Kentucky - Judge killed, sheriff arrested in Letcher County courthouse shooting - Sep. 19, 2024 # 3

[Seattle1]

IMO, I don't think Stines defense is "extremely complicated" but that his attorney is going for nothing short of jury nullification -- going on the media circuit and insisting Stines case be tried in Letcher County!

I dunno... perhaps the locals can ignore that the defendant shot an unarmed man dead, and made certain the victim was dead before he walked away from the room.

Also, Stines showed no concern that his wife and daughter were in imminent danger when he took time go out to lunch and deliver food boxes-- all prior to returning to Mullins' Chambers to shoot him dead.

I don't see how Bartley can push this narrative without making the victim here out to be a very dirty man with mafia boss power to harm Stines and his family. Sorry, I'm not buying it. MOO



https://x.com/CourtTV

Court TV
@CourtTV

Former Sheriff Shawn 'Mickey' Stines' attorney said he believed his family was in 'imminent danger' when he killed Judge Kevin Mullins.

'It's extremely complicated': Sheriff Stines' attorney on deadly shooting

From courttv.com

9:12 AM · Mar 12, 2025

 

[azure]

I find myself trying to tease apart a situation where Stines' wife and child were in credible danger from an outsider, yet his wife chose to kick Stines out of the house. The only 'danger' that comes to mind is a threat to Stines' marriage, which certainly doesn't justify taking a life.

Also if I may introduce a bit of legal pedantry to the thread, Stines' wife couldn't legally kick him out of the house. Even if he wasn't on the deed, it's overwhelmingly likely he's a legal tenant and would have needed to be evicted through the proper channels. This unless there was a restraining order against Stines or LE told him to leave as he posed a threat to someone in the home. Certainly a sheriff would know this. So that tells me Stines agreed to leave. Could that imply that Stines was somehow in the wrong, even if he was simply paranoid? It's food for thought.

 

[jepop]

Just a theory: Stines knew the cameras were recording --yes, I believe this is correct !

He of all people would know the layout and the security cameras of that courthouse.
In his own mind-- maybe he thinks that the motive behind Mullins' murder was so extremely damning.... that he felt he might 'walk' or be sentenced to a short term, once he (Stines) reveals his motive ?
As in a situation or past action on the part of Mullins, that would constitute a valid defense for the murder; which I'm not buying as a possible defense.
Nope.
Imo, it's not going to work that way, Stines.

Hmmm...
What do you all think ?

Still believe Stines needs to face the full brunt of the law, regardless of his reasoning.
If a perp is actively breaking and entering or attempting to assault/kidnap your loved one & you give him the business end of your handgun or clobber him with a vase or golf club -- your case may be a reasonable self-defense.

If someone did what you felt was a criminal act and you wait, & don't report it to anyone, and then kill him in the manner Stines did, you might not be so lucky no matter what went before.
Not saying judge Mullins did anything egregious, as we do not know yet.
But Stines did not have the right to be the judge/jury/executioner.

I'm leaning towards Stines 'silencing' Mullins about something Stines thinks will validate his actions -- that has yet to be revealed.
One can think of various criminal actions or professional disagreements that escalated or something; still, not an excuse.
It's not like Stines didn't know he could go through legal channels over whatever he thinks is a defense.
Omo.

Still think it's possible Mullins knew something on Stines. Just one possibility, not that we would ever necessarily find out about it, if that were to be the case. I know this can't be proven. But I do wonder if the prosecution is looking into that angle. Just one idea and not saying I believe this without some sort of proof. Moo

 

[Seattle1]

Motion filed for examination in Mickey Stines’ case

In the letter, it said the prosecution had no objection to Stines’ request to have the defense expert present as an observer during his evaluation at KCPC.

www.wymt.com

3/12/25

 

[Kemug]

Also if I may introduce a bit of legal pedantry to the thread, Stines' wife couldn't legally kick him out of the house. Even if he wasn't on the deed, it's overwhelmingly likely he's a legal tenant and would have needed to be evicted through the proper channels. This unless there was a restraining order against Stines or LE told him to leave as he posed a threat to someone in the home. Certainly a sheriff would know this. So that tells me Stines agreed to leave. Could that imply that Stines was somehow in the wrong, even if he was simply paranoid? It's food for thought.

RSBM
Do we know definitely that LE did not order him to leave his home? Perhaps he had threatened someone, maybe his wife? And she called LE to remove him? He would probably see that as his wife chucking him out of the home. And perhaps Mullins was involved in his removal.

 

[LadyL]

IMO, I don't think Stines defense is "extremely complicated" but that his attorney is going for nothing short of jury nullification -- going on the media circuit and insisting Stines case be tried in Letcher County!

I dunno... perhaps the locals can ignore that the defendant shot an unarmed man dead, and made certain the victim was dead before he walked away from the room.

Also, Stines showed no concern that his wife and daughter were in imminent danger when he took time go out to lunch and deliver food boxes-- all prior to returning to Mullins' Chambers to shoot him dead.

I don't see how Bartley can push this narrative without making the victim here out to be a very dirty man with mafia boss power to harm Stines and his family. Sorry, I'm not buying it. MOO



https://x.com/CourtTV

Court TV
@CourtTV

Former Sheriff Shawn 'Mickey' Stines' attorney said he believed his family was in 'imminent danger' when he killed Judge Kevin Mullins.

'It's extremely complicated': Sheriff Stines' attorney on deadly shooting

From courttv.com

9:12 AM · Mar 12, 2025

deliver food boxes?
what is that referencing please?

 

[Seattle1]

deliver food boxes?
what is that referencing please?

See the Court TV YouTube video analysis link "following lunch."

The guest tells host Vinnie Politan that Mickey Stines and Michael Clark (local Preacher) were delivering food boxes to the community --a normal charitable event here. Minutes later, Stines enters the Courthouse and shoots the victim, Judge Mullins.

Since OP is having technical issues linking any of the Court TV footage being described, here's both Monday's 'live' video link and also YouTube uploaded today, 3/11/25:

Vinnie Politan Investigates Episodes | Court TV

In this weekday series, Vinnie Politan looks at every angle of cases making headlines.

www.courttv.com

Video Analysis: Judge Kevin Mullins' Shooting | Vinnie Politan Investigates​

 

[Seattle1]

Still think it's possible Mullins knew something on Stines. Just one possibility, not that we would ever necessarily find out about it, if that were to be the case. I know this can't be proven. But I do wonder if the prosecution is looking into that angle. Just one idea and not saying I believe this without some sort of proof. Moo

I think there could be some truth to Mullins knowing something about Stines. Having read the deposition of Stines, I think what became clear is that Stines was grossly under- qualified for the role of County Sheriff but he was easily elected by his community. By under-qualified, I mean that Stines received no formal police training during his entire career and was even grandfathered from security training while serving as bailiff at the Courthouse for more than 14 years prior to running for Letcher County Sheriff! IMO, former Deputy Fields seemed the better fit for Sheriff-- and probably why Stines hired him (and/or had him hired as his deputy by the outgoing Sheriff). Of course, this was before Fields was known to be a convicted sexual offender. JMO

 

[azure]

RSBM
Do we know definitely that LE did not order him to leave his home? Perhaps he had threatened someone, maybe his wife? And she called LE to remove him? He would probably see that as his wife chucking him out of the home. And perhaps Mullins was involved in his removal.

We know very little at this point.

 

[Rosiebones]

If it was becoming more apparent to those around him that he was was behaving more strangely, that medical intervention wasn't pursued. It doesn't make sense to me that he would be removed from his home by LE or kicked out by his wife with no next step identified as to treatment or intervention like a 72 hour psychiatric hold etc.
An individual who is recognized to be acting paranoid and strange is suddenly out of familiar surroundings and routines. Why are folks so surprised by the outcome. MOO MOO MOO

 

[Sarg]

I still think this has something to do with his daughter....Inappropriate relations with the judge...

What would make someone snap like that?? This is the only thing I (as a parent) can think of...not justifying what he did it...just all I can come up with.

 

[tlcya]

Bringing this link back up front since the conversation has returned to Stines being asked to leave the family home indicating possible domestic problems.

discussed at the 1:58 mark

 

[PrairieWind]

tlcya I commented about Mullins smoking on our live stream. it was so strange to see someone smoke inside a government building. That has to be against the law right?
The fact that he lit up in a small crowded room speaks volumes to me.

I was going to make a joke that maybe in regards to the smoking that Sheriff Stines had just had ENOUGH of this lawless behavior and gunned him down for it. Just kidding of course. Of course that isn't what led to this. But let me say this: I practice law out here in the western interior, and am in lots of courthouses in rural counties out here. You would never see anyone smoking in the courthouse like this. And these are real "Don't Tread On Me" counties. It just doesn't happen. So seeing the Judge do this and no one even bats an eye, could indicate some things to me. Clearly the Judge knew no one would object even though it is forbidden and illegal. He kind of did what he wanted. Is this evidence of his ability to intimidate others? Now, I don't want this to be taken as victim blaming. But the activities of the Judge do seem to be directly related to the killing.

 

[Leilei]

I still think this has something to do with his daughter....Inappropriate relations with the judge...

What would make someone snap like that?? This is the only thing I (as a parent) can think of...not justifying what he did it...just all I can come up with.

The family stated long ago that there were no inappropriate relations between Mullins and Stine's daughter. Their statement was on their funding page.
IMO.

