Most violence occurs due to bad social interactions. Sometimes, as in the case of the Apple River Stabbing, it leads to a fatality. In this incident, 54-year-old, Nicolae Miu, fatally stabbed 17-year-old, Isaac Schuman, and injured four others during a fight. Despite the incident being captured on video, it is unclear what the fight was actually about, and why Miu engaged with the group of teenagers in the first place. The legal question that was being asked last Thursday was whether Miu acted in self-defense i.e., did he pull the knife and stab Schuman because he feared for his safety or instead, was his intent to punish the teenager or seek some retribution for a perceived injustice committed against him. The Jury decided that Miu was guilty of first-degree reckless homicide while using a dangerous weapon, along with four counts of recklessly (first-degree), endangering safety while using a dangerous weapon and one count of battery (he also punched a girl). Although Miu had originally been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, the ambiguities in the case led to the jury deciding on the lesser charges which had been made available to them. In this article I want to look at the Apple River Stabbing, more as a cautionary tale, than as a legal case. As in many violent events, all parties made “mistakes”, and the incident could have been avoided, and it’s a tragedy that a life was lost. However, there are lessons that can be taken from it, and applied to our own personal safety.

                When Miu initially engaged with the group of teenagers, who were wading and socializing in the river, he probably had a “script” in his head of how everything was going to play out. His claim that he went over to that part of the river where the group was to look for his friend’s lost mobile phone lacks credibility. Schuman’s friend, Jawahn Cockfield, who captured the cell phone video, testified that he’d started filming Miu before the fight occurred because he thought he was acting/looking suspicious. One of the group, Owen Peloquin, testified that after Miu sprinted through the water towards them, the group started calling him a pedophile; whether the group had taunted him with this insult beforehand and this had caused him to approach them is unclear. For whatever reason Miu initially approached them, he probably had an “outcome” in mind e.g., he’d say some words to this younger group, they’d apologize, and the situation would end with them being taught a lesson, and him walking away feeling that justice had been done etc. He might have been working from the assumption that young people would naturally back down to someone who was older and more senior than them. It’s unlikely that he expected the response he got. Rather than back down and follow his “script” – which undoubtedly saw him emerge as the victor in some capacity – the group responded by shouting at him and pushing him into the water. They were working to their own script(s). Sometimes when we engage with people, we think they are going to be reasonable, and act rationally towards us. We naively/simplistically believe that if we can just explain to them why they are in the wrong, or acting in a problematic manner, they will listen to our reason, agree with us, and change their behavior(s) – we don’t expect them to respond aggressively or violently. Miu, actively engaged with the group, and got a response he probably wasn’t expecting. This alone would have been enough to catch him by surprise, and it is likely that he had no “back-up” plan for dealing with the turn the situation had taken. The lesson here, is that if for whatever reason you choose to engage with an individual or a group, understand that events may not follow your “script” and lead to your intended/imagined outcome(s).

                So Miu is now on his back, in the water, surrounded by a group of teenagers, who are laughing at him. He’s a 54-year-old man, who’s not small or slight by any means and has been put on his arse by a skinny teenager. We can assume he is shocked and surprised, as well as embarrassed, and he’s just entered an unpredictable world. His ego has taken a knock, and he is likely wondering how he’s going to get out of this situation. In my experience working security, I have often found, after talking to people who got themselves into physically violent situations, that they thought they were legally entitled to do so, even when they weren’t. They believed in that moment that the law was on their side, simply because they were “right” i.e., their sense of morality and justice was protected by the law. As he sat/lay in the water Miu, probably felt that he had the “right” to use his knife: a string of injustices had been committed against him, the group needed to be taught a lesson, and because there were more of them, he had the right to use his weapon etc. When you are feeling justified to use any type of force due to a multitude of reasons, beliefs, and feelings it is likely that the law won’t back you up; if one of your motivations is to get back at an individual, and/or gain back some self-respect, the law makes no provision for that. More importantly from a legal perspective if the optics are bad – such as with Miu, who engaged with the group, rather than them engaging with him – even if your motive is that of “survival” you may have a hard time convincing a jury of this. It is also important to note that after Miu was pushed into the river, none of the teenagers followed him there, either to stomp/kick him, or to wrestle with him etc. When Miu stood up, and pulled his knife, even if scared, he wasn’t exactly in imminent danger when he started to stab people; something that likely affected his claim of self-defense. One lesson here is to be aware of optics. This is a jury trial and how things “look” is important when making a claim of self-defense. Another takeaway is the importance of learning the requirements of making a claim of “self-defense”, and not to assume that your sense of morality and righteousness are equitable with the law (or protected by it).

                The tragedy of the Apple River Stabbing is that it was completely avoidable. If the group had been jeering, taunting, and shouting at Miu, he should have put his ego to one side and ignored them. If he hadn’t been carrying a knife, he wouldn’t have stabbed anyone, and from the video footage of the teenagers, if he’d got up and walked away, my guess is that they would have probably let him, though he’d have had to endure their laughter and taunting etc. For me, another important takeaway is that Miu probably didn’t fully understand the damage that a knife can cause e.g., one of Miu’s other victims, A. J. Martin, had to hold his own intestines in and was hospitalized for 27 days. A knife, unlike pepper/OC-spray can’t be considered as a less than lethal weapon, and if carried should be looked on in the same way, with the same responsibilities, as carrying a firearm, rather than as something lesser. Miu has yet to be sentenced, and depending on the judge he could be looking at a custodial sentence in excess of 40-years, however if he’d simply walked away and accepted the hit to his ego, this all could have been avoided.