-
Sidebar Ads
-
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Email
Print
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!Member Opinions:
By: greaterhands on 2/9/10
Killings is not to blame. The grandmother is to blame for letting a child under her care dart in the street and be killed. The only grandmother is interested is getting a lot of money out of the city and county. I hope she doesnt get a cent. Let her continue getting welfare and anything eles she can get for free.
Killings is not to blame. The grandmother is to blame for letting a child under her care dart in the street and be killed. The only grandmother is interested is getting a lot of money out of the city and county. I hope she doesnt get a cent. Let her continue getting welfare and anything eles she can get for free.
By: dartexas on 2/9/10
Ok, for one greaterhands, I don't believe the grandmother should be judged. The one who is on trial is the person that caused the tragedy and loss of this little girl. It could have been an adult that this happened to, as anyone can be crossing, and this was a 30 mile zone and he was doing 70 there was no way anyone could survive the impact of this horrible tragedy. My understanding was he had alcohol in his patrol car. WHY was this in his patrol car, and it had been said he had it on his breath, and that he emptied the bottles and done away with those, before he checked on the little girl. And was later tested for alcohol. I used to live around that area, and that has been awhile back, but visited this past Nov. for a death in the family, and I know 30 miles per hour is the limit and should be enforced for ANYONE no matter who. He also was called to help at a scene, he should have had his lights on or siren on, maybe that would have alerted this little girl and she would have not started across the road. Its a sad situation for the families of both I am sure.
Ok, for one greaterhands, I don't believe the grandmother should be judged. The one who is on trial is the person that caused the tragedy and loss of this little girl. It could have been an adult that this happened to, as anyone can be crossing, and this was a 30 mile zone and he was doing 70 there was no way anyone could survive the impact of this horrible tragedy. My understanding was he had alcohol in his patrol car. WHY was this in his patrol car, and it had been said he had it on his breath, and that he emptied the bottles and done away with those, before he checked on the little girl. And was later tested for alcohol. I used to live around that area, and that has been awhile back, but visited this past Nov. for a death in the family, and I know 30 miles per hour is the limit and should be enforced for ANYONE no matter who. He also was called to help at a scene, he should have had his lights on or siren on, maybe that would have alerted this little girl and she would have not started across the road. Its a sad situation for the families of both I am sure.
By: justawalkn on 2/9/10
The grandmother is at fault----why would you let a 11 year old child play running across the street without adult watching her?. Ron was trying to help another officer in trouble---he was doing his job. Yes he had bottles in the trunk of the car and he did not have any on his breath just me if he had been drinking out the the bottles in question you could smell him a mile away. This family want more money I truly hope that the jury will find him not guilty and maybe he can get own with what is left of his life after this family has destroyed it.
The grandmother is at fault----why would you let a 11 year old child play running across the street without adult watching her?. Ron was trying to help another officer in trouble---he was doing his job. Yes he had bottles in the trunk of the car and he did not have any on his breath just me if he had been drinking out the the bottles in question you could smell him a mile away. This family want more money I truly hope that the jury will find him not guilty and maybe he can get own with what is left of his life after this family has destroyed it.
By: mr.right on 2/9/10
The grandmother is at fault here and i guarantee her incident in court was a set up to try to sway the emotions of the jury. Shame on you lady for not watching your granddaughter and not escorting her across the street that yall say is so "dangerous"-her words not mine. she would still be here if an RESPONSIBLE adult helped her cross the street...
The grandmother is at fault here and i guarantee her incident in court was a set up to try to sway the emotions of the jury. Shame on you lady for not watching your granddaughter and not escorting her across the street that yall say is so "dangerous"-her words not mine. she would still be here if an RESPONSIBLE adult helped her cross the street...
By: confused on 2/9/10
It isn't a fault situation.. He was driving too fast and any child should not be allowed to cross that horribly busy street alone.. at night! I have a child close to her age and won't let him in my front yard alone! She should not have been alone crossing the street and he should have had his lights on if he were going to a call! It was an accident...
It isn't a fault situation.. He was driving too fast and any child should not be allowed to cross that horribly busy street alone.. at night! I have a child close to her age and won't let him in my front yard alone! She should not have been alone crossing the street and he should have had his lights on if he were going to a call! It was an accident...
By: murfreesboromommy on 2/9/10
Why is the Grandmother not being charged? Child neglect or something considering she was not watching the child as she should have been?
Why is the Grandmother not being charged? Child neglect or something considering she was not watching the child as she should have been?
