|
Jill
|
personally i think this sheds some light on just what type of people we have "protecting" citizens of this county. i wasn't there and don't personally know everything that happened that night, but for officers to have arrested one of their own and charged him with a crime it must have been something serious. maybe this should show that a closer look needs to be taken at the type of people who are patrolling our county roads in uniform and what exactly they do when they are off duty and "regular citizens". because i am sure there is a lot that goes on out of public view that should not be happening... and no i am not saying these people are not entitled to a personal life, but i believe they should be held to the same standards that they hold everyone else to when they are working. i don't believe they should be able to "bend" the law and get away with it just because they wear a uniform and a badge when they go to work. does that really make them any better or different than the rest of us who don't?
|
|
Thank you HCSD
|
This arrest shows that our new Sheriff means business. I had a friend to be murdered by her ex-cop, ex-husband and he also murdered 2 of her friends. She had just remarried and there had been many complaints made (this was in Morristown) about him stalking her, etc. I am proud of our Sheriff's Dept. for taking this seriously. Domestic violence is nothing to laugh at and most ppl look at the woman and say "Well, why doesn't she just leave?" Well, there are usually many reasons why she can't just leave. Generally in these situations, the man has a lot of control over the woman be it financially, emotionally, or not allowing her to drive or leave the house. Most of the time it's just not as simple as "just get out".
|
|
Thank you HCSD
|
Read the article. Mrs. Vaughan is in D-E-N-I-A-L!!!!
|
|
Wilson
|
Jill wrote: personally i think this sheds some light on just what type of people we have "protecting" citizens of this county. i wasn't there and don't personally know everything that happened that night, but for officers to have arrested one of their own and charged him with a crime it must have been something serious. maybe this should show that a closer look needs to be taken at the type of people who are patrolling our county roads in uniform and what exactly they do when they are off duty and "regular citizens". because i am sure there is a lot that goes on out of public view that should not be happening... and no i am not saying these people are not entitled to a personal life, but i believe they should be held to the same standards that they hold everyone else to when they are working. i don't believe they should be able to "bend" the law and get away with it just because they wear a uniform and a badge when they go to work. does that really make them any better or different than the rest of us who don't? Your comment might make a little more sense had he not been arrested. Where do you see that the law was "bent" or he was treated any different becasue of a uniform? Why try and make and seem that all cops are bad just because of this incident. Look at how many people get arrest everyday for the same charge, just because he is a cop it is going to be in the spotlight. I am pretty sure that even cops are human and sometimes make mistakes.
|
|
Jill
|
Wilson wrote: <quoted text>
Your comment might make a little more sense had he not been arrested. Where do you see that the law was "bent" or he was treated any different becasue of a uniform? Why try and make and seem that all cops are bad just because of this incident. Look at how many people get arrest everyday for the same charge, just because he is a cop it is going to be in the spotlight. I am pretty sure that even cops are human and sometimes make mistakes. had you paid attention, i did not say this incident was handled wrong. i thought i had made it clear that i thought this was how things needed to be. and by that i mean these incidents being taken care of and not just swept under the rug because one of the people involved wears a uniform. and yes people get arrested every day for the same charge and YES it should be in the spotlight because he is a cop. what right does he or any other cop who would act in this way(and i am sure there are others out there) have to put someone in jail for something they themselves have done. if a cop is going to behave in this way, in my opinion(and please take note-in my opinion and everyone is entitled to one) he should not be a cop. i am sorry but i do not feel it is right for someone to arrest someone for something they have done themselves. and yes you are right they are human and make mistakes but they should have to pay for them just like anyone else.
|
|
Thinking out loud
AOL
|
I don't ever want anyone from this forum on a jury if I am ever in court. Whatever happened to that silly old concept of innocent until proven guilty? I don't know the facts, don't know the people invovlved, don't know enough to say something did or didn't happen. All I know is a report was filed and there are usually more than two sides to every story. But it does make for interesting reading, I guess that is why someone went out of their way to leak the info to the press.
|
|
Just an Observation
|
Thinking out loud wrote: someone went out of their way to leak the info to the press. This part of your comment may be particularly meaningful.
|
|
Jill
|
Thinking out loud wrote: I don't ever want anyone from this forum on a jury if I am ever in court. Whatever happened to that silly old concept of innocent until proven guilty? I don't know the facts, don't know the people invovlved, don't know enough to say something did or didn't happen. All I know is a report was filed and there are usually more than two sides to every story. But it does make for interesting reading, I guess that is why someone went out of their way to leak the info to the press. innocent until proven guilty? what about the witnesses who saw what happened? is that not enough to prove guilt? and even if nothing happened here and he is "innocent", believe me there are plenty of other times where our law enforcement officers are not so innocent but everything is just kept quiet because of who they are. trust me- i have seen this personally.
|
|
|
|
Thinking out loud
AOL
|
And the witness could be lying, I don't know that she is but she could be. She could also be the only one telling the truth, since the alleged victim seems to be changing her tale. I don't know what happened and neither do you, Jill, unless you are the witness, identified in the report as a Ms. Courtney Lane. Judge not, lest ye be judged...
|
|
Just an Observation
|
Jill wrote: <quoted text>innocent until proven guilty? what about the witnesses who saw what happened? is that not enough to prove guilt? and even if nothing happened here and he is "innocent", believe me there are plenty of other times where our law enforcement officers are not so innocent but everything is just kept quiet because of who they are. trust me- i have seen this personally. Keep in mind, this dispute was concerning the custody of a child. In these matters, all witnesses are credible and everyone tells the truth? C'mon. When parents feel their actions are justified or in the best interst of their children, emotions run high. They may lie, kick a car, have fits of temper and/or use whatever weapons are at their disposal - in this case could it not just as likely be that Mamma's well-meaning friends saw an opportunity to improve her case by discrediting the other parent and publically tarnishing his/her reputation. Quite simply, could be a case of either/or. At this point, you don't know any more facts that I do. So yes, Mr. Vaughn is innocent until proven guilty. Assuming that you have children, imagine that your spouse filed false charges/allegations against you to better his legal position. Then, he had his buddies to support his account and leak it to the local media. Would you want an opportunity to present your side? I imagine that you would - so why would you forego the justice system for this man and assume him to be guilty? Because it happens too often in other cases - we should eliminate this man's constitutional rights? Ma`am with all due respect, that's about as sensible as a sack of monkey shit.
|
|
HEY THERE
|
Just an Observation wrote: <quoted text>
Keep in mind, this dispute was concerning the custody of a child. In these matters, all witnesses are credible and everyone tells the truth? C'mon. When parents feel their actions are justified or in the best interst of their children, emotions run high. They may lie, kick a car, have fits of temper and/or use whatever weapons are at their disposal - in this case could it not just as likely be that Mamma's well-meaning friends saw an opportunity to improve her case by discrediting the other parent and publically tarnishing his/her reputation. Quite simply, could be a case of either/or. At this point, you don't know any more facts that I do. So yes, Mr. Vaughn is innocent until proven guilty.
Assuming that you have children, imagine that your spouse filed false charges/allegations against you to better his legal position. Then, he had his buddies to support his account and leak it to the local media. Would you want an opportunity to present your side? I imagine that you would - so why would you forego the justice system for this man and assume him to be guilty? Because it happens too often in other cases - we should eliminate this man's constitutional rights? Ma`am with all due respect, that's about as sensible as a sack of monkey shit. Now now now.Have you not chastised others for such language?Man if the citizens around here would wake up and smell the coffee...they would see lots of "monkey shit".
|
|
Just an Observation
|
HEY THERE wrote: <quoted text>Now now now.Have you not chastised others for such language?Man if the citizens around here would wake up and smell the coffee...they would see lots of "monkey shit". Not that I recall.
|
|
not confused
|
as i understand it , this officer was tring to protect his son from leaving with two women who were drinking alcohol and according to court testimony the women threw there beer out the window in the deputy's yard so the responding officers wouldnt find them in possession of it . the witness went to to court and testified she never saw any assault and she lied to the officers the night deputy vaughn was arrested . Why was the witness not charged for lieing to the police ? how many beers would you let someone drink and then take your child on the road ? so what if vaughn kicked the door shut ! he paid the dealership for it . i think vaughn should be commended for his actions , not charged . if you dont believe me then check with the courts before you make a comment about vaughn , its all in sworn testimony !
|
|
Wilson
|
not confused wrote: as i understand it , this officer was tring to protect his son from leaving with two women who were drinking alcohol and according to court testimony the women threw there beer out the window in the deputy's yard so the responding officers wouldnt find them in possession of it . the witness went to to court and testified she never saw any assault and she lied to the officers the night deputy vaughn was arrested . Why was the witness not charged for lieing to the police ? how many beers would you let someone drink and then take your child on the road ? so what if vaughn kicked the door shut ! he paid the dealership for it . i think vaughn should be commended for his actions , not charged . if you dont believe me then check with the courts before you make a comment about vaughn , its all in sworn testimony ! Could you please post a copy of the sworn testimony.
|
|
Wilson
|
Wilson wrote: <quoted text>
Could you please post a copy of the sworn testimony. I didn't count on hearing back from you. If you knew what you where talking about you would know that there is no court record of the testimony. This case was heard in general sessions court, which is not a court of record. Now, instead of repeating stuff you have heard from the neighbor down the road who heard it from someone who talked to a "reliable source" please stick with the facts.
|
|
not confused
|
dear wilson , by court record i mean the facts that the court reporter took down , and yes there was a court reporter there to record testimony . and i was also at the hearing and i heard it all first hand so i didnt have to hear it from a neighbor down the road . so i know what was said on both sides . were you there ?
|
|
Just an Observation
|
Think Wilson is right - at least in the past there was no court reporter in sessions. There is the Session's Clerk - so you might've gotten them mixed up. Wilson can probably clarify, but I think "public record" from session court is limited to a listing of charge and findings (dismissed, guilty, fined, sentenced, bound over to Grand Jury) Sworn depositions and/or court record normally make appearances only in civil or criminal court.
Don't know why that is. Because sessions court handles mostly misdemeanors or stenographers don't slum.
|
|
Wilson
|
Just an Observation wrote: Think Wilson is right - at least in the past there was no court reporter in sessions. There is the Session's Clerk - so you might've gotten them mixed up. Wilson can probably clarify, but I think "public record" from session court is limited to a listing of charge and findings (dismissed, guilty, fined, sentenced, bound over to Grand Jury) Sworn depositions and/or court record normally make appearances only in civil or criminal court.
Don't know why that is. Because sessions court handles mostly misdemeanors or stenographers don't slum. This is correct. I was just trying to say that a court reporter is not supplied in sessions court. The attorney may have brought his own, but not the court. As for the comments about the people being intoxicated, doesn't it seem that the officers who had contact with mrs. vaughn that night would have not let the kids leave with her that night if she had been intoxicated. And if you are truly not confused, why is part of the case going on to a higher court?
|
|
Just an Observation
|
This assault charge was bound over to criminal court? Or its just going to civil via custody suit?
|
|
Wilson
|
Just an Observation wrote: This assault charge was bound over to criminal court? Or its just going to civil via custody suit? Not sure exactly what part of the case was bound over, but it was to Criminal Court, best I can remember from the last article. I can't seem to find it doing an archive search. I'm sure that "not confused" can tell us, since he was there.
|
Judge it!
76°F
Most Popular
