Jaylen McCollough arrested

[VFL-82-JP]

Wikipedia vs Miriam-Webster? Ok...

And if you actually go down to the "Definition" section of that article you posted, it says "Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery—personally taking from someone by force—is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone)." So, unless you can prove there was a violent intent, it was not.

I don't have to prove jack, brother. It's not my job.

I call it a home invasion because a dude unlawfully entered the home of another person, without invitation.

The fact that he was immediately detected, and apparently left without committing any FURTHER crimes, does not change the salient fact that he did invade the home of another.

And we'll probably never know if he intended burglary, or a prank, or a violent crime, or any other variation on the theme.

So I'm calling it a home invasion. You do you.

 

[whobethis16]

I don't have to prove jack, brother. It's not my job.

I call it a home invasion because a dude unlawfully entered the home of another person, without invitation.

The fact that he was immediately detected, and apparently left without committing any FURTHER crimes, does not change the salient fact that he did invade the home of another.

And we'll probably never know if he intended burglary, or a prank, or a violent crime, or any other variation on the theme.

So I'm calling it a home invasion. You do you.

I can call you a gopher, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Just because you're trying to embellish what the original situation was doesn't mean it's correct. You're just throwing out words to get an emotional reaction, much like the likes of Alex Jones.

 

[Lurker]

I agree this is a fair point and JM would have more to stand on though if he had been inside the apartment when the physical fight occurred. You can’t claim self defense while chasing after someone in public cussing and threatening them

Fair point for sure. I couldn't care less if the kid is a football player or not. He is a citizen, just like you and me, and if he's guilty of something criminal he should face appropriate consequences. My question is how on earth do you know that JM wasn't inside the apartment when the physical contact occurred? How do you know that JM chased the alleged victim down "in public cussing and threatening" him? No one knows the truth of any of those points as described by the alleged victim. The arrest and all of the conclusions on this board blaming JM for wrongdoing are based entirely on the statements of the alleged victim, who has admitted he was impaired and who also has admitted that he had just entered someone's dwelling without permission. He says it was a mistake, but how do we know that is true? He says he "immediately" left, but how do we know that is true? He says he was pursued without reason, but how do we know that?

Before we convict JM solely on the alleged victim's statement of what happened, and before the State imposes punishment on JM, and before he is disciplined by the school or his team, can't we all agree that he needs to have been proven guilty of an offense? That has not and cannot happen until LE either collects and presents sufficient evidence of his guilt of a crime (witness statements, recordings, etc.) or until he admits guilt (which he hasn't done to any of our knowledge).

Arresting him without a warrant solely on the statements of the alleged victim that has been described by these officers in their report was a mistake in my opinion. JM was well known and not going anywhere and the incident was over. There were no exigencies demanding immediate arrest to preserve the peace or to keep an accused from escaping the reach of the law. I question whether these officers had probable cause that JM committed a criminal act based solely on the alleged victim's statements. At minimum, this guy was described as highly impaired and the officers should certainly have considered the possibility that his statements could have been influenced or motivated by a possible desire to avoid his own possible issues stemming from the behavior he had engaged in leading up to the confrontation. I think these officers should have taken his statement, investigated further (or had the KPD investigate), and then they should have sought a warrant from a magistrate, assuming they collected more proof of wrongdoing by JM.

Concluding guilt based on the one-sided statements of the alleged victim and then punishing JM (or anyone else) before a judicial determination of guilt isn't the way any of this is supposed to work. The arrest labelled JM and a school punishment before a hearing will harm him, possibly without merit. And if you have a law enforcement background, you know that is how you were trained.

 

[37620VOL]

I agree this is a fair point and JM would have more to stand on though if he had been inside the apartment when the physical fight occurred. You can’t claim self defense while chasing after someone in public cussing and threatening them

What if they both did some cussing? What if Zion pushed or swung first? What if that is JM's side of the story and there are no witnesses to corroborate?
I'm not taking a side here with this speculation. Just wondering if you have considered this.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Just in case anybody was unclear what sort of bias this poster is bringing to the discussion here…

Biased on what? Facts?

 

[Rickyvol77]

I'll see your definition and raise you one:


...
...an offender unlawfully enters into a building residence while the occupants are inside.

Sounds like this was shaping up to be a home invasion to me.

Did the guy steal anything? We don't think so, but we don't know for sure.

Did he intend to steal anything? We have no idea. Because we don't know what his motivation was. We only know what he told the police. And we all know criminals are not in the habit of telling police their true intentions.

Fact is, we don't know what happened. The guy himself admitted to entering the home of another person without permission, so we can be fairly certain that did happen. After that, we just don't know.

So yep, I'd say this was a home invasion. Because he invaded their home.

Go Vols!

