I’m not suggesting that anything’s amiss here, but a Jimmie Gates story starring Bobby DeLaughter, Breland Hilburn, Tommy Mayfield, and an ex-Jackson cop whose guilty plea to manslaughter has been expunged from the record sure makes interesting reading. Jackson folks, any insights into this one?
Elsewhere, Jimmie reports that Hinds County Circuit Court seems to be recovering from its bad case of constipation in criminal cases:
… From January through June, 1,410 cases were disposed of — 271 of them because they were not prosecuted.
During the same period last year, 982 cases were disposed of, with 12 not prosecuted, according to court records. …
Addressing the 271 cases not prosecuted, the district attorney said a review of some of the cases brought prior to him taking office weren’t good cases for a variety of reasons, including deceased key witnesses or other factors.
More where this came from, including the hint that somebody’s built a specially-hot fire under Hilburn: He’s handled nearly 40% more cases so far this year than in the first six months of last year.
UPDATE: Oh my. Better go read kingfish and the JFP: guess who Jimmie Gates left out. Betcha can, too.
That ex-cop/manslaughter case had another character in the story: Ed Peters.
Have we talked about this one before, ceece, and I’m just not remembering it?
Aha. Refresh the post, ceece.
Lotus, we have talked about this one: Here and here.
If you search “Middleton” on this site, two posts from NMC pop up on this case.
Here’s the goods.
I would be willing to guess that most people that plead guilty to culpable negligent vehicular manslaughter get extremely light sentences, since they are not crimes of intent. Further, given the victim bill of rights, I find it hard to believe that the family of the victim, was not aware of the plea offer and given the chance to object accordingly. Does anyone know the plea offer from the District Attorney’s Office? Given that it was an ex-cop with no record, no alcohol involved, etc, it’s hard to imagine a stiff recommendation.
At ccvz 4’s second link, see this comment from OMTL.
‘Lo, Burr, and welcome to folo.
Two comments:
First: The guy should never have been charged with manslaughter in the first place.
Second: Why can’t you DeLaughter haters admit – at least this one time in this one case – that DeLaughter’s decision was 100% appropriate REGARDLESS of whether Ed Peters was the guy’s attorney? You KNOW the guy should not have been charged and you KNOW DeLaughter’s ruling was correct. Come on. Admit it. It won’t hurt much.
Oh, look who’s back. Hi, Lynda. How’s tricks in Raymond?
I echo, many of Lynda’s sentiments. Also, in regards to the special judges, it makes no sense to keep adding judges, without additional support staff, and assistant district attorneys. Further, I seriously doubt that most readers of this Blog know how utterly archaic Hinds County’s court tracking system is, and how any stats are dubious at best. The dyna-com system is a relic from the early 80s, complete with monochrome graphics, and limited interface abilities.
Lynda. Two questions:
1) Should they have given the officer a commendation instead? I mean, all he did was kill a guy by reckless driving. The fact he was a police officer shouldn’t even enter into the equation as to whether or not he should have ever been charged. He wasn’t responding to a call, he was just driving recklessly because he thought he could because he was law enforcement.
2) Are you familiar with the adage, “A stopped clock is correct twice a day.” No one is saying BD has never made any correct rulings. It just appears that there is a greater likelihood of rulings going Ed Peter’s clients way, which ANY normal person would have to question considering ALL of his rulings involving Peters in ANY capacity, known or unknown, were favorable to Peters.
N.b. that the guy *pled* to negligent manslaughter — what would he have been charged with, had it gone to a jury?
It’s just ridiculous for a cop, of all people, to blow through a traffic light and kill somebody. Jail time is perfectly appropriate.
Sorry, Lynda and Burr, but your notion that ordinary citizens’ lives are unimportant next to the convenience of the police … not happening for me.
N.b. also that the plea may’ve gotten the city off the hook for what would likely have hit the max available under the Tort Claims Act … how did *that* figure in?
cops have had more training on driving than the average driver. They have a higher duty to not endanger others. he was driving recklessly and there was evidence to support the charge.