By: tiffany159 on 2/9/10
i think it is pretty childish of people to come on here and blame the grandmother when you dont know if they grandmother told the girl to stay or not.... the police officer should not have been going 70 with his sirens off but i guess these days people can get away with anything no matter who you are my prayers are with the little girls family during this time.
i think it is pretty childish of people to come on here and blame the grandmother when you dont know if they grandmother told the girl to stay or not.... the police officer should not have been going 70 with his sirens off but i guess these days people can get away with anything no matter who you are my prayers are with the little girls family during this time.
By: tiffany159 on 2/9/10
and let me ask this if this was your grand daughter i think you would still grieve over her so who ever said she just wants money you dont know what your talking about because i know anyone im close to if they dies i believe i would still be crying to so put yourself in her shoes i dont think you could!!!
and let me ask this if this was your grand daughter i think you would still grieve over her so who ever said she just wants money you dont know what your talking about because i know anyone im close to if they dies i believe i would still be crying to so put yourself in her shoes i dont think you could!!!
By: SocEtTuem on 2/9/10
I can't speak to why the grandmother was not paying more attention to the whereabouts of the 11 yeard old, but I do know kids sometimes do things on impulse which a parent or guardian simply cannot prevent. Having said that, neither can I approve of an emotional outburst which I have to agree may well have been meant to make an impact on jurors. The judge should issue a stern warning. One more outburst of any kind and you're out. You can watch it on Court TV.
My personal opinion will remain this was a tragic, unfortunate accident unless their is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove it otherwise.
I can't speak to why the grandmother was not paying more attention to the whereabouts of the 11 yeard old, but I do know kids sometimes do things on impulse which a parent or guardian simply cannot prevent. Having said that, neither can I approve of an emotional outburst which I have to agree may well have been meant to make an impact on jurors. The judge should issue a stern warning. One more outburst of any kind and you're out. You can watch it on Court TV.
My personal opinion will remain this was a tragic, unfortunate accident unless their is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove it otherwise.
By: murfreesboromommy on 2/9/10
Tiffany, had the grandmother been watching her as she was supposed to have been this would not have happened to this little girl period. I'm sorry but I would have to disagree with you and it's not being childish it's called having an opinion.
Tiffany, had the grandmother been watching her as she was supposed to have been this would not have happened to this little girl period. I'm sorry but I would have to disagree with you and it's not being childish it's called having an opinion.
By: tiffany159 on 2/9/10
ok... he had bottles in the back of the car wow obviously he was drunk this is just a crazy situation i would not blame the grandmother because i know when i was a kid i was determined and no one was going to stop me so stop blaming the grandmother.. im not arguing im just saying that i dont think it was the grandmothers fault she didnt tell the little girl hey go walk out in front of that car....
ok... he had bottles in the back of the car wow obviously he was drunk this is just a crazy situation i would not blame the grandmother because i know when i was a kid i was determined and no one was going to stop me so stop blaming the grandmother.. im not arguing im just saying that i dont think it was the grandmothers fault she didnt tell the little girl hey go walk out in front of that car....
By: Newport1 on 2/9/10
Really? I am shocked at what is being said on here. I have to believe that this is the same person posting over and over again.
If that grandmother had that little girl tethered to her waist and was walking her across the street herself, she would have been killed too. On that stretch of road, going more than 70 MPH, no lights or sirens, talking on the phone, (never mind the alcohol bottles), you are reckless. That's it. Whether you believe she shouldn't be going across the street isn't what is on trial, is it? It's about a cop who committed all of the above offenses and then lied about every single facet of the investigation... While he may not have meant to do it, he did. Had that been average joe, they would fry him.
Really? I am shocked at what is being said on here. I have to believe that this is the same person posting over and over again.
If that grandmother had that little girl tethered to her waist and was walking her across the street herself, she would have been killed too. On that stretch of road, going more than 70 MPH, no lights or sirens, talking on the phone, (never mind the alcohol bottles), you are reckless. That's it. Whether you believe she shouldn't be going across the street isn't what is on trial, is it? It's about a cop who committed all of the above offenses and then lied about every single facet of the investigation... While he may not have meant to do it, he did. Had that been average joe, they would fry him.
