McCollough indicted

#76
#76
ImLoco4Vols said:
That depends on where you live. In Texas and Florida and some other places, you have the right to defend your property or self from anyone attempting to harm you or steal from you. In Texas, that includes inside your car. A recent case here had a vehicle owner shoot and kill an offender who was running from the police and attempted a carjacking. He died on the spot from 4 shots from the driver. No charges filed at all. Justified killing
Click to expand...
That's what should have happened. I'm all for it. I don't know what that has to do with the premise of immediately killing an intruder inside your home but it's a cool story.
 
#77
#77
There’s not a dimes difference in the statistics between US grand juries returning true bills and The People’s Republic of China courts pushing those of accused of crimes forward to sentencing. Those seated on grand juries at the minimum need to have a neutral relationship with the local courts and DA. At the maximum, I would want my grand juries to be in an adversarial position with the courts and DAs. We might see justice bloom again rather than tyranny of the state, you know, like we’ve morphed into the ChiCom’s system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murfvol1 and davethevol
#78
#78
ImLoco4Vols said:
That depends on where you live. In Texas and Florida and some other places, you have the right to defend your property or self from anyone attempting to harm you or steal from you. In Texas, that includes inside your car. A recent case here had a vehicle owner shoot and kill an offender who was running from the police and attempted a carjacking. He died on the spot from 4 shots from the driver. No charges filed at all. Justified killing
Click to expand...
TN is also a stand-your-ground state which is why the victim is stressing it happened in the stairwell and the accused are saying it was in the doorway. It really will come down to who is more believable and just by the statements it seems clear which story makes more sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58 and DuckinVol
#79
#79
pimo1 said:
TN is also a stand-your-ground state which is why the victim is stressing it happened in the stairwell and the accused are saying it was in the doorway. It really will come down to who is more believable and just by the statements it seems clear which story makes more sense.
Click to expand...
100% agree
 
#81
#81
pimo1 said:
TN is also a stand-your-ground state which is why the victim is stressing it happened in the stairwell and the accused are saying it was in the doorway. It really will come down to who is more believable and just by the statements it seems clear which story makes more sense.
Click to expand...
A stand-your-ground defense in Tennessee requires the defendant to have "a reasonable belief of imminent danger". Pretty much fear of death or serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. Spencer had left the apartment. He did not touch, swing at, kick at, or verbally threaten anyone. McCollough was not intimidated by him. The prosecution got McCollough to admit all of that. It's going to be tough to meet this requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: #1fulmerite, VolFaninFla and SpookyAction
#82
#82
DuckinVol said:
LOL, I pray I’m never in the situation, but if an intruder comes into my home and I kill him, my family is safe and I’m not going to be prosecuted. It’s pretty simple.
Click to expand...
If it had been an elderly person with Alzheimers that wondered off and wound up entering an apartment like Spencer did, you would be ok with wasting him immediately? What about a child? I mean they are intruders after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla and SpookyAction
#83
#83
I apologize for the length of my post in advance.

There is a ton of misunderstanding about how Stand Your Ground laws work.

Self-Defense Law 101 in Tennessee

""
Tennessee Stand Your Ground Law: (Is Tennessee a Stand Your Ground State?)

Although the words “stand your ground” do not appear in the Tennessee Code, the laws relating to self-defense and the justifiable use of force are commonly known as “Stand Your Ground” laws. These laws authorize an individual to defend themselves against threats and perceived threats while in public, without first retreating. Specifically, the State of Tennessee recognizes a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense to defend against the criminal use of deadly force against them. Moreover, Tennessee does not require a person to retreat before exercising defensive deadly force, so long as:

  1. An individual has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
  2. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real, at the time; and
  3. The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

There are several common misconceptions about self-defense and the use of deadly force. First, while there is no duty to retreat before using force, one cannot be the initial aggressor and must only act in self-defense or in the defense of others. Next, the force employed must be equal to and proportionate to the threat. Third, if employing deadly force in self-defense, there must be a legitimate fear of imminent severe bodily injury or death.

If one is found to have unlawfully threatened or used deadly force in an unreasonable or unjustified manner, criminal charges can range from assault, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, or even some degree of homicide.

""
So many completely wrong legal stances have been given in this thread, it is scary to think how many of you think you get to kill someone because they are in your home. Your physical response has to match the threat; the force employed must be equal to the threat.

I think McCullough has a good defense for the actions he took whether in the living room near his door, or even in the stairwell or the area in front of the apartment building. I don't see anything he did being outside the meaning of the law.
An intruder refusing to leave your home or residence is a justifiable reason to physically remove the person with a reasonable/equal amount of force.

Mr.Spencer was a threat when he entered and the threat escalated when he refused to leave the residence. I see absolutely zero implication he was a deadly threat. Those of you declaring you would shoot Spencer and claiming it would be justified in this case are making misplaced legal claims. Shooting Mr. Spencer would be beyond the scope of TN's Stand Your Ground Law. Even McCullough seems to have understood what was going on with Spencer, and correctly understood his level of threat.