You or I do that, we get more than what he got.
Not to wander off topic, but I’ve noticed over the last few years a lot of JPD officers talking on cell phones while on patrol, and it irks me no end. If they’re having personal phone conversations they are not properly monitoring radio traffic, and they’re not looking out for the bad guys. Plus, they’re distracted as drivers.
And what’s with all the body damage I’m seeing on police cruisers? It doesn’t look like the kind of damage that might have been sustained in a police pursuit- looks like some of these officers are having fender-benders.
Thanks for asking, Lotus. Things are just wonderful in Raymond. You should SEE the square! Beautiful!!
Now….Whether the cop was speeding is not a matter of irrefutable fact. It is a matter of “he said”/she said”. HE contends that he was NOT driving recklessly. He may have been “speeding”.. may not have. The speed limit there is 60 miles per hour. But, very few people -if any – limit their speed to the number. Most drive around 70 MPH. It is a VERY busy road. In other words, there are DOZENS people driving at least 70 miles per hour through that intersection at any given hour of the day. Of course, that doesn’t make it “right” but that’s not the point of this discusion. And, whether he was driving 60, or 65, or 70 at the time of this accident, the outcome would have been the same. This time, the driver was a cop. But, it could just have easily have been any one of those other 100s of people who blow through that intersection every day. Also, we must not overlook the fac that the other driver was turning left across traffic. “I” was taught, in Jr. High Driver’s Ed, that you NEVER assume right of way. In other words, you don’t turn left across traffic until you KNOW it is safe to do so. As unpopular an idea as this is, the fact remains that the other driver contributed to the accident. Sorry…but he did…and that’s a fact. A fact that any decent judge would HAVE to consider. Everybody is trying to make a case of this BECAUSE the guy was a cop, insinuating that he should have been acting “differently” than the average citizen…but, at the same time, the same people quickly point out that he was off-duty. That makes him just a common, every day citizen. Just like you and me. And, IF it had been you or me instead of him, there is “0″ chance that we’d have been facing a manslaugter charge in this accident. He was indicted simply because he as a cop. Further more, if this guy had had any other attorney besides Ed Peters, no one would be giving DeLaughter’s decision a second thought.
Speaking of DeLaughter and your “stopped clock” addage, shaveswithaoccamsrazor, would you be so kind as to LIST a few “incorrect” DeLaughter decisions and tell us why you consider them to be incorrect?
I’m (obviously) not a lawyer but, I thought that’s what the appeals process was for and, somehow, I was under the impression that the Supreme’s had procedures that would allow them to initiate an investigation if “incorrect” decisions became apparent. Is that not correct?
I , personally, have heard no criticims of the DeLaughter’s decisions themselves; only the fact that Ed Peters was occasionally an attorney for one of the partys. I guess DeLaughter was supposed to have ruled contrary to the law in cases where Peters was involved. Or, I suppose he should have recused himself every time Peters name appeared. But then, wouldn’t he (and all other judges) have to recuse themselves from every case where an attorney “friend” was involved? Are there enough judges to go around so that NO judge would ever have to hear a case involving “a friend”. (And before you start yelling about Peters being “too close” a friend, I’d ask that you provide some evidence -other than Jerry Mitchell’s labeling of him as such – to support you opinion that they are such close friends. Of course, it would be hard to work with anyone as long as they worked together and not be “friends”. But, there are “friends” and then there are “FRIENDS”. What makes you think Peters & DeLaughter were FRIENDS? DeLaughter is a actually a VERY private person and not inclined to be “FRIENDS with many…even those who have been his “friends” much, MUCH longer than Ed Peters.
I do have a couple of questions for you lawyer-types. I’m just curious. I’ve noticed that Ed Peters name appears as being “of counsel” on A LOT of firm’s letterhead. Doesn’t that make his relationship to those firms pretty transparent, even if he doesn’t officially register himself in any particular case? And, if he is officially “of counsel”, what does he do if not “counsel” the firm on how best to handle a particular case when asked to do so. In other words, what is he SUPPOSED to do in that capacity and HOW is he supposed to do it? Please give me a real life example.
