Conviction upheld for former Lexington student who had AR-15, threatened to shoot students

Jeremy Chisenhall
·4 min read

The Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a prior conviction for a man found guilty of threatening to shoot up a high school while he was a student in Lexington.

Timothy Felker, 21, was found guilty in 2019 of second-degree terroristic threatening after he made threats to shoot up Paul Laurence Dunbar High School and shoot certain students, according to court records. Lexington police investigated tips submitted about Felker, who was 18 at the time, and subsequently found an AR-15 and military grade ammunition in his bedroom.

Felker was convicted by a jury after being charged in 2018 for the threats he made while he was a senior at the school. His trial lasted four days and featured fellow students who testified to Felker’s threats. He was sentenced to a year and a half in prison.

But he appealed the conviction, arguing that a number of reversible errors had been made in court. The appeals court issued a unanimous decision in disagreement with him.

Felker in his appeal said the jury should’ve been instructed that they had the option to convict him on lesser charges of third-degree terroristic threatening or harassment, according to court records.

Felker argued that the difference between second and third-degree terroristic threatening was whether or not the threatened action would take place at a school. His defense argued that because threats were made to shoot certain students, the jury could’ve believed that the threat wasn’t tied to the school.

Felker also argued that harassment could’ve been applied as a lesser charge because students who testified in his trial said they couldn’t tell if his threats were legitimate or just jokes, according to court records.

But the appeals court maintained that evidence presented at trial showed Felker threatened to shoot up the school, which means the jury would have to tie the threat to the school.

“We do not believe a rational juror could find that Felker’s threats were unrelated to a school setting,” Judge Jeff S. Taylor wrote in the appeals court’s opinion.

The appeals court also felt harassment didn’t apply because the charge would’ve required additional evidence than what had already been gathered for the terroristic threatening charge.

“Harassment requires proof of facts that are not required for second-degree terroristic threatening,” the court wrote in its denial of Felker’s appeal. “Notably, the facts must demonstrate that a defendant created a hostile environment at school to be guilty of harassment.”

In a statement, Fayette Commonwealth’s Attorney Lou Anna Red Corn said, “We agree with the Court of Appeals’

recognition that the legislature specifically intended to treat threats of violence against schools and students seriously, and we agree with the jury’s verdict that Felker’s actions showed his threats were intentionally made.”

She noted that because Felker was convicted of a felony, “he is prohibited from having a firearm in the future.”

Felker also objected to the prosecution’s closing argument, in which prosecutors told the jury that Felker was guilty for threatening to shooting up the school or shoot individual students regardless of whether or not he intended to do it. Felker argued that it wasn’t illegal if the comments were made jokingly or in jest. The appeals court disagreed.

The appeals court did agree with Felker on one issue. Felker argued that the circuit court shouldn’t have allowed the jury to consider “highly prejudicial” testimony from his mother, in which she compared her son to Nikolas Cruz, the man charged with killing 17 people in a shooting at Marjorie Stone Douglas High School in Parkland, Fl.

The appeals court stated that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing the testimony to be considered, but the appellate judges didn’t find the testimony to be significant in the jury’s decision.

“The error was harmless,” Taylor wrote in the court’s opinion, stating that Jill Felker’s comparison between Timothy Felker and Nikolas Cruz lasted only a few minutes, and she also testified that she didn’t think her son had any intention of shooting up a school.

Felker was sentenced in August 2019. A petition for a re-hearing would be due by May 6, according to court records.

Recommended Stories

  • Jury recommends life in prison for Yust, convicted of killing two women in Cass County

    A jury on Friday recommended life in prison for Yust. The sentencing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. June 7.

  • Miami-area woman held by feds after making videos threatening to kill VP Kamala Harris

    A longtime nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital has been charged in Miami federal court with making threats to kill Vice President Kamala Harris, which she recorded in a series of videos she sent to her husband in prison.

  • Bulls star Zach LaVine to reportedly miss games after entering NBA's health and safety protocols

    The Bulls will reportedly lose their best player as they fight for a playoff spot.

  • Years after 3 Lancaster men were killed and a woman shot, 2 men convicted of murder

    The convictions were for a killing and shooting in 2014, and a double murder in 2018.

  • Epstein's accusers can't challenge plea agreement shielding accomplices -ruling

    A federal appeals court rejected a challenge by a Jeffrey Epstein accuser to an agreement not to prosecute the financier, and to shield his associates from criminal liability for aiding his sexual abuses. By a 7-4 vote, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Thursday that Courtney Wild and other accusers lacked standing under the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act to disturb Epstein's 2007 nonprosecution agreement, though they had been kept in the dark while it was being negotiated. Judges in the majority said they were "constrained" to rule against Wild, despite having "the profoundest sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein's hands, only to be left in the dark - and, so it seems, affirmatively misled - by government attorneys."

