Jaylen McCollough arrested

[volfanhill]

I'm not "aligning" with anything. Ras presented a take on the story. I looked and what I found didn't seem to match up. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is it matters if the assault happened in the residence or JM followed the guy outside.

He followed him outside. Unless you want to be a homer that's the truth. It really doesn't take much to understand what happens

 

[hndog609]

He followed him outside. Unless you want to be a homer that's the truth. It really doesn't take much to understand what happens

That's my understanding of the events and would explain the charges being leveled.

 

[Vol423]

I haven't checked this thread since the night it dropped.

One: never talk to the police. He nailed that.

Two: we don't know anything for sure

Three: well, nothing, but you looked

Crap. I agree with Zeppelin. I better check to see if I’m running a high fever.

 

[Vol423]

You understand the pressure he was under to sit him but I would've said there is a bunch of he said he said and played him until the facts come out.

You’re assuming that Heupel knows nothing more about the details than we do. That’s likely a very bad assumption.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm actually behind on the details of this but from this description

Vols' McCollough facing felony assault charges

it doesn't appear to have played out like you present. There is considerable leeway in one's residence but it appears JM followed outside. That dramatically changes the scenario legally.

I am aware the situation, I was clearly throwing out an alternative situation.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Agreed, but that story, which is presented as the "official" story, doesn't jibe with with what Ras said.
I guess the first thing to establish is did JM leave the residence for the confrontation. That is vital to how the narrative moves forward.

Damn man, you read my comment about a hyopthetical or alternate outcome and turned that into me not understanding or knowing the real events. Your reading comprehension skills are amazing. Go back one more time and reread what I wrote.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I'm not "aligning" with anything. Ras presented a take on the story. I looked and what I found didn't seem to match up. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is it matters if the assault happened in the residence or JM followed the guy outside.

I never disputed that the assault occurred outside of the residence in that post. I didn't even mention in my post where it occurred.

 

[hndog609]

I am aware the situation, I was clearly throwing out an alternative situation.

Rigggght. This started with you replying to a post that included this:

"If you live in Knoxville and someone breaks into your home offer them milk and cookies or you could end up locked up."

The first line of your reply to the above was this:

"This is really a dangerous precedent that the KPD is setting. "

Followed by this:

"There is no way in a just world that an intruder gets the benefit of doubt before the homeowner."

So exactly what "dangerous precedent" did the KPD set here given the circumstances of the incident? (At least as we understand them currently) Where is the intruder getting the "benefit of the doubt" if assaulted outside property?

 

[Vol423]

Just lifted this from a post on the main board.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So exactly what "dangerous precedent" did the KPD set here given the circumstances of the incident? (At least as we understand them currently) Where is the intruder getting the "benefit of the doubt" if assaulted outside property?

Intruder... you said it yourself, genius. In what universe does an intruder get the benefit of doubt over a homeowner? You can't be this stupid.

 

[hndog609]

Intruder... you said it yourself, genius. In what universe does an intruder get the benefit of doubt over a homeowner? You can't be this stupid.

Are you still drunk from celebrating Sat night? (I'd actually understand that being the case if you wanted to roll with that) You do realize "intruder" loses pretty much all of it's meaning, particularly involving lawful application of civilian "homeowner" use of force, once outside a castle doctrine scenario? Something you've now unambiguously acknowledged was not in play? You miss this in my very first reply to you?

"There is considerable leeway in one's residence but it appears JM followed outside. That dramatically changes the scenario legally."

And I'm still wondering about that "dangerous precedent that the KPD is setting".

 

[Vol423]

Intruder... you said it yourself, genius. In what universe does an intruder get the benefit of doubt over a homeowner? You can't be this stupid.

Actually, they get FAR more benefit of the doubt in a lot of states than you think.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Are you still drunk from celebrating Sat night? (I'd actually understand that being the case if you wanted to roll with that) You do realize "intruder" loses pretty much all of it's meaning, particularly involving lawful application of civilian "homeowner" use of force, once outside a castle doctrine scenario? Something you've now unambiguously acknowledged was not in play? You miss this in my very first reply to you?

"There is considerable leeway in one's residence but it appears JM followed outside. That dramatically changes the scenario legally."

And I'm still wondering about that "dangerous precedent that the KPD is setting".

You are not bright. An intruder doesn't lose that label once they decide to leave. No different than a person shoplifting one day, and then bringing back what they stole the next day. They're still a shoplifter.

 

[hndog609]

You are not bright. An intruder doesn't lose that label once they decide to leave. No different than a person shoplifting one day, and then bringing back what they stole the next day. They're still a shoplifter.