Home invasion is a planned crime with forethought. You could argue a simple burglary but it’s a stretch

 

[Rickyvol77]

What if they both did some cussing? What if Zion pushed or swung first? What if that is JM's side of the story and there are no witnesses to corroborate?
I'm not taking a side here with this speculation. Just wondering if you have considered this.

I’ve considered evidence and what the witness (who is JM’s “friend”) told the police

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Home invasion is a planned crime with forethought. You could argue a simple burglary but it’s a stretch

What was the kid who invaded McCollough's home thinking one hour prior to the incident? Three hours prior? Twenty-four hours prior? Heck, 15 minutes prior?

You don't know, and I don't know. That's the point. All we have is his version of events. And that version is going to sound "aww shucks" innocent and regretful whether he really was just a bumbling fool, or something much worse.

We simply don't know.

So go ahead, think of him as innocent, not knowing. But think of McCollough as innocent, too, then. Because your lack of knowledge cuts BOTH ways.

Go Vols!

p.s. JM's friend told the police two things: who she is, and who JM is. That's it.

 

[Bigorangedan23]

View attachment 500073Um, yeah, no, it was not "home invasion" unless you can prove the drunk had intent to commit a crime. Simply walking in the wrong place is not a home invasion.

Bull crap

 

[Rickyvol77]

What was the kid who invaded McCollough's home thinking one hour prior to the incident? Three hours prior? Twenty-four hours prior? Heck, 15 minutes prior?

You don't know, and I don't know. That's the point. All we have is his version of events. And that version is going to sound "aww shucks" innocent and regretful whether he really was just a bumbling fool, or something much worse.

We simply don't know.

So go ahead, think of him as innocent, not knowing. But think of McCollough as innocent, too, then. Because your lack of knowledge cuts BOTH ways.

Go Vols!

I don’t think either are “innocent”. Occam’s razor and evidence and eyewitness testimony are all what matters when discussing the elements that make up TCA criminal code of a specific case

 

[WilcoVolsFan]

What was the kid who invaded McCollough's home thinking one hour prior to the incident? Three hours prior? Twenty-four hours prior? Heck, 15 minutes prior?

And that matters why, exactly?

 

[Orange&White]

Burglary requires some “mens rea” or intent. If the guy mistakingly walked into a residence then that does not equate to burglary itself. He would have to have the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault in the residence. Now this analysis is pertaining to the “victim’s” own criminality. Jaylen would still be able to argue that an unknown, intoxicated man entered his residence to negate/mitigate his own criminal charge.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I don’t think either are “innocent”. Occam’s razor and evidence and eyewitness testimony are all what matters when discussing the elements that make up TCA criminal code of a specific case

1. Occam's razor has no legal standing in American jurisprudence. It is not a principle of law.

2. Evidence matters. The physical evidence we are aware of says only four things: dude got hit in the mouth ... JM hit something with his right hand hard enough to injure it (so we might reasonably conclude that might have been the dude's mouth, but evidence doesn't show that as far as we know) ... someone bled recently on the stairs just outside JM's apartment ... and dude was standing in the parking lot waiting when the police arrived. That's it. That's the totality of the physical evidence.

3. There is no eyewitness testimony. The only testimony included in the blotter report are (a) the complaint of the invader/alleged victim, and (b) JM's girlfriend identifying herself and JM. As far as we know, no third party (including the gf) witnessed the presumed altercation at all.

 

[Rickyvol77]

1. Occam's razor has no legal standing in American jurisprudence. It is not a principle of law.

2. Evidence matters. The physical evidence we are aware of says only four things: dude got hit in the mouth ... JM hit something with his right hand hard enough to injure it (so we might reasonably conclude that might have been the dude's mouth, but evidence doesn't show that) ... someone bled recently on the stairs just outside JM's apartment ... and dude was standing in the parking lot waiting when the police arrived. That's it. That's the totality of the physical evidence.

3. There is no eyewitness testimony. The only testimony included in the blotter report are (a) the complaint of the invader/alleged victim, and (b) JM's girlfriend identifying herself and JM. As far as we know, no third party witnessed the presumed altercation at all.

1. while “legally” accurate, I assure you that officers, lawyers and judges use what most likely happen even in circumstantial cases to decide charges and deals and sentencing.

2. Wait and see

3. The “girlfriend” told the officers more than what was listed in the preliminary report. And there was at least one other witness who witnessed the “aftermath”

 

[VFL-82-JP]

1. while “legally” accurate, I assure you that officers, lawyers and judges use what most likely happen even in circumstantial cases to decide charges and deals and sentencing.

2. Wait and see

3. The “girlfriend” told the officers more than what was listed in the preliminary report. And there was at least one other witness who witnessed the “aftermath”

Show some proof of what you're claiming, or you're just another pretender, friend. Bring it, or leave it home; don't pretend to hide trump cards under the table.

