-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: TheHandymanDave on 9/15/09
All the facts and evidence should be put on the table! when did it become law that only certain items be used as evidence, or is this a case of who it is, and not what it is? seems to me like it's becoming a sad world to live in
All the facts and evidence should be put on the table! when did it become law that only certain items be used as evidence, or is this a case of who it is, and not what it is? seems to me like it's becoming a sad world to live in
By: Bluesman on 9/15/09
Once again, our court system is for the accused not the victims.
Once again, our court system is for the accused not the victims.
By: bota on 9/15/09
"when did it become law that only certain items be used as evidence,"
It's been that way for as long as I can remember. For example I have been involved in trials where a person's past criminal record, even though it is a fact, cannot be presented to the Jury.
"when did it become law that only certain items be used as evidence,"
It's been that way for as long as I can remember. For example I have been involved in trials where a person's past criminal record, even though it is a fact, cannot be presented to the Jury.
By: Daggerrose on 9/15/09
FACTS FACTS FACTS
Give the jury FACTS thats what they are there for to sort out what is relevant and what is not. It matters not who is standing before his or her peers, however what really matters is that all the facts are presented and that alone will help JUSTICE to prevail. Imagine the town drunk using circumstances similar to this case to eliminate or disguise facts. Don't see that happening. God is no respecter of persons and neither is JUSTICE.
Remember that "Half truths are a whole LIE"
FACTS FACTS FACTS
Give the jury FACTS thats what they are there for to sort out what is relevant and what is not. It matters not who is standing before his or her peers, however what really matters is that all the facts are presented and that alone will help JUSTICE to prevail. Imagine the town drunk using circumstances similar to this case to eliminate or disguise facts. Don't see that happening. God is no respecter of persons and neither is JUSTICE.
Remember that "Half truths are a whole LIE"
By: cbeagle1 on 9/15/09
Outrageous!
Outrageous!
By: seven7 on 9/15/09
The only reason we know the facts in this case is because this happened before Murfreesboro decided that it would be best to keep all police reports closed to the public. In this here city, you only need to know what they want you to know. Guess that pertains to a jury as well.
The only reason we know the facts in this case is because this happened before Murfreesboro decided that it would be best to keep all police reports closed to the public. In this here city, you only need to know what they want you to know. Guess that pertains to a jury as well.
By: whizkid on 9/15/09
If alcohol was not present in Killings' system, why is he being charged? Wouldn't this be labeled just a tragic accident.
Wreckless homicide will be difficult to prove especially with no eye witnesses on a dark night.
If this had not been a officer of the law, I doubt anyone would have been prosecuted
If alcohol was not present in Killings' system, why is he being charged? Wouldn't this be labeled just a tragic accident.
Wreckless homicide will be difficult to prove especially with no eye witnesses on a dark night.
If this had not been a officer of the law, I doubt anyone would have been prosecuted
By: attagirl on 9/15/09
Jeez people, obviously none of you have any idea how a criminal prosecution works. It is quite common (and usually constitutionally mandated) that people charged with two crimes be tried separately when one crime has nothing to do with the other. If they are charging him with homicide, then the jury needs to hear only the facts relevant to the homicide.
Tests showed that alcohol played no part in the accident; therefore fairness dictates that the jury not hear facts about the bottle because it could prejudice them.
You people are perfect examples of that prejudice.
Jeez people, obviously none of you have any idea how a criminal prosecution works. It is quite common (and usually constitutionally mandated) that people charged with two crimes be tried separately when one crime has nothing to do with the other. If they are charging him with homicide, then the jury needs to hear only the facts relevant to the homicide.
Tests showed that alcohol played no part in the accident; therefore fairness dictates that the jury not hear facts about the bottle because it could prejudice them.
You people are perfect examples of that prejudice.
By: attagirl on 9/15/09
Also, as the judge rightly pointed out, the state had no evidence to prove that the bottle was relevant to the crime of homicide. If the judge had sided with the state and Killings was convicted, the appellate court would likely overturn the conviction.
Also, as the judge rightly pointed out, the state had no evidence to prove that the bottle was relevant to the crime of homicide. If the judge had sided with the state and Killings was convicted, the appellate court would likely overturn the conviction.