You have to be trolling. There's no other explanation (short of you not being very "bright") for the utter lack of understanding the boldened.

Are you still drunk from celebrating Sat night? (I'd actually understand that being the case if you wanted to roll with that) You do realize "intruder" loses pretty much all of it's meaning, particularly involving lawful application of civilian "homeowner" use of force, once outside a castle doctrine scenario? Something you've now unambiguously acknowledged was not in play? You miss this in my very first reply to you?

"There is considerable leeway in one's residence but it appears JM followed outside. That dramatically changes the scenario legally."

So have you given up on even attempting a deflection of the "dangerous precedent" you cited earlier or are you just going to keep ignoring that part altogether?

 

[Vol423]

You are not bright. An intruder doesn't lose that label once they decide to leave. No different than a person shoplifting one day, and then bringing back what they stole the next day. They're still a shoplifter.

In this particular instance, it is you that doesn't know nearly as much as you think you do. The other poster was correct. You can't follow an intruder out of your dwelling and then assault them without legal ramifications to you.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

In this particular instance, it is you that doesn't know nearly as much as you think you do. The other poster was correct. You can't follow an intruder out of your dwelling and then assault them without legal ramifications to you.

I never said that. Go back and read what I posted. I am fully aware of the legal ramifications.

Let me ask, I've been looking online and in this thread, so help me out, but has this Zion Spencer guy been arrested?

 

[hndog609]

In this particular instance, it is you that doesn't know nearly as much as you think you do. The other poster was correct. You can't follow an intruder out of your dwelling and then assault them without legal ramifications to you.

He's completely distanced himself from his assertion the KPD has set a "dangerous precedent" in this case. If you go back and read his post to which I originally replied and remove the contextual relevance of what you correctly cite here he may as well have said "I like pie." as literally any relevance to the JM case is gone.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

He's completely distanced himself from his assertion the KPD has set a "dangerous precedent" in this case. If you go back and read his post to which I originally replied and remove the contextual relevance of what you correctly cite here he may as well have said "I like pie." as literally any relevance to the JM case is gone.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[hndog609]

What the hell are you talking about?

Dude, you've practically gone D4H level on this, up to the point of trying to go Clintonesque with "intruder". Just let it go. (unless you're finally set to address the KPD's "dangerous precedent" as it regards the JM case, which some might find interesting)

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Dude, you've practically gone D4H level on this, up to the point of trying to go Clintonesque with "intruder". Just let it go. (unless you're finally set to address the KPD's "dangerous precedent" as it regards the JM case, which some might find interesting)

Has this Zion guy been arrested?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You have to be trolling. There's no other explanation (short of you not being very "bright") for the utter lack of understanding the boldened.

Are you still drunk from celebrating Sat night? (I'd actually understand that being the case if you wanted to roll with that) You do realize "intruder" loses pretty much all of it's meaning, particularly involving lawful application of civilian "homeowner" use of force, once outside a castle doctrine scenario? Something you've now unambiguously acknowledged was not in play? You miss this in my very first reply to you?

"There is considerable leeway in one's residence but it appears JM followed outside. That dramatically changes the scenario legally."

So have you given up on even attempting a deflection of the "dangerous precedent" you cited earlier or are you just going to keep ignoring that part altogether?

Also, how does that change what I originally said? Based on the way the laws are, JM would have been better off if he shot him in the apartment.

 

[hndog609]

Has this Zion guy been arrested?

Not that I'm aware. From what I know it sounds like he could certainly be charged with public intoxication.

People that may be wondering about trespassing charges should consider that intent matters in most places. Accidentally wandering in somewhere is not some automatic criminal act. That's not to say there can't be serious consequences as entering into the wrong occupied residence can open oneself up to all manner of harm.

 

[hndog609]

Also, how does that change what I originally said? Based on the way the laws are, JM would have been better off if he shot him in the apartment.

You're doing that thing again where what you're referencing has jack all to do with the case. Focus.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Not that I'm aware. From what I know it sounds like he could certainly be charged with public intoxication.

And that is what I am talking about.

The real victim here is Jaylen McCollough. He was the one minding his business. And the way the system is set up, the person that is violated finds themselves in jail while the trespassing drunkard walks free. Also, the argument can be made, just like you said earlier with regards to Castle Doctrine, that JM would have been better off shooting the guy in his apartment rather than going into an emotional, adrenaline filled rage and punching the guy. That is the dangerous precedent I am talking about. It really isn't that hard to understand that this is unjust. If JM is arrested, how the hell can this drunk trespasser be walking free?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You're doing that thing again where what you're referencing has jack all to do with the case. Focus.

No, that was part of my original comment, genius. It is not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension skills.