criminal conspiracy and accessory. I don't know that you've address accessory above - just conspiracy.

[Pakuni]

There is a difference between criminal conspiracy and accessory. I don't know that you've address accessory above - just conspiracy.

Here's the accessory statute.

https://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/docs/13A-2-23.pdf

[MDMU04]

There is a difference between criminal conspiracy and accessory. I don't know that you've address accessory above - just conspiracy.

Pakuni beat me to it, criminal liability is still contingent on intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense.

[willie warrior]

Man, so many actual and wanna be lawyers expounding here. A guy brings a gun to another guy who hands it off to another guy who offs some woman,
.Please at the very least he should be charged as an accessory and let the trial system decide. While that is going on he ahould not be playing basketball. If the idiots at Alabama allow him to play, then let that purge begin.

[The Sultan]

Man, so many actual and wanna be lawyers expounding here. A guy brings a gun to another guy who hands it off to another guy who offs some woman,
.Please at the very least he should be charged as an accessory and let the trial system decide. While that is going on he ahould not be playing basketball. If the idiots at Alabama allow him to play, then let that purge begin.

"So many wannabe lawyers here"...proceeds to be a wannabe lawyer.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Which ones?

Uh, the don't kill people laws. 

[MU86NC]

University of Alabama is a horrible institution.  They will do anything and everything to produce winners....

[Pakuni]

Uh, the don't kill people laws.

You said "gun laws." Those aren't gun laws.

[JWags85]

I could be mistaken, but the complete transparency with which Miller handed over everything, without legal wrangling for a warrant or other demand, and cooperated with police from the start makes me inclined to take him at his word.

A lot of people seem to be holding onto incorrect early reports of him physically bringing/handing the gun to Miles, intentionally blocking in the victims car, being around at the time of the shooting, etc...and allowing it to color their firm assertions of his guilt.  Not to mention lumping him into the s***show which has been Nate Oates public statements the last few weeks.