Interesting.
CCVZ…Of course, it was absolutely appropriate for internal affairs to investigate AND to chatise him if he was speeding. After all, he was in a city vehicle. ANY business or government entity that has one of its vehicles involved in an accident SHOULD conduct such investigations and SHOULD reprimand any employee who violated ANY company rule, whether that be a traffic law or simply not keeping the car clean. But a reprimand by an internal affairs committee does not make anybody a criminal.
Further, as I said….few, if any, comply with the posted speed limit on Hwy 18. If this guy “acted recklessly and negligently by driving as an excessive speed” so does everyone else who does the same thing. So, we are back to square one. I’m not saying it is ok to speed – cop or otherwise. But I am saying it is common practice and I am saying that this guy was singled out for punishment because he was a cop. I’m also saying that I PRAY we never get to the point where Common Citizen Joe is going to be sentenced to prison because of a traffic accident. See…..in order for there to be a traffic accident in the first place SOMEBODY has to have done SOMETHING negligent. SOMEBODY had to have violated the law SOMEHOW. Usually, the violation is excessive speed. If we accept your argument that “excessive speed” or “negligence” is sufficient criteria for a manslaughter conviction, then, we need to stop giving speeding tickets and start arresting people for attempted murder. After all, it IS just a matter of time before someone else gets killed. And, people speed on purpose. That makes it premeditated, doesn’t it.
Lynda,
Like you I have often wondered about the gravity of the legal errors espoused by the complaining parties on DeLaughter’s cases. If some of the decisions were so fraught with error, why did the parties choose settlement over the appeal process.
Anderson,
Please don’t infer that I meant the victim’s life was unimportant. I just have difficulty assigning criminal liability to car wrecks, absent drugs or alcohol impairment.
Has anyone given any thought to the possible illegality of the sentence in the first place? From my understanding of reading the story, the former officer was non-adjudicated for two years for the crime of vehicular manslaughter.
Well, MS Code Ann. 99-15-26 is the statute that allows a judge to do this, however, it can NOT be done for a crime against a person. I think vehicular manslaughter is a crime against a person, thus it can not be non-adjudicated (guilty plea not accepted and case dismissed after completing court ordered terms).
Hi, PPIT. Yes, if you read the post linked at 6, you’ll see that Faye Peterson and NMC (for two) raised that issue. But DeLaughter just set aside Peterson’s objection and went his merry way . . .
PPIT is right. Irrespective of whether you think this officer should have been charged, once he was charged with manslaughter, then non-adjudication was not a legal option for him. DeLaughter ignored the statute on this when he allowed this sentence. (I wonder why the DA did not appeal the sentence if she disagreed with it?) So, Linda and Burr, you see why some of us have our doubts about things in DeLaughter cases. Again, he has clearly violated the law in a case featuring Ed Peters.
And, now Hilburn has let him off early? It doesn’t look to me like the full 2 year probation was served before Hilburn expunged the guilty plea. That to me is the bigger part of this story, because Hilburn is still on the bench. It makes me concerned with what other deals he may be allowing just to get cases off the criminal docket.
Does anyone have a transcript of the guily/non-adjudication plea? During Peterson’s tenure it was rare for her to sit in on guilty pleas. I would be amazed if Mayfield would have allowed his client to plead open, so I am thinking the state must have made a non-adjudication offer, or at a minimum not objected when the defense raised the possibility. Someone needs to check with Dewey Arthur or Chad Doleac, I would love their take on this.
Thanks Lotus, looks like I was a few months too late.
Delaughter claims that no one objected, however, Peterson claims that her assistant did object but Delaughter set the objection aside. Wonder why she did not appeal?
Does anyone know if a Pre-Sentence report was prepared? Also, did the family attend the plea hearing to voice their objections?