These misconceptions about the law are dangerous. I don't think Florida's law, or any other I am familiar with allow for disproportionate violent response for the person acting in their own home. You can't kill someone for being in your home. You can't shoot someone leaving with your property.
I worked a case in the USAF when a property owner shot a 16 year old leaving his home with a television. The thief had stolen about $20 worth of quarters and had a tv while leaving the man's front door when the homeowner (it was a USAF base, so the home was his assigned quarters) surprised and shot the thief. The Assistant Staff Judge Advocates on base did prosecute the man. The Castle doctrine did not apply when the criminal was leaving, and the crime scene clearly showed the thief was leaving, not entering. Trust me, that man was grieved and regretted shooting and killing that teenager. It wasn't because he was prosecuted. He wasn't even talking about that, he was only talking about how he killed someone for no real reason. He regretted killing someone when his life was not in danger. His first instinct was wrong.

Just because Spencer was outside when struck doesn't diminish his real physical threat to J.McCullough and friends. Rasputin_Vol 's highlighted section about curtilage is right on the money. So if Jaylen McCullough roughed Spencer up outside the apartment, that is still a valid self-defense action and 100% reasonable given the level of Spencer's threat to McCullough and the other people in JMcC's apartment. McCullough can take proportionate action against Spencer, and the area where he enters his dwelling, and the stairwell, and the even the area from McCullough's car leading to his apartment would also be attached as part of the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground area he should have an expectation of defending and being cleared of danger. I think his legal defense should be effective based on the Reports posted in the thread, and the supporting statements.

I will say the police report seems to be written professionally and in a neutral tone. Sometimes it is challenging to be neutral when you come to a crime scene.

Had McCullough shot him in his own living room like some of you contend is a valid act, he would be charged with some level of homicide, because Spencer's threat to McCullough was not a life-threatening situation. Killing Spencer would be deemed a disproportionate and unreasonable violent response. None of the witnesses stated a belief Spencer was a threat to their lives. I believe they would have mentioned that if they believed it.

You can say Spencer was a life-threatening danger in McCullough's living room, but expect that threat to be assessed according to the law. The law will look at Spencer's potential for violence. I am guessing he was unarmed, because the police would have searched him prior to taking his statement. If he had been armed, he would be in a world of trouble himself. He would probably have been charged with at least a couple of felonies, if not more.

I think McCullough made good decisions considering his situation. I am unhappy he is being charged with anything, but I am hopeful the charges will be dropped soon.

1. First, while there is no duty to retreat before using force, one cannot be the initial aggressor and must only act in self-defense or in the defense of others.
If charges stem from McCullough being the initial aggressor I would contend Spencer was the initial aggressor by entering the apartment and not leaving immediately. Him entering the apartment is threatening, but then not leaving is an escalation of the threat. If he had apologized, and left, I don't see any reason to think McCullough would have been violent. His actions of not leaving the premises directly led to McCullough's physical actions.

2. Next, the force employed must be equal to and proportionate to the threat.
I don't see anything here that excludes McCullough's actions. Spencer was in his home and wasn't leaving. So Spencer did not de-escalate his level of threat against the people in the apartment. McCullough punched him. I see that as a proportionate response.

3. If employing deadly force in self-defense, there must be a legitimate fear of imminent severe bodily injury or death.
There is an obvious danger to McCullough and the other adults in his apartment. I think McCullough acted in a completely reasonable manner, and his level of violence to remove the threat was totally equal and proportionate to the level of threat he faced. That will help him in court, or hopefully, by getting charges dropped.

If we know everything, McCullough should not be prosecuted at all. He should be praised for meeting the threat to his Castle with equal and proportionate actions, as prescribed in the law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CincinnatiVols, VAVol85, pimo1 and 4 others
#84
#84
GoVols1961 said:
A stand-your-ground defense in Tennessee requires the defendant to have "a reasonable belief of imminent danger". Pretty much fear of death or serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. Spencer had left the apartment. He did not touch, swing at, kick at, or verbally threaten anyone. McCollough was not intimidated by him. The prosecution got McCollough to admit all of that. It's going to be tough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...

That is why you don't talk to anybody but your lawyer. Not the cops, not your neighbors, nobody, keep your piehole shut. Let your lawyer tell them the story after consulting with you. Oh, and don't talk to Pookie in the next cell over either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol
#85
#85
GoVols1961 said:
A stand-your-ground defense in Tennessee requires the defendant to have "a reasonable belief of imminent danger". Pretty much fear of death or serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. Spencer had left the apartment. He did not touch, swing at, kick at, or verbally threaten anyone. McCollough was not intimidated by him. The prosecution got McCollough to admit all of that. It's going to be tough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...
pretty sure rando drunk due rolling up in your s--- counts. Spencer CLAIMS he was outside and didn't threaten anyone. THe more believable story is different. Just saying and this is assuming the he was drunk and holding a bottle of alcohol during his police interview is true. I'm on the fence there and waiting for confirmation but if it is so done deal.. Buyt, given the statements that have been made public.. one makes sense one does not at all. One is consistent across 3 people which even if they are on the same side is rare.. especially when given the facts they didn't have time to sync up. Tank left and got picked up later. His story didn't make sense to itself on its own. Maybe he's telling the truth and Tank is the worst person in the universe.. but hes not very convincing about it.

