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.

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.

‘Spect not. Nor do I ’spect y’all will ever get anywhere with the questioner (edifying us groundlings remains worthwhile, though).

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.

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.

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.