By: pirate1964 on 2/9/10
No adult would expect an 11 year old to run out in front of a car on purpose. As a 45 year old adult, I have misjudged an oncoming cars speed because they were exceeding the speed limit for that road. Did the officer hit the kid on purpose to prove a point to the grandmother? No he didn't. Was he drinking on the job? The evidence WE get to see says so. Was the investigation handled like it would have been if a NON police officer had hit the child? OH H*** NO!! As to the "responding to back up" excuse... was it a response for back up that dictated no lights or sirens? (That is called for at times but the responding officer must drive like they are invisible!) It is a human defense mechanism to deny fault of any kind. But there are times when you have to man up and say "Yes, I made a mistake".
No adult would expect an 11 year old to run out in front of a car on purpose. As a 45 year old adult, I have misjudged an oncoming cars speed because they were exceeding the speed limit for that road. Did the officer hit the kid on purpose to prove a point to the grandmother? No he didn't. Was he drinking on the job? The evidence WE get to see says so. Was the investigation handled like it would have been if a NON police officer had hit the child? OH H*** NO!! As to the "responding to back up" excuse... was it a response for back up that dictated no lights or sirens? (That is called for at times but the responding officer must drive like they are invisible!) It is a human defense mechanism to deny fault of any kind. But there are times when you have to man up and say "Yes, I made a mistake".
By: mr.right on 2/9/10
just because you have bottles in the trunk that means you are drunk? wow-guess im drunk every time i leave the store after buying a 6-pack huh? Its a violation of policy for him to have it in the vehicle, it wasnt against the law. Tiffany, of course the grandmother didnt tell her to go walk in front of a car-if she did she would be in a ton of trouble. However, she didnt watch her like she should have been watching here. Its all too late now, we can only hope for a not-guilty verdict.
just because you have bottles in the trunk that means you are drunk? wow-guess im drunk every time i leave the store after buying a 6-pack huh? Its a violation of policy for him to have it in the vehicle, it wasnt against the law. Tiffany, of course the grandmother didnt tell her to go walk in front of a car-if she did she would be in a ton of trouble. However, she didnt watch her like she should have been watching here. Its all too late now, we can only hope for a not-guilty verdict.
By: Owl on 2/9/10
Of course, cops and their groupies are out in force, still trying to blame the victims, even though the family was exonerated by DHS in the first few days.
70 mph in a 30, talking on a cell phone, no emergency lights nor siren, booze in the car, hiding the booze before attempting to render aid, witnesses threatened with arrest for pointing out the booze, being escorted to the store for sports drinks to flush out his system, being allowed to wait a long time before giving a blood sample, blood sample inexplicably took five days to drive to Nashville via police cruiser.
Yeah, you're all correct; Killings and his co-workers are all great humanitarians. They'll probably end up getting well deserved medals after Killings is acquitted.
Of course, cops and their groupies are out in force, still trying to blame the victims, even though the family was exonerated by DHS in the first few days.
70 mph in a 30, talking on a cell phone, no emergency lights nor siren, booze in the car, hiding the booze before attempting to render aid, witnesses threatened with arrest for pointing out the booze, being escorted to the store for sports drinks to flush out his system, being allowed to wait a long time before giving a blood sample, blood sample inexplicably took five days to drive to Nashville via police cruiser.
Yeah, you're all correct; Killings and his co-workers are all great humanitarians. They'll probably end up getting well deserved medals after Killings is acquitted.
By: Newport1 on 2/9/10
Wouldn't surprise me, Owl.
Wouldn't surprise me, Owl.
By: mr.right on 2/9/10
whats illegal about having booze in the car and talking on the phone? have you ever gone over the speed limit? Sports drinks do not flush out your system moron and blood samples are taken by evidence teams. But im glad you agree that he will be aquitted. hopefully even get a job back at the sheriffs office so you will have to pay his salary.
whats illegal about having booze in the car and talking on the phone? have you ever gone over the speed limit? Sports drinks do not flush out your system moron and blood samples are taken by evidence teams. But im glad you agree that he will be aquitted. hopefully even get a job back at the sheriffs office so you will have to pay his salary.
By: Newport1 on 2/9/10
That is not even worthy of a rebuttal.
That is not even worthy of a rebuttal.
By: mr.right on 2/9/10
and one more thing owl-next time someones breaking into your house or harming your family, who are you going to call? maybe the person who cuts your hair, the garbage man or even your local drug dealer???
and one more thing owl-next time someones breaking into your house or harming your family, who are you going to call? maybe the person who cuts your hair, the garbage man or even your local drug dealer???
By: mr.right on 2/9/10
do you want it all spelled out scientifically newport?
do you want it all spelled out scientifically newport?
