Tellico Village Shooter Acquitted

[Erik88]

I'm not sure if you all remember the original story but I was really expecting a guilty verdict on this one. I'm %99 sure when the story first broke it said this guy was a permit holder but this story does not mention it.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/sep/19/expert-close-range-shot-killed-tellico-village-man/

Based on the evidence I agree with the jury's verdict. I think the lesson to be learned here is:

1) life is too short to honk at people.

2) if someone confronts you, drive away if at all possible.

3) If number 2 doesn't work please refer back to rule 1.

[diablo982]

Based on the story, I'd say roll up the window and drive away.

[RobertY]

Was his gas pedal broken? Or his window? In a case like this I think I would have choosen to roll the window up and drive away. Now if the attacker would have had a knine on me or something than that would be different. But an unarmed person reaching in thorugh my car window... sorry... a car is much stronger tahn an elderly man. Just drive slowly away.

[RobertY]

Here is a more detailed artical. In this one the DA is quoted also specifically mentioning the TN "Stand your ground" law. In this case in negative light. Although I am strongly in favor of the "Stand your ground" law, this time I think it went astray. But. Nichols is a very good defense attorny, has gotten a lot of questionable cases either thrown out or dismissed. Also the local scuttle is that Butcher was not very well liked in Tellico Village in the first place.

http://www.loudon.xtn.net/story/14050

[TMF]

I wasn't there, but I shouldn't assume that honking my horn will get me choked. I honk my horn all the time. If that is a chokable offense, then certainly the offense of choking is a shootable offense.

Anyway, doesn't sound like a great loss to society. The guy made a concious decision to choke another person and make them fear for their lives. The reasonable response to that is getting shot. I don't understand why this even went to trial.

[vontar]

Interesting that the defense felt they didn't have anything to prove, believing the state had not made it's case.

Edited September 22, 2012 by vontar

[TMF]

Interesting that the defense felt they didn't have anything to prove, believing the state had not made it's case.

Apparently they were right. Sounds like the system worked the way it was supposed to. Still trying to figure how they charged this guy and expected a jury to convict, since it would seem easy to prove that one is in fear for their life when another person has their hands around their neck, unless there are some new laws of anatomy and physics I'm not aware of. Not everyone has the quick thinking reaction to put the car in gear and gun it when another man's hands are squeezing their throat. Considering that it may take only 4 seconds to pass out if the assailant manages to cut off flow through the artery, yes, it would seem that would be fear for your life. Good for him. Let that be a lesson to road ragers. The prosecution should be spanked and replaced. Next.

[mikegideon]

Let that be a lesson to road ragers. The prosecution should be spanked and replaced. Next.

Agree

[jtmaze]

This is just proof that in today's world, if you shoot someone the media/prosecution are going to charge you.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[vontar]

Sec, if I remember the way the laws are, since he was tried and found not guilty, doesn't that mean he can't be sued civil court?

[RobertY]

Sec, if I remember the way the laws are, since he was tried and found not guilty, doesn't that mean he can't be sued civil court?

No. He can be sued in civil courts. I think that is stupid. I think once you are tried and found not guilty that should be the end of it. But, that is not the case. In fact it is a lot easier to win a civil case than a criminal case because in a civil case all they have to introduce is reasonable doubt instead of beyond a shadow of a doubt in criminal.

Just ask O.J. Simpson. Was proven innocent of the murder of his ex-wife and found not guilty. The ex-wifes family took O.J. to civil court and won I think it was around 15 million dollars. That figure may be low or high as I have slept since then.

[JAB]

No. He can be sued in civil courts. I think that is stupid. I think once you are tried and found not guilty that should be the end of it. But, that is not the case. In fact it is a lot easier to win a civil case than a criminal case because in a civil case all they have to introduce is reasonable doubt instead of beyond a shadow of a doubt in criminal.

Just ask O.J. Simpson. Was proven innocent of the murder of his ex-wife and found not guilty. The ex-wifes family took O.J. to civil court and won I think it was around 15 million dollars. That figure may be low or high as I have slept since then.

The O.J. case was different than a self defense case in which the defendant is found not guilty. Further, TN state law did not apply in the O.J. case. IANAL but my understanding is that, while the defendant can still be sued, a 'not guilty' verdict in a self defense case means the person bringing suit has to pay 100% of the court costs as well as the defendant's lawyer costs, etc.

[JAB]

Still trying to figure how they charged this guy and expected a jury to convict, since it would seem easy to prove that one is in fear for their life when another person has their hands around their neck, unless there are some new laws of anatomy and physics I'm not aware of.

Based on some of the testimony by LEO that I read about in articles about the trial, there was no evidence that the defendant had been choked. There were no marks or even noticeable redness on his neck, etc. I don't think that LEO, the prosecution, etc. believed that he had been choked and, therefore, they didn't believe he acted in self defense. That said, the ballistics, shot trajectory and so on apparently did indicate that the deceased was leaning in the defendant's window when he was shot - lending credence to the 'self defense' claim.

Also the local scuttle is that Butcher was not very well liked in Tellico Village in the first place.

Interesting. The 'local scuttle' I have heard was that it was the defendant, and not Butcher, who was seen as a trouble maker and not very well liked.

Here is a more detailed artical. In this one the DA is quoted also specifically mentioning the TN "Stand your ground" law. In this case in negative light. Although I am strongly in favor of the "Stand your ground" law, this time I think it went astray.

Yeah, I saw where the DA was quoted as saying the 'stand your ground' law makes it difficult for prosecutors in TN to dispute a self defense claim and so on because it puts such a heavy burden of proof on the prosecution. Personally, to me that just sounds like a DA trying to justify why his side lost a fairly high-profile (locally) case that he probably initially thought was a 'slam dunk' win for his side.

In all honesty, I don't buy that the 'stand your ground' law has that much of an impact beyond forcing prosecutors in such cases to try the cases in the same manner that ALL criminal cases should be tried. After all, innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the rule, not the exception. Therefore, the burden to prove that the defendant is criminally liable for his or her actions should always be in place. I don't see how 'stand your ground' laws change that. All 'stand your ground' laws do is make it harder for a prosecutor to convict a would-be victim of violent crime simply because that would-be victim didn't try to run away before using deadly force on the assailant. If the prosecution couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then what role could 'stand your ground' have played other than preventing the prosecution from claiming the defendant had some duty to flee? I don't see any, real role other than the DA needs a scapegoat to explain why it wasn't the prosecution's fault they lost the case.

Edited September 24, 2012 by JAB

[TMF]

Based on some of the testimony by LEO that I read about in articles about the trial, there was no evidence that the defendant had been choked. There were no marks or even noticeable redness on his neck, etc. I don't think that LEO, the prosecution, etc. believed that he had been choked and, therefore, they didn't believe he acted in self defense.

Exactly. The issue here is that there is no way a jury is going to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't choked. With no witnesses it would be hard to prove one way or the other, so the burden lies with the prosecution. They had to of been high to think they'd get a conviction. More so, they were stupid to think they'd get a plea deal on an older man like this, as it doesn't matter if he pled to 1st or 2nd degree murder, as either sentence would equate to the rest of his life in jail, making any plea deals to lessen the charge moot.