  • Jessica Mann, Key Witness in Harvey Weinstein Trial, Gives First Interview Since His Conviction

    Jessica Mann, one of the key witnesses from Harvey Weinstein’s criminal trial, is speaking out for the first time since he was convicted in 2020. Mann — whose testimony was the basis for Weinstein’s rape conviction — shared her story in the courtroom, but has never given a media interview, up until now. In the […]

  • Helen McCrory’s Film & TV Career: A Photo Gallery

    Helen McCrory, who died of cancer on Friday at age 52, blazed during a multi-decade career in film, TV and onstage, with memorable roles including playing the lead in the Channel 4/Masterpiece Theatre miniseries Anna Karenina, portraying Narcissa Malfoy in three Harry Potter movies and most recently starring as Aunt Polly in Netflix and the […]

  • Officer involved in Breonna Taylor shooting lands book deal

    Post Hill Press to publish book by Sgt Jonathan Mattingly rejected by Simon & Schuster

  • Minnesota mayor blasts police tactics to control protesters

    Elected leaders in the Minneapolis suburb where a police officer fatally shot Daunte Wright want officers to scale back their tactics amid nightly protests, leaving some law enforcement called in to assist asking whether the city still wants their help. Hundreds of demonstrators have gathered outside the heavily guarded Brooklyn Center police station every night since former Officer Kim Potter, who is white, shot the 20-year-old Black motorist during a traffic stop on Sunday.

  • Idaho’s approach to school mental health was already scattered. Then COVID-19 hit

    “I don’t think I can overstate the urgency of this particular topic,” said Debbie Critchfield, president of the State Board of Education.

  • Wounded officer at Tennessee school not shot by student's gun

    A 17-year-old student was killed after a struggle over his gun.

  • Ocado gets on the road to self-driving delivery vans

    Ocado is investing £10m in a self-driving vehicle start-up as it seeks to build its own autonomous vans. The company first started working with Oxbotica in 2017 when it launched a two-week trial for grocery delivery in London. Ocado hopes to use some of the technology and software to eventually power self-driving vehicles in and around its depots, and even have robots drop off shopping in people’s homes. It said that early prototypes were expected within two years and the ultimate goal was to offer it to other major grocers around the world to reduce the costs of logistics. The race to use delivery robots for groceries on a larger scale is heating up. Retailers such as the Co-op have been testing them with a goal of using 300 of the robots by the end of the year. Several Tesco and Budgens stores in Milton Keynes also offer Starship deliveries. The rival firm was launched in 2014 by two Skype co-founders, Ahti Heinla and Janus Friis.

  • Man who smoked legal weed in Nevada now faces years in prison in Dubai, lawyer says

    “Peter potentially faces years in prison for legally smoking marijuana.”

  • Browns release veteran DT Richardson in salary-cap move

    This off-season remodeling of the Browns' defense includes a surprising removal. Veteran tackle Sheldon Richardson's contract was terminated on Friday, a head-scratching move that creates more salary-cap space but also a hole in the middle of Cleveland's defensive line. Days after adding free agent end Jadeveon Clowney, the Browns parted with Richardson, who started 16 games last season and played well for the team since signing a three-year, $37 million contract with Cleveland in 2019.

  • Rep. Tom Cotton: Russia bounty intel 'selectively leaked' to help Biden campaign

    U.S. intelligence backpedaled on reports of Russia placing bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers; reaction and analysis from Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., on ‘The Faulkner Focus.’

  • Derek Chauvin trial: 3 questions America needs to ask about seeking racial justice in a court of law