 

[tlcya]

so far we've seen a judge smoking in a government building. Is it appropriate? No. But I'm not ready to climb aboard the "well he broke that rule so he must be a guy who breaks other rules and engages in activities that are directly related to his murder" train. JMO

And I agree with you Leilei, the family did indeed say that and so did Mickey Stines' defense attorney all the way back in October:

Despite questioning during a preliminary hearing that fueled rumors about former sheriff Shawn “Mickey” Stines’s daughter, his defense attorneys now say they have seen no evidence of an improper relationship between her and Judge Kevin R. Mullins.
[snip]
“ There’s a lot of wild speculation at this point,” attorney Kerri Bartley said. “There is nothing we’ve seen that would substantiate that claim.”
Attorneys cannot cite any evidence defining a motive in judge’s murder - The Mountain Eagle

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[Lorenathered]

so far we've seen a judge smoking in a government building. Is it appropriate? No. But I'm not ready to climb aboard the "well he broke that rule so he must be a guy who breaks other rules and engages in activities that are directly related to his murder" train. JMO

RSBM. As a smoker, thank you for being one of a handful of people who doesn't think my whole character should be put in question for my habit! Of all the cases I have followed, this has been the most unique because of the way people have responded to it. The only vile behavior we have on tape on record is that of Stines committing cold blooded murder. And yet, people seem to be bending over backwards to make the victim the villain to explain this away. All this is just my opinion on how this case is being looked at.

 

[jepop]

RSBM. As a smoker, thank you for being one of a handful of people who doesn't think my whole character should be put in question for my habit! Of all the cases I have followed, this has been the most unique because of the way people have responded to it. The only vile behavior we have on tape on record is that of Stines committing cold blooded murder. And yet, people seem to be bending over backwards to make the victim the villain to explain this away. All this is just my opinion on how this case is being looked at.

I've been an ex cigarette smoker for 8 years (though I only managed to quit by becoming a vaper. Have not given up nicotine or the pleasure of drawing back). I understand the addiction involved, the urge to smoke at any given opportunity and the psychological factors involved. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. Jmo

 

[vls12345]

RSBM. As a smoker, thank you for being one of a handful of people who doesn't think my whole character should be put in question for my habit! Of all the cases I have followed, this has been the most unique because of the way people have responded to it. The only vile behavior we have on tape on record is that of Stines committing cold blooded murder. And yet, people seem to be bending over backwards to make the victim the villain to explain this away. All this is just my opinion on how this case is being looked at.

Exactly. I remain flummoxed that Stines murdered an unarmed, unresisting sitting judge in cold blood on camera, yet some people want to think Stines was in the right/had a "reason" and/or try to find ways to throw shade (or worse) on the judge. It's been six months since the murder and other than a few unsubstantiated rumors early on (which were denied by Stines' own family), nothing has become public that implicates the judge in wrongdoing.

Wonder how many times Stines (and his defenders) have driven over the speed limit in their lives? That's "breaking a rule" and is also illegal. Or how about murdering a judge? Guess what? That's illegal too.

I feel sorry for Judge Mullins and his loved ones, friends, and colleagues. I also feel badly for Stines' loved ones, friends, and colleagues. They are the victims in this case. Not Stines, who is currently sitting in jail while he awaits trial for murder.

MOO.

 

[PrairieWind]

RSBM. As a smoker, thank you for being one of a handful of people who doesn't think my whole character should be put in question for my habit! Of all the cases I have followed, this has been the most unique because of the way people have responded to it. The only vile behavior we have on tape on record is that of Stines committing cold blooded murder. And yet, people seem to be bending over backwards to make the victim the villain to explain this away. All this is just my opinion on how this case is being looked at.

I smoked for a bit as well. And the demonization of smokers is something I never understood. Yes, we all know it is very bad for your health. But it doesn't mean smokers are bad people. Although here in Colorado, we see the same groups that moved to ban tobacco smoking now excusing weed smoke. It is strange.
But, my point was that we are long passed a point where smoking in a public building isn't allowed. But the Judge did it anyway. Why? In the one video he is clearly having a meeting with other officials about something, an official meeting. They have to be there. And yet the judge lights a cigarette. Now, this in and of itself is just a misdemeanor issue, just a fine at best. But it shows an attitude. Not just that "i can smoke in my office if want" but that "I can make all these people be in my office and smoke and they can't do anything about it."
The lawyer's comments make it clear this had been brewing over the last couple years and was coming to head with the depo. It involved other people and the Sheriff had been receiving threats about what he might reveal.
I still have a lot of questions here. Some are very concrete questions that I don't understand why we don't have answers to yet. There was something very serious going on here beyond the previous lawsuit and it clearly involved the Judge and threats to the Sheriff.