While an interesting tidbit to ponder, whether Peterson or her assistant DA objected is beside the point. This plea was not lawful for the crime with which the officer was charged. It doesn’t matter who agreed to it or didn’t object to it, the judge should never have allowed it. And, having been a prosecutor for so many years, DeLaughter surely knew that.
I agree PPIT, I wonder why the DA didn’t appeal and they need to take some criticism for that.
Lynda, were you requesting a list of Delaughter’s bad decisions? Would a list of cases reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court satisfy your request?
I’m going to stop feeding trolls one of these days….
No matter what kind of “proof” was offered in the debate, some people would still beleive in their friends lack of committing an offense….case in point: Khayat and Davis with Scruggs. In spite of the fact he PLED guilty they still didn’t want to beleive it possible and attempted to explain it away. I’m leaning toward Lynda being the same type of friend with DeLaughter and betting if he called her and said, “I DID IT ! ! !” she wouldn’t accept it. It appears she has already started using the “everybody else does it so why was it wrong” defense of both the officer and BL and I have NEVER seen anyone get talked out of a “justification” stance. Never. And all the while a poor family suffers from losing a family member to someone’s reckless driving and the GOB network scores again.
And the band played on while others rearranged the deck chairs……
Federati,
To the best of my knowledge prior to all of the allegations, Judge DeLaughter’s record on appeal was quite good. I can think of only a handful of civil case reversals, and many of them were issues of first impression, like Mabus and the Catholic Church cases. As to criminal only three or four come to mind. Simply because a case was reversed does not by itself indicate a lack of legal knowledge or underhanded dealings. Given his prior caseload his reversal record was probably less than the state average. When looking at reversals for Hinds County Judges, one must be mindful of their unique appellate jurisdication over certain state agencies, a legacy that was not corrected by the advent of the Court of Appeals. In particular PERS appeals, which are prone to reversal at the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court level, due in large part to the lack of time that can be devoted to them at the Circuit level.
Federati, a list of DeLaughter reversals will work just fine…as long as it is accompanied by a list of reversals for OTHER judges and the ratio of HIS reversals compared to all the others.
And Shaves…You’ll never hear me say ANYTHING is OK just because it is commonly done. What you WILL hear me say is this: Don’t single ONE out for punishment unless you are willing/able to apply the same measure of punishment to ALL who commit the same offense. Ex Parte communications is a perfect example…IF it is such a commonly accepted practice as it appears to be in Mississippi (and probably everywhere else, too), then, don’t pick out one of two offenders and PRETEND that they are so much worse than the others. NAME THEM ALL and have ALL of them charged. The indictment of the cop is another example. No, speeding is NOT ok. But neither is it ok to indict one person for manslaughter (when there are no OTHER extenuating circumstances like alcohol or drugs)UNLESS all other speeders who end up in fatal accidents are ALSO indicted/convicted for manslaughter.
Oh, and by the way, if you are so “right” in your opinion, you should have no difficulty defending your position without having to resort to name calling. Personally, I don’t care one whit whether you or anybody else agrees with me. I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m perfectly capable of getting the facts & using factual information to form my opinion. And, it will take something – ANYTHING – more than gossip and carefully chosen snippets of (mis)information to convince me that Bobby DeLaughter knowingly, willingly and intentionally did ANYTHING to bring any disrespect on himself, his family OR our judicial system.
And, just for the record, I haven’t always considered B. DeLaughter ” a friend”. Quite the opposite, in fact!!! But, his acquaitance was pretty much FORCED on me so I pretty much HAD to get to know him. But now that I DO know him, I can tell you that it WILL HAVE TO BE Bobby himself saying “I did it” before I will believe him capable of the actions he has been accused of. If that makes me a troll, then it’s a title I’ll proudly wear!
Lynda, the facts here are that the off duty officer RAN THE RED LIGHT when he crashed into the decedent. So, it is not a case of just speeding and the decedent should have know better then to turn left across oncoming traffic. With those facts in mind, I hope you will admit that the dead man bears no part of the blame for this wreck.
