Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 2

[Friday Fan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1842271556174574017

The article states eight rounds.

I thought I added up the rounds and got four or five, but my source was my own brain (well, fingers from adding up the number numerous articles provided piecemeal. )

 

[AugustWest]

Would the defendant would have to sign a letter of engagement?

Not legally (at least where I practice), but it is always a good idea. Most lawyers I know have clients sign letters of engagement that spell out things like scope of employment, fees, who the lawyer represents, etc....

 

[bestill]

Not legally (at least where I practice), but it is always a good idea. Most lawyers I know have clients sign letters of engagement that spell out things like scope of employment, fees, who the lawyer represents, etc....

Thank you, @AugustWest!

 

[rogue ant]

And fully prepared to accept the consequences. I tend to agree. It seems like his mindset is one of “I’m just going to man up, and come what may, I’ll take it.” Moo.

"Man up"? Not by my standards but ok.

 

[Parsnip]

"Man up"? Not by my standards but ok.

This seems like a petty interpretation of my post. I was trying to figure out a mindset that would square with the facts that we have. It may not be my mindset or yours, but it could be MS’s. IMO.

 

[worm]

Again, just trying to understand MS’s mindset.

We see this with murder-suicide and domestic murder where “throwing it all away” doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

"Man up"? Not by my standards but ok.

Does not have to be by anyone’s standards, other than trying to understand the possible mindset of another- it’s a possible narrative- not a rationalization or justification of the actions- MOO

 

[OldAce]

Not unusual at all, ime. The Sheriff’s department protects the courthouse. They have access to all of the rooms, as well as video footage.

Note to self.. Stop the cameras before firing the fatal shots....

 

[weedemout]

Does anyone know if the Killer's family has been in court to support him?

 

[acehard]

Note to self.. Stop the cameras before firing the fatal shots....

Note to self... Don't kill people! This was nothing short of an execution. It should be a death penalty case based on what we know so far.

 

[acehard]

Does anyone know if the Killer's family has been in court to support him?

Yes wife and daughter were behind him in court

 

[Tricia]

Here is just a little nugget that may mean nothing or it may mean the defense attorney is trying to change the narrative.
It has been reported all over mainstream media that the Sheriff said two things after he walked out of the judge's chambers and surrendered. He said, "Treat me fair," and "They're trying to kidnap my wife and kid." Yet when the defense lawyer was interviewed on Crime Fix from the Law and Crime Network, the defense attorney said, "And you take that in companion with the statement that our client felt like his wife AND (BBM) his daughter was in danger, then we think there is certainly something there that is going to support our contention that Mr. Stines felt as though he had to act."
That's not what the sheriff said. He said, "They're trying to kidnap my wife and daughter." I know I am splitting hairs, but maybe not.
Listen to the video starting at @17:05

 

[Harriett_Eva]

That's not what the sheriff said. He said, "They're trying to kidnap my wife and daughter." I know I am splitting hairs, but maybe not.

I’ll admit, I’m slow on the uptake and ignorant -

I don’t see the difference or distinction that is being made- if my family was at imminent risk of being kidnapped, I would label that as being in danger… can you clarify?

 

[Friday Fan]

I’ll admit, I’m slow on the uptake and ignorant -

I don’t see the difference or distinction that is being made- if my family was at imminent risk of being kidnapped, I would label that as being in danger… can you clarify?

I think the defense is gonna base his defense based on how he "felt" as opposed to "facts".

They literally state, "The statute is our client's subjective feelings. Everyone wants to know the objective why" "But the important thing for the trial is what did our client believe". Beginning at 17:45

MOO: With that kind of attitude anyone can get away with murdering anyone!

I'm certainly not Tricia, but I watched that shooting video and listened to the defense attorneys the other day...
I didn't mention the video because I didn't know if it was a WS approved source.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

I think the defense is gonna base his defense based on how he "felt" as opposed to "facts".

Ok thanks - that makes sense- didn’t see that at first glance

 

[OldAce]

What in the world did he mean by someone was "trying to kidnap his wife and kid"!? Was it said in the context of being an analogy? What would be that analogy?

"Stamper testified Stines requested to see the judge’s phone and then attempted to call his daughter from Mullins’s phone."

Stines tried to call his daughter's phone from the judge's phone (did the judge have her number in his phone!?) and seconds later stood up and shot him dead. And LE hasn't confiscated the daughter's phone yet!? Why ever not?

"Stamper testified based on preliminary information, the judge arranged a private meeting in his chambers with Stines."

It was the judge who asked Stines in for a private meeting in his chambers?

As you can see, I'm totally confused by this article. Wow, just Wow.

"Stamper testified Stines requested to see the judge’s phone and then attempted to call his daughter from Mullins’s phone"
With no audio, how is Stamper able/allowed to testify such a statement?

 

[Friday Fan]

"Stamper testified Stines requested to see the judge’s phone and then attempted to call his daughter from Mullins’s phone"
With no audio, how is Stamper able/allowed to testify such a statement?

Stamper is simply repeating what Stines told him. Stamper isn't verifying whether the defendant's statement is true or false. In this context, he's basically parroting police procedure (the intake interview) as opposed to analyzing truth of defendant's statements etc. They still need to analyze the phones etc. And this is a probable cause hearing, not a trial. The prosecution is only going to show the minimal amount of evidence (not show all of their cards) in order to advance the case.

 

[Harriett_Eva]

See:

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19717
https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=55439

Ok I guess I’m still very much not a lawyer (for lots of good reasons) but per the KY statutes- isn’t the “extreme emotional disturbance” caveat specifically about the defendant’s perspective and therefore implied how one “felt” or believed the situation to be vs objectively outside looking in? It seems to be an “inside looking out” situation- and understanding what the accused believes to be true … I could just be incredibly ignorant and obtuse on this… but it looks like to me, in my unprofessional understanding that a jury could say that if they were in similar situations there could be a reasonable explanation for the actions if they believed to be true what the accused believed to be true… if a jury of his peers believes it to be justified, it looks like the state statute allows for that to be grounds for acquittal- and would be a likely and plausible defense argument

I personally don’t justify his actions- and I have no clue details on circumstances or what MS felt/believed to be true- trying to understand law/context

all moo and I could be totally wrong and misreading the statutes…

Per links above (bolding mine)
Section 507.020 - Murder
1. (a)
“…except that in any prosecution a person shall not be guilty under this subsection if he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be”