Dollywood Discussion Thread

[DirkFunk]

There's no chance the prosecutors would go with 1st degree murder. 1st degree requires specific intent to murder the individual; that's not the case here at all. Reckless manslaughter is infinitely more likely.

[STDog]

1st degree requires specific intent to murder the individual

 

Not in TN it doesn't. Read the statute. I coped item a.2, relevant to this case.(i also liked a source).

 

Intent to cause death is not required for a.2 or a.3, the statute even says that (b). You only have to meet intent of the predicate felony, arson (one of the enumerated felonies in a.2).

 

Throwing lit matches in a dry forest (recall the burn ban in effect) is clear intent.

 

This is what I mentioned before, I just missed it was 1st degree.

You burn a building that was supposed to be empty and it turns out someone was in it. You didn't intend to kill anyone, but it's still murder in the 1st.

 

It also used on accomplices. Two guys rob a place. One if them kills simeone. The other, who never intended to kill, still gets murder 1.

[MidwestThemeParks]

Just as a disclaimer, all of my knowledge is mostly in reference to Illinois law and how we do things locally. In Illinois, Aggravated Arson is usually when someone knowingly and intentionally sets fire to an occupied area or structure. A homicide could be the result of an aggravated arson, but I believe being charged with 'both' would be considered double jeopardy in that case.

 

Under the fifth amendment (double jeopardy clause), it says that a person can't be charged twice for the same crime. So if someone was charged with arson and found innocent in court, they wouldn't be able to be charged for arson again in that crime even if more evidence showed up.

 

The part of the amendment that provides for this reads:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

 

So, I think that he could be charged with homicide and aggravated arson, but if he was found innocent, he couldn't be charged again.

[DirkFunk]

1st degree requires specific intent to murder the individual

 

Not in TN it doesn't. Read the statute. I coped item a.2, relevant to this case.(i also liked a source).

 

I read it. No one is going to charge kids with 1st degree murder for starting a fire miles away because there was no intent to burn those specific homes down. It won't happen.

[STDog]

But under the law it could.

 

And has in similar cases, fire spread to other areas.

 

The real hindrance is the age of the offenders. But both could be charged in juvenile court. The 17 yr old might see adult charges.

 

And remember, being charged is not being convicted. The jury may not convict on murder 1, just going for arson.,

[DirkFunk]

But under the law it could.

 

And has in similar cases, fire spread to other areas.

 

That's exactly why it won't happen. The intent of the arson was not to likely to burn down hundreds of homes/businesses or endanger anyone, much less those specific individuals and those specific homes and businesses. They'd have to prove that was the intent, and the manner in which the fire spread makes that impossible. That's what separates 1st degree felonies from other ones.

 

On the other hand, let's look at involuntary manslaughter:

 

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/tennessee-law/tennessee-involuntary-manslaughter-laws.html

 

"Reckless homicide is causing another person's death because of reckless actions (other than a vehicle), and criminally negligent homicide is causing the death of another person because of a criminally negligent conduct."

[STDog]

The intent of the arson was not to likely to burn down hundreds of homes/businesses or endanger anyone, much less those specific individuals and those specific homes and businesses. They'd have to prove that was the intent, and the manner in which the fire spread makes that impossible. That's what separates 1st degree felonies from other ones.

 

No, they only have to prove intent on the arson. The resulting death does not require any intent to harm or kill. Doesn't matter how far the fire spread.

 

 

I can't find them right now, but I recall cases where a wildfire spread to homes and murder was charged.

 

If the fire had been started by a 20-30 something, they would be charged. It's only the age of these two that's causing hesitation.

[bluestreak]

This is the most intelligent talk that's happened on here in a long time... and that's why I'm staying out of it.

[Djwadeknox]

Both kids have lawyers that are the ones you go to when in deep trouble. They are pretty good at getting guilty folks off. They also started the fires far away and someone said since the park service didn't go full out on the fire the first couples of days that they could say it should not have ever gotten that big. As for me I want to see them under the jail for a long time, but this one will not be a clean open and shut case. I'm been born and raised in the shadow of these hills and they will probably ask for a move of trail due to getting a fair shot.

[DirkFunk]

The intent of the arson was not to likely to burn down hundreds of homes/businesses or endanger anyone, much less those specific individuals and those specific homes and businesses. They'd have to prove that was the intent, and the manner in which the fire spread makes that impossible. That's what separates 1st degree felonies from other ones.

 

No, they only have to prove intent on the arson.

 

Arson, by definition, is a destructive fire set by intent. What separates arson (misdemenor or arson) from 14 counts of first degree murder is the INTENT of the arson. If the intent of the arson is to burn down all of those specific homes and businesses, then yes, there is the possibility that they might get first degree. However, first degree is highly specific on intent. A wildfire, by its nature, are not going to get them charged with first degree murder. There would need to be a lot to go with it, and it would be a risky move by the prosecution only worthwhile if they were seeking the death penalty. Tennessee doesn't execute juveniles.

 

I can't find them right now, but I recall cases where a wildfire spread to homes and murder was charged.

 

I googled it: there's two for historical precedent, both in California. One had a massive wrap sheet, the other had set something like 25 fires to get this going. Similarly, jurors also have acquitted people convicted of arson in wildfire deaths of even second degree murder. It is not an easy argument to make and given that the individuals are juveniles, extremely unlikely. Manslaughter, on the other hand, is an easy conviction to obtain.

[prozach626]

Guys, there's no need to argue over it. Many factors will go into the decision for the charges. All of the law information is available. Why not just wait and see?