By: tiffany159 on 2/9/10
im going to end it in this because there is no since in me keep on and keep on writing on here .... i hope he gets whatever it may be he deserves wheather guilty or not.. im just praying for the little girls family because i know how it is to loose a loved one.
im going to end it in this because there is no since in me keep on and keep on writing on here .... i hope he gets whatever it may be he deserves wheather guilty or not.. im just praying for the little girls family because i know how it is to loose a loved one.
By: Owl on 2/9/10
mr. right, I'll call your buddies to fill out a report, if they aren't too lazy. What good does it do to call someone who's 20 minutes away as someone is breaking into my house? Maybe they'll give me the royal treatment like Killings got just in case I was to have to shoot someone, but I doubt it since I'm not a gubment employee.
mr. right, I'll call your buddies to fill out a report, if they aren't too lazy. What good does it do to call someone who's 20 minutes away as someone is breaking into my house? Maybe they'll give me the royal treatment like Killings got just in case I was to have to shoot someone, but I doubt it since I'm not a gubment employee.
By: Squeechi2 on 2/9/10
Just to clarify, he wasn't talking on a typical cell phone just chatting away. He was on a nextel using it like a walkie talkie, or similarly, a police radio. So it's not like he was just chatting away speeding with his lights off for nothing. One of the points made during the trial today (and yes, I did watch about 4 hours of it) was about his nextel use instead of using the police radio. Sometimes that is used since certain people listen in the police channels on scanners. The child's aunt also spoke on tv and made a fool of herself. The sun set at 8:03 that day, but according to her when Lakeisha got hit around 8:45 it wasn't dark. And several children were crossing the road, including Lakeisha's brother and cousins, all unattended.
Just to clarify, he wasn't talking on a typical cell phone just chatting away. He was on a nextel using it like a walkie talkie, or similarly, a police radio. So it's not like he was just chatting away speeding with his lights off for nothing. One of the points made during the trial today (and yes, I did watch about 4 hours of it) was about his nextel use instead of using the police radio. Sometimes that is used since certain people listen in the police channels on scanners. The child's aunt also spoke on tv and made a fool of herself. The sun set at 8:03 that day, but according to her when Lakeisha got hit around 8:45 it wasn't dark. And several children were crossing the road, including Lakeisha's brother and cousins, all unattended.
By: Nikter on 2/9/10
Okay was No One actually reading this article?! I take it most of the people who are commenting didn't A)Read the actual article their commenting on and B)Watch any of the trial. So... lets clear up your misconceptions.
1) Yes he was speeding. He was responding to a call for backup from a fellow detective and when you are responding to a call for immediate back up and told to "Step it up" You do speed. TCA states that officers may exceed speed limits while responding to emergencies. Also many, many times when responding to a call such as burglary as he was doing you do NOT run your lights because all that does is alert the criminal you are there and they need to get out. He HAD his headlights on.
2) He was not talking on a personal cell phone, he was communicating with fellow deputies and dispatch via his Nextel which again is part of his job.
3) The alcohol bottles were in his trunk and EMPTY already. He was taken to the hospital that same night and gave blood that showed he had 0% that is ZERO PERCENT alcohol and/or drugs in his system. This was corroborated by the TBI themselves. So all you who say he was drunk are obviously wrong.
As for some of the other accusations, well there just flat out not worth remarking on. But I tell ya what, lets rescind the order that Cops can drive over the speed limit for emergencies and then see how long you guys wait to sue because they didn't show up in time... can't have your cake and eat it too.
Okay was No One actually reading this article?! I take it most of the people who are commenting didn't A)Read the actual article their commenting on and B)Watch any of the trial. So... lets clear up your misconceptions.
1) Yes he was speeding. He was responding to a call for backup from a fellow detective and when you are responding to a call for immediate back up and told to "Step it up" You do speed. TCA states that officers may exceed speed limits while responding to emergencies. Also many, many times when responding to a call such as burglary as he was doing you do NOT run your lights because all that does is alert the criminal you are there and they need to get out. He HAD his headlights on.
2) He was not talking on a personal cell phone, he was communicating with fellow deputies and dispatch via his Nextel which again is part of his job.
3) The alcohol bottles were in his trunk and EMPTY already. He was taken to the hospital that same night and gave blood that showed he had 0% that is ZERO PERCENT alcohol and/or drugs in his system. This was corroborated by the TBI themselves. So all you who say he was drunk are obviously wrong.
As for some of the other accusations, well there just flat out not worth remarking on. But I tell ya what, lets rescind the order that Cops can drive over the speed limit for emergencies and then see how long you guys wait to sue because they didn't show up in time... can't have your cake and eat it too.