Second, a non-adjudication sentence is not allowed under Mississippi law for the offense that was charged. The statute PPIT cited above clearly states that non-adjuducation could not be used here. I hope you will admit that, irrespective of whether you belive charges should have been brought, Judge DeLaughter did not follow the law.
Lastly, I understand your defense of Judge DeLaughter’s character. He has been a good friend to many and has been a very important citizen to the town of Raymond. If it is true that Judge DeLaughter has done dishonest and unlawful things, there will be much disappointment and many broken hearts in Raymond. But at this point, a man of any character or integrity in Judge DeLaughter’s shoes has two options: (1) if he is innocent, fight these charges to prove his innocence; or (2) if he is guilty, come clean, admit what he did and try to redeem himself. If DeLaughter had done what he is alleged to have done and cannot bring himself to take path (2) above, then I don’t think he has ever been a man of honor or integrity, and he doesn’t deserve the faith that many fine people have put in him over the years.
this is also an interesting read.
The article also points out Middleton was doing 100 mph when he ran the red light. I just can’t seem to bring myself to lay a shred of blame whatsoever on Desmonde Harris.
I realized we’ve already established that…but it’s the first Peterson quote directly saying it was an illegal sentence, that I’ve seen.
I think it’s especially egregious when a law enforcement officer, someone who after all should have the deepest regard for public safety, puts other folks lives in danger by traveling at such high speeds — OVER 100 MPH. I don’t care how fast folks drive on that stretch.
I travel Highway 18 at least 4 times week. It is true there are a lot of speeders, but over 100 mph is outrageous. Rampant speeding is a good reason for strict enforcement of the laws, not just telling everybody “you’re on your own if you’re driving to Raymond.”
I am puzzled why the DA did not appeal the sentence. Can someone who has a criminal practice background tell us if an appeal of the sentence would have been possible?
Curious Georgette, I believe the reference to “100 MPH” is a semi-quote from some unnamed source in one of Jerry Mitchell’s articles (and, as you probably already know, Mitchell is famous for “quoting” ghosts). So, I’m not accepting the 100MPH allegation as fact at this point. However, if there is some hard evidence to support that idea that he was going anywhere near that fast, then I can absolutely agree that he should have been charged with reckless driving. (But I really don’t think that IS factual information. )
As for the officer running the red light…. is someone suggesting that he intentionally ran the red light? If not, then….it was an accident, plain & simple and “accidents” don’t justify a charge of manslaughter, even when speed is a contributing factor (unless it passes the threshold of being reckless – like 100MPH).
Also, as harsh as it may sound, I do not agree that the dead man was without responsibility for the accident. The guy was attempting a left turn across a VERY BUSY highway. Although there is a left turn signal at this intersection, that is not – never was – never will be a guarantee that it is safe to turn. The deceased man turned without first checking to see if it was safe to do so. He ASSUMED that on-coming traffic was going to stop for him. Therefore, he was at least 49% responsible for the accident. All he had to do was WAIT one fraction of a second and LOOK to see if the on-coming traffic had stopped – or at least, was in the process of stopping. If he had made this tiny amount of effort, he’d be alive today. People, being people, DO run red lights. That is just a fact of life. The deceased driver had an opportunity to avoid being hit. He had a responsibility to LOOK first. He didn’t. Therefore, he was negligent by not making sure the way was clear before he started his turn.
As for DeLaughter’s ruling being illegal, I can’t speak to that. I’m not an attorney. I am aware that Faye Peterson SAID he didn’t have authority to rule the way he did. I can’t help but wonder though, if the law is that clear, why didn’t she appeal? Didn’t she have the right AND the responsibility to do just that? Either she is totally imcompetent, or lazy, or, the law is not so clearly against the DeLaughter decision.