 

[jbradley1382]

View attachment 500073Um, yeah, no, it was not "home invasion" unless you can prove the drunk had intent to commit a crime. Simply walking in the wrong place is not a home invasion.

Thats the dictionary definition Webster. The judicial system defines home invasion when "...an offender unlawfully enters into a building residence while the occupants are inside. The overarching intent of a home invasion can be theft, robbery, assault, sexual assault, murder, kidnapping, or another crime, either by stealth or direct force."

In the court of law, intent can be proven using the circumstances at hand. Since its quite difficult to read a persons mind to find their true intentions. Uninvited, entering a residence, under the influence. Lots of context that lean this case more towards the seeming intention of "theft, robbery, assault, sexual assault, murder, kidnapping, or another crime"

 

[Sudden Impact]

View attachment 500073Um, yeah, no, it was not "home invasion" unless you can prove the drunk had intent to commit a crime. Simply walking in the wrong place is not a home invasion.

Again we don't know the whole story and it will take time to sort it out. Maybe the drunk was stalking the GF. His intent drunk or not will come out with an investigation. Not enough information and without an investigation we are wasting our time speculating. We are in the early stages of this and you can quote all the laws you want. The investigation will sort it out as far as intent. A whole lot of questions to be asked and answered.

Statements made by both parties made and we are only privy to the one side version and the claim of innocence by the other. All of which the investigation will determined what happen with intent and background.

So sit back and watch. This is not a 60 minute segment of Law and Order so I would not expect real soon. They all ready have charged him now they have to do the investigative part to Verify. It does not happen in a day except on msg boards and TV

 

[37620VOL]

I’ve considered evidence and what the witness (who is JM’s “friend”) told the police

Link to what she told them? Did she see the entire encounter? Witnessing the aftermath doesn't tell you how the event happened, only how it ended.

 

[WallyBalls]

I agree this is a fair point and JM would have more to stand on though if he had been inside the apartment when the physical fight occurred. You can’t claim self defense while chasing after someone in public cussing and threatening them

So would you have preferred he just dump 6 or 7 into center mass as soon as he entered the room?

 

[kiddiedoc]

The craziest part of this story is that the police went and arrested a guy for punching a drunkass in the face after he had barged into his private residence. The idiot should have learned his lesson and paid the dentist for his lapse in judgment, then perhaps quit drinking or go to rehab.

I'll add this: if JM was a white rich kid in a bougie condo and had punched a drunk black guy for home intrusion, you would have never heard a thing about the story.

 

[whobethis16]

Thats the dictionary definition Webster. The judicial system defines home invasion when "...an offender unlawfully enters into a building residence while the occupants are inside. The overarching intent of a home invasion can be theft, robbery, assault, sexual assault, murder, kidnapping, or another crime, either by stealth or direct force."

In the court of law, intent can be proven using the circumstances at hand. Since its quite difficult to read a persons mind to find their true intentions. Uninvited, entering a residence, under the influence. Lots of context that lean this case more towards the seeming intention of "theft, robbery, assault, sexual assault, murder, kidnapping, or another crime"

How many break-ins are by drunks? Those that try to rob want to do it when they won't be caught. Very highly doubt a drunk in the middle of the afternoon was trying to rob someone.

 

[Rickyvol77]

So would you have preferred he just dump 6 or 7 into center mass as soon as he entered the room?

If he felt his life was in danger absolutely. But you can’t run outside and then use deadly force on someone leaving when you don’t like what they say

 

[37620VOL]

Home invasion is a planned crime with forethought. You could argue a simple burglary but it’s a stretch

A similar thing happened at my home. A kid came in our front door (w/o knocking & holding a skateboard in one hand). He said sorry wrong house and left. We had an officer come by to make sure that was true. The officer gave us the option to press charges for criminal trespass but we declined because the kid's story checked out. Home invasion/burglary does seem a little overboard.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The craziest part of this story is that the police went and arrested a guy for punching a drunkass in the face after he had barged into his private residence. The idiot should have learned his lesson and paid the dentist for his lapse in judgment, then perhaps quit drinking or go to rehab.

I'll add this: if JM was a white rich kid in a bougie condo and had punched a drunk black guy for home intrusion, you would have never heard a thing about the story.

Has nothing to do with race. Has to do with being a football player. Otherwise you never would know anything about it. Similar incidents happen about 30 times a week in Knoxville

 

[37620VOL]

If he felt his life was in danger absolutely. But you can’t run outside and then use deadly force on someone leaving when you don’t like what they say

You can if you feel like your life is in danger but it's much riskier. There's that famous case out of FL.