By: TimeforJustice on 9/15/09
With the few exceptions, obviously most of you have not one clue about which you speak. Try reading the rules of evidence and then get back to me. I am sure Judge Bragg has read them just a few more times than most of you. It has absolutely nothing to do with his name, Killings position, or the girls background. It has everything to do with the law. I jury is charged to consider only the RELEVANT facts and apply the law to those facts. A judge must determine the relevant facts based upon the rules of evidence. Instead of being critical and trying to make a conspiracy theory out of every living thing...try educating yourselves first. If you don't like the law or wish it changed call your legislator and get busy.
With the few exceptions, obviously most of you have not one clue about which you speak. Try reading the rules of evidence and then get back to me. I am sure Judge Bragg has read them just a few more times than most of you. It has absolutely nothing to do with his name, Killings position, or the girls background. It has everything to do with the law. I jury is charged to consider only the RELEVANT facts and apply the law to those facts. A judge must determine the relevant facts based upon the rules of evidence. Instead of being critical and trying to make a conspiracy theory out of every living thing...try educating yourselves first. If you don't like the law or wish it changed call your legislator and get busy.
By: parkerq on 9/15/09
It is almost like the people who commented did not even read the story just the headline except attagirl and justice.
It is almost like the people who commented did not even read the story just the headline except attagirl and justice.
By: mr.right on 9/16/09
There is no chain of custody on the evidence people. If any of you guilty until proved innocent people were in the same situation your attorney (if worth anything) would have gotten the bottles thrown out as well. Glad the judge decided to toss the bottles. (no pun intended)
There is no chain of custody on the evidence people. If any of you guilty until proved innocent people were in the same situation your attorney (if worth anything) would have gotten the bottles thrown out as well. Glad the judge decided to toss the bottles. (no pun intended)
By: Boo on 9/16/09
attagirl- My grandma told me once that I could keep my mouth shut and let people think me a fool, or open my mouth and remove all doubt. That's why I have kept my mouth shut here. I am so ignorant of how the system works, but I alway appreciate your posts because I always learn something from them. Justice- the same to you. I know nothing of the rules of evidence,( is that the same as "chain of evidence"?), that is why I have kept quiet. Thank you, also, for contributing to my education. I appreciate you both.
attagirl- My grandma told me once that I could keep my mouth shut and let people think me a fool, or open my mouth and remove all doubt. That's why I have kept my mouth shut here. I am so ignorant of how the system works, but I alway appreciate your posts because I always learn something from them. Justice- the same to you. I know nothing of the rules of evidence,( is that the same as "chain of evidence"?), that is why I have kept quiet. Thank you, also, for contributing to my education. I appreciate you both.
By: Newport1 on 9/16/09
Agreed Boo, but Attagirl could have left out "You People". If she is truly here to educate and not feel superior, she wouldn't patronize...
Agreed Boo, but Attagirl could have left out "You People". If she is truly here to educate and not feel superior, she wouldn't patronize...
By: enoughisenough on 9/16/09
Just a question for all the armchair attorneys. If you get pulled over by the police and there are beer cans in the back of your truck left over from the weekend, should you be convicted of DUI? You haven't been drinking that day, and have no alcohol in your system as proven by a hospital administered blood test. Should the possession of alcohol containers be evidenct of your guilt?
Now, put the names of the above case into this scenario. Is Officer Killings still guilty as you insist?
Just a question for all the armchair attorneys. If you get pulled over by the police and there are beer cans in the back of your truck left over from the weekend, should you be convicted of DUI? You haven't been drinking that day, and have no alcohol in your system as proven by a hospital administered blood test. Should the possession of alcohol containers be evidenct of your guilt?
Now, put the names of the above case into this scenario. Is Officer Killings still guilty as you insist?
By: attagirl on 9/16/09
You're right, newport, I was patronizing. I do tend to get that way sometimes, and I know I shouldn't. But I get frustrated when people make assumptions and accusations that are absolutely contrary to the law.