As for Judge DeLaughter’s character, he is doing exactly as you suggest: He is fighting to prove his innocence. But, that’s not the way it is supposed to work. While we all are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, Bobby DeLaughter is being Presumed Guilty until Proven Innocent. Most of the people who participate in this blog refuse to even consider the idea that he may, in fact, be innocent of these alleged wrongdoings. He’s already been tried & convicted without ever having had a chance to defend himself. And this is coming from people who PROFESS to LOVE and respect our legal system. Scary.
Lynda, Scary is right, but I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing when we say that.
You seem to have abandoned all reason and logic in your quest to defend Judge DeLaughter. I hope it turns out Judge DeLaughter was worthy of your efforts. If he was not, then I hope you will rethink some of the things you have said here.
Georgette, what is it, exactly, that I should rethink? My belief that every person who gets behind the wheel of a car has a responsibility – to himself as well as others – to practice safe driving techniques and that he doesn’t get to dodge his responsiblity in the event of an accident just because someone else also failed to act responsibly? Or my belief that Judge DeLaughter (like all other citizens of this country) is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – or at least INDICTED?
If Judge DeLaughter proves to be as guilty as hell, I will be very disappointed, of course. But that will not change the fact that, until such time, he has a constitutionally protected right to the presumption of innocence.
If YOU believe otherwise, it is YOU, not I, who has abandoned all reason and logic.
“he doesn’t get to dodge his responsiblity in the event of an accident just because someone else also failed to act responsibly . . .”
Lynda, Mr. Harris is not trying to dodge his responsibility. In fact, HE IS DEAD, so he clearly did not dodge the consequences of this accident at all. Have some respect, will you??? Isn’t Mr. Harris entitled to the presumption of innocence, or is that all reserved for DeLaughter?
Go in peace. Time will tell. Over and out. . . .
The issue of disccusion was whether the officer should have ever been charged with manslauaghter and whether or not DeLaughter’s sentencing following his plea was appropriate. The arguments posed in support of the officer’s manslaughter charge implied that the officer acted so recklessly that he – and he alone – was responsible for the death of Mr. Harris. My position (and DeLaughter’s, I believe) is that this was an ACCIDENT, plain & simple and that because this was an ACCIDENT, there was no justification for having the officer labled as a felon for the rest of his life. My position is based, in part, on the fact that there were TWO PEOPLE negligent in this accident and one of those people was Mr. Harris.
If you are an attorney, I’m sure you are aware that MS subscribes to the Comparative Negligence theory. If this were a civil case, the degree of negligence by each party would dictate the amount of recovery, if any, to which Mr. Harris was entitled. To determine the degree of negligence, the law usually relies on the doctrine of “last clear chance”….. “Who had the last clear chance to do something – anything – to avoid the accident”. Without question, Mr. Harris had that “last clear chance”. All he had to do was LOOK before turning. If he had LOOKED, he’d have seen the car approaching, he’d have been able to realize the car was not going to stop, he’d have waited…and he’d be alive today. There simply is no getting around that fact that he was negligent when he failed to confirm that it was safe to turn.
In a civil trial in Mississippi, Mr. Harris’ family will be able to recover some amount of money damages based on a comparison of his degeree of negligence to that of the officer. However, in some jurisdictions (Alabama, for one, still subscribes to the Contributory Negligence doctrine I believe ), Mr. Harris’ family would recover $0.00 even if he was only 1% negligent and the officer was 99% negligent.
I realize there is a difference in civil law and criminal law. But I believe the folks who drafted these laws were as concerned about the liberty of citizens as they were about the MONEY aspects of this type of situation. So, I’m of the opinion that, if a CIVIL court couldn’t find the officer solely negligent, neither should a CRIMINAL court. In other words…it was an ACCIDENT.
Furthermore, nothing in this statement is “disrespectful” of Mr. Harris. It is no more disrepectful to state the facts of his accident than to say that the teenage girl who recently died after losing control of her car on Springridge Road and hitting a tree was “negligent”. No other vehicle involved. The tree didn’t jump out in front of her. She was the driver. Only occupant. Tragic. Very sad. But nevertheless, the girl herself was, in some way, negligent. No question. Fact. NOT disrespectful.