By: attagirl on 2/9/10
A police officer responding to another officer needing immediate assistance, having received a second call to "step it up," is NOT reckles for going 70 mph. He never left his lane and had total control of his car. Witnesses said the girl was in a "racing stance" and darted out in front of him. Clearly she mis-judged his speed. Also, once an officer approaches the scene of a crime in progress, IT IS PROTOCOL to turn off lights and sirens.
The girl should have been supervised, period. Killings was doing his job.
A police officer responding to another officer needing immediate assistance, having received a second call to "step it up," is NOT reckles for going 70 mph. He never left his lane and had total control of his car. Witnesses said the girl was in a "racing stance" and darted out in front of him. Clearly she mis-judged his speed. Also, once an officer approaches the scene of a crime in progress, IT IS PROTOCOL to turn off lights and sirens.
The girl should have been supervised, period. Killings was doing his job.
By: pirate1964 on 2/9/10
All this is here is a debate between "pro cops" and "pro justice". If Killings is/was innocent then why did he and the other officers do so much to HIDE his innocence to begin with?
All this is here is a debate between "pro cops" and "pro justice". If Killings is/was innocent then why did he and the other officers do so much to HIDE his innocence to begin with?
By: Nikter on 2/9/10
Please explain how they "HID" his innocence with sources. All I and the others have done is show what this article, the investigation, and the trial has PROVEN. I don't see you sourcing anything other than your own opinion that they are corrupt, which again has been proven wrong.
Please explain how they "HID" his innocence with sources. All I and the others have done is show what this article, the investigation, and the trial has PROVEN. I don't see you sourcing anything other than your own opinion that they are corrupt, which again has been proven wrong.
By: Paused on 2/9/10
Wasn't the child running across the street from the Aunt's house to the grandmother's (visa versa) at night?
Wasn't the child running across the street from the Aunt's house to the grandmother's (visa versa) at night?
By: pirate1964 on 2/9/10
If I had been drinking and I got to lollygag for a while and stop by the store for some Gatorade (that is on camera by the way). And if EMPTY alcohol bottles are OK, then why throw them away? I don't recall them being in the trunk either. And if all the officers involved did everything legal and by the book, why are there some in trouble for their actions? I've been friends with officers since college and even went through the CPA put on by the RCSO. That does not make me an expert, but I do know cops can and do get special treatment by other law officers. I've been with an off duty officer who was pulled over for speeding and was let go after flashing his badge. Professional courtesy. And that's a small perk for risking their life to protect. But when that courtesy goes too far... that's a problem.
If I had been drinking and I got to lollygag for a while and stop by the store for some Gatorade (that is on camera by the way). And if EMPTY alcohol bottles are OK, then why throw them away? I don't recall them being in the trunk either. And if all the officers involved did everything legal and by the book, why are there some in trouble for their actions? I've been friends with officers since college and even went through the CPA put on by the RCSO. That does not make me an expert, but I do know cops can and do get special treatment by other law officers. I've been with an off duty officer who was pulled over for speeding and was let go after flashing his badge. Professional courtesy. And that's a small perk for risking their life to protect. But when that courtesy goes too far... that's a problem.
By: attagirl on 2/9/10
pirate, none of the "evidence" you are citing has any relevance to whether or not Killings committed reckless homicide. So cops get out of traffic tickets, so what? That doesn't make them criminals.
His blood alcohol content was ZERO. No amount of gatorade will reduce your bac to zero. That takes hours and hours. He wasn't drinking. Who knows why the bottles were in the car and who cares. It's not relevant to the accident.
pirate, none of the "evidence" you are citing has any relevance to whether or not Killings committed reckless homicide. So cops get out of traffic tickets, so what? That doesn't make them criminals.
His blood alcohol content was ZERO. No amount of gatorade will reduce your bac to zero. That takes hours and hours. He wasn't drinking. Who knows why the bottles were in the car and who cares. It's not relevant to the accident.
By: enoughisenough on 2/9/10
What about the mother in KY? She left her daughter with an obviously negligent care-taker. At the same time, police in KY were called about an unattended child in the street in front of her house. It turned out to be another of her children. When police responded to the call, they found another minor child of this mother in the house with marijuana in plain evidence.
Says a little about the dynamics of this "family," don't you think?
What about the mother in KY? She left her daughter with an obviously negligent care-taker. At the same time, police in KY were called about an unattended child in the street in front of her house. It turned out to be another of her children. When police responded to the call, they found another minor child of this mother in the house with marijuana in plain evidence.