[STDog]

It is not an easy argument to make and given that the individuals are juveniles, extremely unlikely.

 

On that we agree. The juvenile status makes it unlikely, particularly for the 15yr old.

 

But I stand by the letter of the law that the setting the fire is the only intent required. where it spread to doesn't matter.

If they weren't kids I guaranty murder charges (not convictions) would be coming.

 

If one had intended to burn one house and it spread to the whole neighborhood and killed someone, then it's felony murder, a.2 in the TN statute for 1st degree murder. The same section that covers other deaths in the commission of felonies like rape and robbery.

Check out a.3, if you set off a bomb, for any reason, and some one dies it's 1st degree murder.

 

Either way, the trials won't start for years.

 

They also started the fires far away and someone said since the park service didn't go full out on the fire the first couples of days that they could say it should not have ever gotten that big.

 

How far it spreads isn't a factor in the law. Winds can carry embers miles away like here. You are still responsible for what happens.

 

I saw the speculation on blaming the park service. It's hooey, they went after it like any other fire. They used the resources available to contain it. Anyone with experience in fighting wildfires will confirm how they are dealt with. This isn't a brush fire on a farm that's completely out in a hour or two.

Edited December 11, 2016 by STDog

[djcoastermark]

From seeing what goes on in a lot of court rooms, facts and laws be damned, it is going to boil down to the best lawyer that money can buy in the courtroom. I've seen it too many times.

[STDog]

it is going to boil down to the best lawyer that money can buy in the courtroom.

 

And if you believe trial science (ala Bull) even the lawyer is minor.

 

We'll see in a year or 3, when this goes to trial.

[DoinItForTheFame]

All this legal talk got me like...

 

 

Anywho, speaking of Dollywood, am I the only one super excited for Drop Line?? It's just what the park has been needing! A nice, solid drop tower! Can't wait to try it out next season!!

[STDog]

I'm hoping the drop tower surprises me.

 

Not overly enthused by the specs.

[STDog]

I guess no one here has been to the area yet? No reports for Fri or Sat.

[mordecai-75]

I'm hoping the drop tower surprises me.

 

Not overly enthused by the specs.

Better than what's going to Hershey imo.

[dstephe9]

I guess no one here has been to the area yet? No reports for Fri or Sat.

I went up Friday afternoon.. Business as usual on the strip, haven't been up in the mountains yet. It was actually fairly crowded when I was up there.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[STDog]

I guess no one here has been to the area yet? No reports for Fri or Sat.

I went up Friday afternoon.. Business as usual on the strip, haven't been up in the mountains yet. It was actually fairly crowded when I was up there.

 

Good to hear. was worried people would be slow to return.

[DoinItForTheFame]

I'm hoping the drop tower surprises me.

 

Not overly enthused by the specs.

 

How does a 200ft tall drop tower not make you enthusiastic??

 

I mean, it could be an 80ft tall tower like SDC got.

[coasterbill]

I don't get that either. Honestly it'll be worth riding for the view alone. People rave about the view on Wild Eagle, this will be the same height and offer a view in all directions for a longer period of time. What's not to love?

[STDog]

How does a 200ft tall drop tower not make you enthusiastic??

 

I mean, it could be an 80ft tall tower like SDC got.

 

It's only 200ft. Better than 80 sure, but 350-400 would have been nicer.

Having done 180ft starting 920ft in the air looking at Vegas, 200ft isn't much thrill.

And several ~200ft Space Shots

 

I drive past a 140ft S&S space shot 5 days a week. Rode it a few times and even with the view of a Saturn V rocket and a Space Shuttle the ride didn't impress.

 

Honestly it'll be worth riding for the view alone. People rave about the view on Wild Eagle, this will be the same height and offer a view in all directions for a longer period of time. What's not to love?

 

Sure great view though it won't clear WE with the hills, but you will have the view longer.

I'd love 350 ft a lot more.

 

Don't get me wrong I'll ride it. Especially when the lines are long.

I rode the original Freefall at Magic Mountain in the mid 80s and had a blast, but I was ~12 at the time.

 

Between WE and LR I was hoping for a bit more wild/extreme.

[coasterbill]

I'd love 350 ft a lot more.

 

Yeah, but you can't judge rides like that or you'll never be satisfied with anything... "Top Thrill Dragster? I mean... it's okay, but I'd love 800 feet a lot more". I mean, I've ridden Zumanjaro, Falcon's Fury, the towers at KD and KI, Lex Luthor and a ton of other huge drop rides but my favorites are Demon Drop (131 feet) and StraosFEAR at Knoebels (148 feet) so personally I think there's a lot more to these rides than height. Plus all drop towers are fun regardless of height, I don't think I've ever ridden one that I didn't like. I'm sure I'll even like this stupid crap that Hershey is building.

[dstephe9]

I guess no one here has been to the area yet? No reports for Fri or Sat.

I went up Friday afternoon.. Business as usual on the strip, haven't been up in the mountains yet. It was actually fairly crowded when I was up there.

 

Good to hear. was worried people would be slow to return.

This time of year it gets fairly slow in Gatlinburg anyways.. most stores are about to go to their winter hours (meaning a lot will close at 6).. Some will close all together for "renovation" (I feel some just say that to save labor money by not opening at all in the winter and just pay rent)

 

So for a Friday afternoon all seemed normal crowds wise.. wish I could have stayed later or went on Saturday when it's normally more crowded and get a better idea if crowds are lighter or not.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk