|
Paula
|
coventry resident wrote: <quoted text>
It doesn't bother me, but actually amuses me. I just remember the half truth's that the dollars and senseless group were putting out during issue 45 so I see them a little bit different than others do. Also, everyone knows that the senseless group is old, we have seen them in council going over her/their facts and most of us got a real good nap when the white haired lady stood up. Coventry resident, well, just thought I would let you know that the old white haired ladies you refer to are 100% accurate on what they said about sensative file being hidden away in a desk, just to let you know there is a leak at the NPD and it is pretty much the talk of the town how they found it and why they hide it away as they did. Their days are numbered, the boys in blue are not sticking together I guess, makes you wonder why doesn't it?
|
|
BMA
|
coventry resident wrote: <quoted text>
You just sound so angry...I guess we will all se how this all plays out.
I think that you need a hug. Ewww, you are disgusting. By the way what color is your hair?
|
|
Barberton resident
|
I guess if we were to take an optimstic view of what happened to this girl, I personally would have to say that the NPD and the Norton Public school system is definately guilty of violating this girls rights. The secretary should have assult charges pressed on her, and if I were her attorney, I would persue that aspect. She had no right to put her hands on this girl as she did, no matter who instructed her to do so. The NPD used her and misinstructed her and put her in a terrible position for which she will have to pay. Once the items were found, there was no need to search anymore, and once the girl was caught with everything, there was no reason to let her try to blame someone else. It shows the ignorance of the NPD,and or the prejudice they illustrated. I honestly beleive that a jury will see right through them and this case may set a presidence for all of our children in the public school system.
|
|
Norton
|
Coventry resident, if you don't live in Norton and you have nothing to do with the case, whick cop are you? Adkins? Davis? Or Delasandro? You desperately want to try to protect them for some reason, so either you are one of them, or related to one of them. That is why so few people pay attention to anything you have to say. Have you ever seen Reno 911? They are more adequate than the NPD.
|
|
Coventry Resident
|
Norton wrote: Coventry resident, if you don't live in Norton and you have nothing to do with the case, whick cop are you? Adkins? Davis? Or Delasandro? You desperately want to try to protect them for some reason, so either you are one of them, or related to one of them. That is why so few people pay attention to anything you have to say. Have you ever seen Reno 911? They are more adequate than the NPD. HEY, I loved Reno 911, specially the hotel skit.
|
|
Emma
|
Figures wrote: She was charged and found not guilty, the state appealed, still no luck for them, and the charges were eventually thrown out. Doesn't sound like the criminal charges had merit from the get-go.
Schools have a right to discipline and investigate, but only to a certain extent. If it was a safety issue, and the school alleged that she had a gun, that would be one thing. But a strip search for a camera and $200, all based on the allegations of another teenager? C'mon. Sounds like this school needs to quit playing cops and robbers, and get back to educating our kids. I agree. This school made many mistakes on this one, and now will have to use the taxpayer's money to settle this lawsuit. Someone needs to lose their job.
|
|
Yeah Right
|
Did anybody ever ask why the prosecution in the original case didnt request the person from the gas station where this poor little victim was caught on camera using the stolen credit card to appear in court...oops...Thats why she was found not guilty! The Norton procecutor needs to be the one fired...(at least thats what I've heard from people in the REAL know).
|
|
Norton fan
|
You mean that she was caught on tape using the stolen credit card?, how could that be?, I thought she was an innocent little saint?
|
|
|
|
Future of Norton
|
Yeah Right wrote: Did anybody ever ask why the prosecution in the original case didnt request the person from the gas station where this poor little victim was caught on camera using the stolen credit card to appear in court...oops...Thats why she was found not guilty! The Norton procecutor needs to be the one fired...(at least thats what I've heard from people in the REAL know). Where are these 'facts' stated in writing? Or are they just heresay? Where did you get this 'information'? Or is it just a game of 'what can I say and get away with'? Who is the Norton Prosecutor? Perhaps that person needs to be in the loop here....Rather than tried and convicted without even knowing about it.
|
|
watching you
|
Norton fan wrote: You mean that she was caught on tape using the stolen credit card?, how could that be?, I thought she was an innocent little saint? Slander is an ugly charge.....Do you really want to go there?
|
|
Coventry Resident
|
watching you wrote: <quoted text>
Slander is an ugly charge.....Do you really want to go there? Slander?, isn't that what most of the people in this forum are doing to the police, and school district? It seems ok to slander the NPD/School?
|
|
watching you
|
Actually the facts stated earlier are in writing and can be found by anyone. Can you say the same for what you have written? Slander is the act of defaming. The defamation here is from the ACTS these people committed. Not from the words written here.
And if the facts hurt, well maybe they should have thought more before they acted.
|
|
Yeah Right
|
Future of Norton wrote: <quoted text>
Where are these 'facts' stated in writing? Or are they just heresay? Where did you get this 'information'? Or is it just a game of 'what can I say and get away with'?
Who is the Norton Prosecutor? Perhaps that person needs to be in the loop here....Rather than tried and convicted without even knowing about it. Well you would be right that there are no written facts to the case because they could not use the statements in court without the person(s) being there. And as for the prosecutors name..dont know it either (guess you cant call me a liar) but the truth is that she did have the credit card and they couldnt convict her without the tape. As for the search, again. If they had no probable cause to arrest it would have been tossed before the original trial. No probable cause for arrest no trial! And that is a fact! You hate the NPD, I get it and its okay, but your loyalty is misplaced when it comes to this little girl. She and her Dad and the attorny will get paid because in this society we do that. The Citys Insurance will just settle for some unknown about and you will never hear about it again. Its a shame we reward bad behavior and we dont praise good that often. Have a nice day.
|
|
Future of Norton
|
Judged:
1
1
The Police had the items that they were 'searching' her to find. And you are right, it is too bad we reward bad behavior with raises, promotions, etc. No matter how you cloud the issue the stolen items were in Police possession when they searched this girl. The bad behavior here was from the NPD and the school. That is FACT. Where are your facts written? Besides here by you. If the NPD would have followed PROPER procedures this would never have happened.
|
|
Coventry Resident
|
Future of Norton wrote: The Police had the items that they were 'searching' her to find. And you are right, it is too bad we reward bad behavior with raises, promotions, etc.
No matter how you cloud the issue the stolen items were in Police possession when they searched this girl. The bad behavior here was from the NPD and the school. That is FACT. Where are your facts written? Besides here by you.
If the NPD would have followed PROPER procedures this would never have happened. You are just blinded by your hatred of the NPD... We can't take you seriously anymore. Even when you are given facts you spin your nonsense.
|
|
Norton Parent
|
Yeah Right wrote: <quoted text> Well you would be right that there are no written facts to the case because they could not use the statements in court without the person(s) being there. And as for the prosecutors name..dont know it either (guess you cant call me a liar) but the truth is that she did have the credit card and they couldnt convict her without the tape. As for the search, again. If they had no probable cause to arrest it would have been tossed before the original trial. No probable cause for arrest no trial! And that is a fact! You hate the NPD, I get it and its okay, but your loyalty is misplaced when it comes to this little girl. She and her Dad and the attorny will get paid because in this society we do that. The
Citys Insurance will just settle for some unknown about and you will never hear about it again. Its a shame we reward bad behavior and we dont praise good that often. Have a nice day. I don't know where you get your facts at but, there was obviously no proof of anything she may have been accused of or she would have been found guilty. If they had a tape and it was introduced into evidence properly then the court would have convicted her. Why wasn't the tape admitted into evidence? Possibly because there wasn't one? Or was it tainted evidence? The whole case was abusive, misleading, showed discrimination and prejudice, violated her rights, just to name a few things. If the police would have been right, the court would have seen that, but as it stands, the court found her not guilty after they looked at all of the evidence which was none. We all know that in a court of law, if there is the slightest impression of guilt, you are found guilty. If she was accused of using a credit card and it was on tape she definately would not have been found not guilty. If there was probable cause, they obviously were not able to prove it at a trial, meaning probable cause was lacking from the beginning. This whole case stinks from the very beginning and they should have know better. They put theirselves in this position by abuse of discreation of their job and the law. I hope that the city's insurance company does have to settle. Maybe they won't be so quick to judge innocent people and place them in a position where they have to fight for their freedon when they have done nothing wrong.
|
|
Why I moved out of Norton
|
Hey Coventry Resident, why is it nonsense to follow proper procedures? Oh wait, we're talking about Norton, never mind. You seem like an angry person. Do you take steroids like those bloated, bald cops in Norton? Its bad for other body parts as well. Just worried about your health. Have a wonderful day!
|
|
Future of Norton
|
Coventry Resident wrote: <quoted text>
You are just blinded by your hatred of the NPD... We can't take you seriously anymore. Even when you are given facts you spin your nonsense. Well as my name indicates, I am FOR Norton and for a positive community. There is no hatred. When people bring that word into a discussion they are trying to change the focus. Facts speak louder than ignorance. How sad that everytime you get frustrated it comes out this same old, tired way. If you have nothing productive to say, say nothing.
|
|
go future of norton
|
keep up the good work, you are on to something here as far as this girl's innocence! keep looking, there is even more to this ludicrous lawsuit than any of you can imagine. Hopefully ALL of the facts of this case will eventually be PUBLICLY known and you will all realize the mud the staff and NPD have been dragged through.
|
|
Law student
|
go future of norton wrote: keep up the good work, you are on to something here as far as this girl's innocence! keep looking, there is even more to this ludicrous lawsuit than any of you can imagine. Hopefully ALL of the facts of this case will eventually be PUBLICLY known and you will all realize the mud the staff and NPD have been dragged through. Apparently the facts of this case were so weak she was found not guilty in a court of law. Obviously the only testimony they can be given at this trail, lawsuit, will be the same testimony that was given at her original trial. And if she has a smart lawyer, and I would bet that she does, she does not have to take the stand to testify, which limits any testimony that can be given or any insinuations that they may try to make against her. All that can be presented are the alligations that they face. This case is not about what she was accused of, it is about the violations of her civil and constitutional rights. The charges and acusations that they face are all that will be argued at this trial. She is not on trial, they are. She does not have to defend herself, they do. Bringing everything public, may be a mistake on their behalf. As to the mud slinging you refer to, I beleive that it goes both ways. Or atleast that is how the jury may view it.
|
Judge it!
73°F
Most Popular