TLDR version if you read the victim's version of the story and think it passes in front of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, I'm in the wrong world then.
 
#86
#86
GoVols1961 said:
A stand-your-ground defense in Tennessee requires the defendant to have "a reasonable belief of imminent danger". Pretty much fear of death or serious bodily injury. That was not the case here. Spencer had left the apartment. He did not touch, swing at, kick at, or verbally threaten anyone. McCollough was not intimidated by him. The prosecution got McCollough to admit all of that. It's going to be tough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...

From the outside looking in and from what little I know about the situation, it seems that McCollough wanted to prove that he’s a bad azz or something. To follow the guy several feet away after he disengaged the situation is telling. Obviously knowing the guy was drunk means McCollough knew he would be defenseless.

As far as the guy try to rob the place, really, how many of you guys can see a drunk person intentionally force their way into an apartment just to rob it? I’m not talking about someone high on drugs.
 
#88
#88
If some drunk ass came barging into my apartment, I seriously doubt I would be welcoming….I can see a scenario where JM says “wtf are you doing?” …. with drunk ass replying “FO” or something similar…. Followed by JM’s two piece combo…. Drunk ass stumbles out of the apartment and eventually down the stairs.
Has the BAC of drunk ass at the time of the incident been reported?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Sarms58
#89
#89
pimo1 said:
pretty sure rando drunk due rolling up in your s--- counts. Spencer CLAIMS he was outside and didn't threaten anyone. THe more believable story is different. Just saying and this is assuming the he was drunk and holding a bottle of alcohol during his police interview is true. I'm on the fence there and waiting for confirmation but if it is so done deal.. Buyt, given the statements that have been made public.. one makes sense one does not at all. One is consistent across 3 people which even if they are on the same side is rare.. especially when given the facts they didn't have time to sync up. Tank left and got picked up later. His story didn't make sense to itself on its own. Maybe he's telling the truth and Tank is the worst person in the universe.. but hes not very convincing about it.

TLDR version if you read the victim's version of the story and think it passes in front of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, I'm in the wrong world then.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you doubt Spencer's CLAIMS he was outside and didn't threaten anyone. McCollough admitted those CLAIMS where true. Have you not seen the dog and pony show aka the preliminary hearing?
 
#90
#90
Carl Pickens said:
If some drunk ass came barging into my apartment, I serious doubt I would be welcoming….I can see a scenario where JM says “wtf are you doing?” …. with drunk ass replying “FO” or something similar…. Followed by JM’s two piece combo…. Drunk ass stumbles out of the apartment and eventually down the stairs.
Has the BAC of drunk ass at the time of the incident been reported?
Click to expand...
McCollough testified the hit was outside of the apartment. He backed Spencer out of the apartment and McCollough followed, closing the door behind him. It wasn't a two piece combo. He hit him once. Again, that's Jaylen's testimony. Sorry if I ruined your scenario.
 
#92
#92
GoVols1961 said:
If it had been an elderly person with Alzheimers that wondered off and wound up entering an apartment like Spencer did, you would be ok with wasting him immediately? What about a child? I mean they are intruders after all.
Click to expand...

I concede there are “but what ifs” everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#95
#95
Redleg68 said:
A good DA can get a fence post indicted by a Grand Jury.
Click to expand...
That's not always why you take a case to a grand jury though. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not to get convictions. Sometimes you honestly want a grand jury's opinion, this is particularly true in cases of a political nature or where it's borderline evidence wise. Both of which probably apply here.
 
#96
#96
unfrozencvmanvol said:
That's not always why you take a case to a grand jury though. A prosecutor's job is to do justice, not to get convictions. Sometimes you honestly want a grand jury's opinion, this is particularly true in cases of a political nature or where it's borderline evidence wise. Both of which probably apply here.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% on the prosecutor's job is to seek justice which is a two way street. I have just not seen many DA's take that kind of approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#97
#97
GoVols1961 said:
Not usually. However, when it comes to family and being a protective father, you damn skippy. Stay ignorant my friend.
Click to expand...
So you would go to McCullough 's apartment to confront him because your dumb son (in this scenerio) stumbled into the wrong apartment more than once? What would your defense be in that scenario? And if you want to be a protective father, I think there are better ways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga, Carl Pickens and Sarms58
#99
#99
He’s probably played his last down of football here. There’s no way UT is going to let him play while under a felony indictment and the case will not be resolved in time for the start of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#100
#100
TAF said:
Stupid Knoxville Prosecutors ALMOST ruined A.J. Johnson's life too...
Click to expand...
AJ's situation was a "politically correct" persecution. The prosecutor asked advice from a friend of mine who is a well-respected prosecutor and was told she had no case and advised her to drop it. Political pressure from the "me too" crowd made her pursue AJ, even though there was virtually no chance of a conviction. The details, as revealed to me, showed that AJ is a scumbag, but that's not illegal. He definitely bears most of the responsibility for the situation and probably got better than he deserved. As Einstein said: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoVols1961 and Sarms58
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top