People who have no idea how the law works are so quick to condemn lawyers, and too many people believe all lawyers are crooks and evil people. That's a bitter pill for me to swallow, because I have sacrificed and donated so much of myself to people in need, and it causes me act patronizing sometimes. The heat and pressure I take for my profession gets heavy and I react like any human would.
You're right, newport, I was patronizing. I do tend to get that way sometimes, and I know I shouldn't. But I get frustrated when people make assumptions and accusations that are absolutely contrary to the law.
People who have no idea how the law works are so quick to condemn lawyers, and too many people believe all lawyers are crooks and evil people. That's a bitter pill for me to swallow, because I have sacrificed and donated so much of myself to people in need, and it causes me act patronizing sometimes. The heat and pressure I take for my profession gets heavy and I react like any human would.
By: attagirl on 9/16/09
You would just be violating the open container law, enoughisenough, but it would give the police probable cause to subject you to field sobriety tests and probably search your car, too.
You would just be violating the open container law, enoughisenough, but it would give the police probable cause to subject you to field sobriety tests and probably search your car, too.
By: enoughisenough on 9/16/09
But once you are proven to have NO alcohol in your system, all that you are guilty of is having empty beer cans-trash-in the back of your vehicle. Killings had no alcohol in his system, yet some people still want the containers to be a factor in his trial for homicide.
At what point will people begin to look at the facts and the law, and stop with the supposition and circumstance?
But once you are proven to have NO alcohol in your system, all that you are guilty of is having empty beer cans-trash-in the back of your vehicle. Killings had no alcohol in his system, yet some people still want the containers to be a factor in his trial for homicide.
At what point will people begin to look at the facts and the law, and stop with the supposition and circumstance?
By: attagirl on 9/16/09
You would still be guilty of violating the open container law. It is illegal to have open alcohol containers in your vehicle (but your passenger can have one).
You would still be guilty of violating the open container law. It is illegal to have open alcohol containers in your vehicle (but your passenger can have one).
By: Newport1 on 9/16/09
Understood attagirl, and I agree with you on many levels and generally appreciate the information. It is just better delivered in other ways. I hate to see you lose credibility due to frustration.
Understood attagirl, and I agree with you on many levels and generally appreciate the information. It is just better delivered in other ways. I hate to see you lose credibility due to frustration.
By: Boo on 9/16/09
OMG! My daughter and other nurses collect cans, including empty beer cans, to sell and donate the money to the childres's wing of the hospital where they work. Does this mean they are in trouble if they are stopped with these cans in the trunk? I thought the open container law meant that there had to liquor in the container. Again, I have learned something!
OMG! My daughter and other nurses collect cans, including empty beer cans, to sell and donate the money to the childres's wing of the hospital where they work. Does this mean they are in trouble if they are stopped with these cans in the trunk? I thought the open container law meant that there had to liquor in the container. Again, I have learned something!
By: attagirl on 9/16/09
Boo, I doubt seriously the police would arrest your daughter for beer cans in the trunk. First off, they're not in the passenger compartment. Second off, it would go against the spirit of the law, and I doubt even Murfreesboro cops are that cruel.
Boo, I doubt seriously the police would arrest your daughter for beer cans in the trunk. First off, they're not in the passenger compartment. Second off, it would go against the spirit of the law, and I doubt even Murfreesboro cops are that cruel.
By: enoughisenough on 9/16/09
Boo, that was the whole point I was trying to make. If there was no alcohol in Killing's system, hiding the bottles has NO impact on the Homicide trial. It only applies to the trial dealing with evidence tampering. These other people are trying to justify their conspiracy theories and are ignoring the facts of the case.
Boo, that was the whole point I was trying to make. If there was no alcohol in Killing's system, hiding the bottles has NO impact on the Homicide trial. It only applies to the trial dealing with evidence tampering. These other people are trying to justify their conspiracy theories and are ignoring the facts of the case.
By: Boo on 9/17/09
weren't these bottles handled by several other people, including the little girl's family, before they ever came into the police's hands? And, would that not contaminate them as evidence?
weren't these bottles handled by several other people, including the little girl's family, before they ever came into the police's hands? And, would that not contaminate them as evidence?
Login and voice your opinion!