    A demonstration outside the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis on March 29, 2021, the day Derek Chauvin's trial began on charges he murdered George Floyd. Stephen Maturen/Getty ImagesThere is a difference between enforcing the law and being the law. The world is now witnessing another in a long history of struggles for racial justice in which this distinction may be ignored. Derek Chauvin, a 45-year-old white former Minneapolis police officer, is on trial for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter for the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American man. There are three questions I find important to consider as the trial unfolds. These questions address the legal, moral and political legitimacy of any verdict in the trial. I offer them from my perspective as an Afro-Jewish philosopher and political thinker who studies oppression, justice and freedom. They also speak to the divergence between how a trial is conducted, what rules govern it – and the larger issue of racial justice raised by George Floyd’s death after Derek Chauvin pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes. They are questions that need to be asked: 1. Can Chauvin be judged as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The presumption of innocence in criminal trials is a feature of the U.S. criminal justice system. And a prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of the defendant’s peers. The history of the United States reveals, however, that these two conditions apply primarily to white citizens. Black defendants tend to be treated as guilty until proved innocent. Racism often leads to presumptions of reasonableness and good intentions when defendants and witnesses are white, and irrationality and ill intent when defendants, witnesses and even victims are black. An activist watches the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin outside the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis on March 30, 2021. Kerem Yucel / AFP/via Getty Images Additionally, race affects jury selection. The history of all-white juries for black defendants and rarely having black jurors for white ones is evidence of a presumption of white people’s validity of judgment versus that of Black Americans. Doubt can be afforded to a white defendant in circumstances where it would be denied a black one. Thus, Chauvin, as white, could be granted that exculpating doubt despite the evidence shared before millions of viewers in a live-streamed trial. 2. What is the difference between force and violence? The customary questioning of police officers who harm people focuses on their use of what’s called “excessive force.” This presumes the legal legitimacy of using force in the first place in the specific situation. Violence, however, is the use of illegitimate force. As a result of racism, Black people are often portrayed as preemptively guilty and dangerous. It follows that the perceived threat of danger makes “force” the appropriate description when a police officer claims to be preventing violence. This understanding makes it difficult to find police officers guilty of violence. To call the act “violence” is to acknowledge that it is improper and thus falls, in the case of physical acts of violence, under the purview of criminal law. Once their use of force is presumed legitimate, the question of degree makes it nearly impossible for jurors to find officers guilty. Floyd, who was suspected of purchasing items from a store with a counterfeit bill, was handcuffed and complained of not being able to breathe when Chauvin pulled him from the police vehicle and he fell face down on the ground. Footage from the incident revealed that Chauvin pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds. Floyd was motionless several minutes in, and he had no pulse when Alexander Kueng, one of the officers, checked. Chauvin didn’t remove his knee until paramedics arrived and asked him to get off of Floyd so they could examine the motionless patient. If force under the circumstances is unwarranted, then its use would constitute violence in both legal and moral senses. Where force is legitimate (for example, to prevent violence) but things go wrong, the presumption is that a mistake, instead of intentional wrongdoing, occurred. An important, related distinction is between justification and excuse. Violence, if the action is illegitimate, is not justified. Force, however, when justified, can become excessive. The question at that point is whether a reasonable person could understand the excess. That understanding makes the action morally excusable. Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified, Court TV via AP, Pool 3. Is there ever excusable police violence? Police are allowed to use force to prevent violence. But at what point does the force become violence? When its use is illegitimate. In U.S. law, the force is illegitimate when done “in the course of committing an offense.” Sgt. David Pleoger, Chauvin’s former supervisor, stated in the trial: “When Mr. Floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint.” Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified, “To continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy.” He declared, “I vehemently disagree that that was an appropriate use of force.” That an act was deemed by prosecutors to be violent, defined as an illegitimate use of force resulting in death, is a necessary conclusion for charges of murder and manslaughter. Both require ill intent or, in legal terms, a mens rea (“evil mind”). The absence of a reasonable excuse affects the legal interpretation of the act. That the act was not preventing violence but was, instead, one of committing it, made the action inexcusable. The Chauvin case, like so many others, leads to the question: What is the difference between enforcing the law and imagining being the law? Enforcing the law means one is acting within the law. That makes the action legitimate. Being the law forces others, even law-abiding people, below the enforcer, subject to their actions. If no one is equal to or above the enforcer, then the enforcer is raised above the law. Such people would be accountable only to themselves. Police officers and any state officials who believe they are the law, versus implementers or enforcers of the law, place themselves above the law. Legal justice requires pulling such officials back under the jurisdiction of law. The purpose of a trial is, in principle, to subject the accused to the law instead of placing him, her, or them above it. Where the accused is placed above the law, there is an unjust system of justice. This article has been updated to correct the charges Chauvin is facing. [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Lewis R. Gordon, University of Connecticut. Read more:Derek Chauvin trial begins in George Floyd murder case: 5 essential reads on police violence against Black menPolice officers accused of brutal violence often have a history of complaints by citizensWhite supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US Lewis R. Gordon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

  • Prosecutor didn’t ‘fully inform himself’ before testifying Adam Toledo had gun

    A Cook County prosecutor who said in court the boy was armed when Chicago cops shot him is now backtracking. A prosecutor who said in court that 13-year-old Adam Toledo had a gun when he was shot by Chicago Police is now backtracking on his statement. Toledo was shot and killed in the early morning hours of March 29 while police were detaining a man, Ruben Roman, responding to a call of shots fired around 2:30 a.m.

  • Prince Philip’s funeral Saturday will be televised. Here’s how to watch in the US.

    The services for the Duke of Edinburgh will air across the globe. You can watch on television or stream it online.

  • Scott Disick puts 'pressure' on Kourtney Kardashian to consider marrying him in new 'KUWTK' video

    In a new preview for "Keeping Up With the Kardashians," Disick asked the Poosh founder about marriage, which her sisters thought would be "epic."

  • Former Trump NSA: 'No more important alliance' than Japan amid tension with China

    Former National Security Advisor under President Trump, Robert O'Brien, discusses Biden's response to tension with China and Russia.