As for Mr. Harris and the “presumption of innocence”….of course he is entitled. However, it is an irrefutable fact that he had an opportunity to avoid this accident by employing basic, safe-driving measures. He didn’t. THAT is without question. THAT is the “proof” on which he loses his presumed innocence. You are correct about one thing…Mr. Harris didn’t get to dodge responsibility for his negligence. He did die. That’s sad.
But he was still negligent.
Lynda assumes that the victim in this accident was negligent but is unwilling to much entertain the reports that the person responsible for the accident was moving at excessive speeds. The accident happened after dark, 10:44 pm, when it would be difficult to tell if an oncoming car were traveling at such excessive speed, with no blue lightning to warn anyone, no sirens. That officer had every possible tool at his disposal to warn any innocent person in his path that they should steer clear of him, but he used not one of them. He is the responsible, negligent party here, not the guy who died.
Duckie. You are wasting your time. The facts are always going to interfere with opinion and that is unacceptable to some people. I fear the near-bellsouth-ish defense of the esteemed gentleman from Raymond is more than you will be able to overcome.
I’m wondering if this would an excellent opportunity to invoke the King Minos Law aka Cloaca Maxima Maxim. (h/t to Lotus) 707
Lordy be, I guess I’m gonna have to navigate from now on by making right hand turns only.
Duckweed, You’ve made an interesting point. Since the officer was driving so fast, and since he had his headlights on (it being dark and all), he and his headlights had to have been RIGHT THERE when Mr. Harris started turning because, obviously, the front end of the officer’s car was RIGHT THERE at that point in time. So, it really wouldn’t matter if he was going 100 MPH or 50MPH, it should have caused Mr. Harris to at least WONDER if the guy was going to stop in time. I could buy your argument that it would be hard to tell how fast he was coming if he was still several hundred yards down the road. I could by your argument if it had been daytime (maybe he looked but the sun was in his face or something like that). But, at night, with the headlights right in his face? What excuse could he have for not having seen him there…except that he wasn’t looking?
Shaves…I agree with you. Facts, it appears, are unacceptable to some people. You appear to be one of those people. I’m am not, nor have I ever excused the officer for his part in this accident. He ran a red light. Reportedly he was speeding at the time. No argument about that. That’s a fact. However, it is also a FACT that Mr. Harris did not take the time to make sure oncoming traffic had yielded ROW to him. And that is a FACT ya’ll refuse to accept. You continue to try to downplay this fact with such excuses as “after dark, 10:44 pm, … it would be difficult to tell if an oncoming car were traveling at such excessive speed” . Since it WAS dark, the officer had his headlights on, and since the officer AND his headlights were obviously VERY close to the intersection at the time Mr. Harris began his turn, it would have been virtually impossible NOT to see him. And, whether the officer was going 100 MPH or 30 MPH, it would have been virtually impossible for him not to question whether he was going to stop in time…that is… IF he had been paying attention to what was going on around him. Please, at least TRY to understand what I’m saying here. I am not ignoring that fact that the officer ran a red light. I am NOT ignoring the fact that the officer was speeding. I acknowledge those facts. But he could have been speeding (even to the rumored 100MPH level AND he could have run every red light on the road and Mr. Harris STILL could have avoided being hit by him. That is FACT whether you want to accept it or not.
And Georgette, if you make a habit of turning left without looking out for oncoming traffic, I’ll suggest that maybe you SHOULD navigate with right turns only. Maybe that will help keep YOU from getting killed by the next person who fails to yield ROW.
Shaves, I AM going to continue to defend the GENTLEMAN (you got THAT part right anyway) from Raymond. I am going to continue to presume he is innocent until he tells me otherwise. And, if THAT ever happens, I’m admit that I was wrong about his innocence. Then, I’ll forgive him for being human. But I’ll still believe that every person MUST be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Lotus feels the need to block me for THAT, more power to her. Let the blocking begin.