Says a little about the dynamics of this "family," don't you think?
By: Boo on 2/10/10
SocEtTuem is right. This was an unfortunate accident. As for grandmother's outburst, she was sending a message to the jury. Her message was "Look at me, I'm pitiful, feel sorry for me, find him Guilty!" I hope the jury saw through that charade.
SocEtTuem is right. This was an unfortunate accident. As for grandmother's outburst, she was sending a message to the jury. Her message was "Look at me, I'm pitiful, feel sorry for me, find him Guilty!" I hope the jury saw through that charade.
By: ALP on 2/10/10
the officer is not to blame on this.. yes its very sad the little girl is no longer here BUT why the heck is that grandmother letting the child in the street at 11pm at night..i think its worse because he is a police officer...!! he isnt being treated like a "normal" person!! I feel sorry for the family of the little girl yes because its very sad but i also feel sorry for that officer!!
the officer is not to blame on this.. yes its very sad the little girl is no longer here BUT why the heck is that grandmother letting the child in the street at 11pm at night..i think its worse because he is a police officer...!! he isnt being treated like a "normal" person!! I feel sorry for the family of the little girl yes because its very sad but i also feel sorry for that officer!!
By: Paused on 2/10/10
The Aunt that keeps speaking up in this case also was at the "town square meeting" with NAACP. Apparently she felt like the officers handled her twin sons case (raping a woman in front of a 2 yr old child) as a "lynching".
The Aunt that keeps speaking up in this case also was at the "town square meeting" with NAACP. Apparently she felt like the officers handled her twin sons case (raping a woman in front of a 2 yr old child) as a "lynching".
By: Newport1 on 2/10/10
Hmmm, turns out he wasn't on his Nextel Push to Talk to help another officer in need. He was talking to a female Lavergne detective he met through a seminar and that was at least the second conversation he had with her that day. Interesting stuff I say. Dang, this guy knows how to dig a deep hole. I wonder if she enjoyed those margaritas?
Hmmm, turns out he wasn't on his Nextel Push to Talk to help another officer in need. He was talking to a female Lavergne detective he met through a seminar and that was at least the second conversation he had with her that day. Interesting stuff I say. Dang, this guy knows how to dig a deep hole. I wonder if she enjoyed those margaritas?
By: WingNut on 2/10/10
If it is acceptable protocol to drive in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone in a busy residential street en route to an emergency, maybe even mine, then no, I don't want you to respond... If you are going to risk peoples lives to saves others then you are not doing your job.
If it is acceptable protocol to drive in excess of 70 mph in a 30 mph zone in a busy residential street en route to an emergency, maybe even mine, then no, I don't want you to respond... If you are going to risk peoples lives to saves others then you are not doing your job.
By: Owl on 2/10/10
Responding to an "officer in need", LOL. In non-cop lingo, that's usually referred to as "getting some p---y lined up". I'm waiting for one of the Killings groupies to explain how the heroic officer's phone call to one of his mistresses using his personal cell phone fits into the official protocol.
Responding to an "officer in need", LOL. In non-cop lingo, that's usually referred to as "getting some p---y lined up". I'm waiting for one of the Killings groupies to explain how the heroic officer's phone call to one of his mistresses using his personal cell phone fits into the official protocol.
By: Oompa on 2/11/10
My wife tells me that her carpool friend; an older white woman broke down as she was pulling out of her driveway. Officer Killings came by and threatened to arrest her for blocking her own driveway? She stated she only needed a small push to get the car back into HER driveway.
Officer Killings said she was a liar and did not live there and was going to impound the car.
Her 78 yr old mother then came out and told him she had lived there for 5 yrs now and if he would not help push the car 6 feet then she would do it and began to help her daughter at which point Officer killings assisted and sped off in a huff!
Take what you wish from that anecdote, but these two women have no reason to lie or an agenda and are pillars of the community!
My wife tells me that her carpool friend; an older white woman broke down as she was pulling out of her driveway. Officer Killings came by and threatened to arrest her for blocking her own driveway? She stated she only needed a small push to get the car back into HER driveway.
Officer Killings said she was a liar and did not live there and was going to impound the car.
Her 78 yr old mother then came out and told him she had lived there for 5 yrs now and if he would not help push the car 6 feet then she would do it and began to help her daughter at which point Officer killings assisted and sped off in a huff!
Take what you wish from that anecdote, but these two women have no reason to lie or an agenda and are pillars of the community!
Login and voice your opinion!