‘Mr. Harris did not take the time to make sure oncoming traffic had yielded ROW to him.’
Lynda or whomever you are, sir, are you confusing the law and wise safety habits ?
Cite for us a Mississippi traffic law that requires a person to presume that another driver is going to break the law.
It might be wise to assume that other drivers are going to break the law, but if that were to case, then no cars would be on the road. Inertia would control.
Wrong DeLaughter decisions:
Kirk v. Pope. Mississippi Supreme Court says so. And it’s part of why he’s under suspension– his decisions based on documented ex parte contact with Ed Peters was the subject of a judicial performance complaint.
And Ed Peters has been proved to have been secretly involved in at least two cases and, in doing so, influenced DeLaughter while doing so– Wilson v. Scruggs and Eaton Corp v Frisby. Much of the Eaton record is under seal and invisible, but among the visible things are very questionable rejections of special master recommendations, which are in the process of being set aside now that a new judge has taken them.
Given the guilty pleas of Joey Langston and Steve Patterson (not to mention the testimony of Tim Balducci) the questions raised about Wilson v. Scruggs ought to be pretty obvious, but the orders themselves are among the strangest I ever saw.
Anyone really interested in the problems with those DeLaughter cases could start by searching for them in the search box here. Many of the original pleadings are on this site, along with explanations about them.
But I’m not sure the questions being raised here about what DeLaughter did that was wrong are from the perspective of an open mind seeking information.
But I’m not sure the questions being raised here about what DeLaughter did that was wrong are from the perspective of an open mind seeking information.
‘Spect not. Nor do I ’spect y’all will ever get anywhere with the questioner (edifying us groundlings remains worthwhile, though).
Justolmoi – No, I’m not confusing the law and safe driving habits. I’m simply trying to explain why, IN MY OPINION (which, apparently, I’m not entitled to) the officer did not deserve a manslaughter charge.
I am well aware, NMC, of what has been alleged about DeLaughter but, the last time I checked, there had been NO statement by the judicial review committee affirming that DeLaughter has done anything improper. And, last time I checked, there had been no indictment for any criminal offense. Am I wrong? If not, then please explain to me why I should not continue to give DeLaughter the benefit of doubt. Just because YOU don’t???
What is it that makes it impossible for so many of you here to tolerate anyone who has an opinion different from yours? If your opinions are so solidly grounded in law, why can’t you just explain the legal premise on which you base your opinion in an open and straight forwarded manner? Why must you always respond with ridicule and smart ass comments? If you don’t want anyone with an opposing view to participate in these discussions, why don’t you just set up a private chat room? Then ya’ll can all go there and gossip til your heart’s content without ANYONE to challenge you.
Hey, Lynda, you’re a hoot !
You post long-winded, patently contrarian and authoritarian-sounding posts and then respond ‘in a self-justifying huff’ because someone challenges your ‘OPINION.’
Take ‘the chip off your shoulder’, the load might be lighter to carry.
Oh, Lynda, while you’re at it: In your post at 50, you were so busy justifying your opinion that you seemed to overllok or avoid responding to the challenge at 47: “Cite for us a Mississippi traffic law that requires a person to presume that another driver is going to break the law.”
So for the benefit of inquiry, again: Cite for us a Mississippi traffic law that requires a person to presume that another driver is going to break the law.
Show me where I ever said that there WAS a “traffic law” that requires a person to presume that another driver is going to break a law. I said the guy was negiligent by not making sure it was safe to turn. You learn about it in “Driver’s Eduction”. Ever heard of that? It’s kinda like..don’t stick your hand under the lawn mower until you are sure the blade has stopped turning. Or, don’t pour lighter fluid on a fire to make it burn hotter. You know, common sense stuff. Oh. You don’t know, do you? Sorry!
And let us not forget, “Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not know the difference.” Anonymous