First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Glock 21

Chesapeake, OH

#1 Jul 15, 2013
I am glad to see that jury's have seen the light and we get another not guilty in a person defending themselves. You the jury, our only way to bring justice to the people and tell the government we are just fine with the GUN's we have. No less.
1 post removed
Tax Payer

Parkersburg, WV

#3 Jul 15, 2013
I wonder what they spent to prosecute this guy for defending himself and they lost. Using tax payers money for them to do what ever they want to. Who knows how much this really cost and what did it cost the defendant that was not guilty. The jury said he was not guilty, he should get his legal fees reimbursed at the least.
lol

Hansford, WV

#4 Jul 15, 2013
At least the Searls prosecution offered manslaughter as an option.
David

Huntington, WV

#5 Jul 15, 2013
Tax Payer wrote:
I wonder what they spent to prosecute this guy for defending himself and they lost. Using tax payers money for them to do what ever they want to. Who knows how much this really cost and what did it cost the defendant that was not guilty. The jury said he was not guilty, he should get his legal fees reimbursed at the least.
In all honesty those public lawyers get paid the same no matter what they are doing. Same with the judge. The $5 a day for the jury didn't hit the tax bill that hard. The bill would have been the same regardless of what happened in that case or any other, they are paid salary. At least they were actually working for that money instead of having lunch & "networking".
lol

Parkersburg, WV

#6 Jul 15, 2013
lol wrote:
At least the Searls prosecution offered manslaughter as an option.
That's too funny, if you charge them it don't mean anything else. No options. That's BS. Charge them with what they did and let a jury make a decision. No second places for a prosecutor.
you are stupid DAVID

Parkersburg, WV

#7 Jul 15, 2013
David wrote:
<quoted text>In all honesty those public lawyers get paid the same no matter what they are doing. Same with the judge. The $5 a day for the jury didn't hit the tax bill that hard. The bill would have been the same regardless of what happened in that case or any other, they are paid salary. At least they were actually working for that money instead of having lunch & "networking".
Is that all if cost us dumb ass?? NO a whole lot more than the jury chump change. I bet 30,000 plus dollars and NO Conviction That's right boy (David) keep your bitch ass at home.
please forgive David

Chesapeake, OH

#8 Jul 15, 2013
He does not know better people
David

Huntington, WV

#9 Jul 15, 2013
you are stupid DAVID wrote:
<quoted text>Is that all if cost us dumb ass?? NO a whole lot more than the jury chump change. I bet 30,000 plus dollars and NO Conviction That's right boy (David) keep your bitch ass at home.
Really? Please break down the bill for me then. Lets here your expertise in public pay scales.
David

Huntington, WV

#10 Jul 15, 2013
please forgive David wrote:
He does not know better people
Please enlighten us all then.
David

Huntington, WV

#11 Jul 15, 2013
I think tax payer & you are stupid DAVID are the same person, or are sitting in the same room. Hey, be an adult, use your name. Don't hide. Now, still waiting. Tell me how the police, prosecutor, & judge, who are all public employees who get paid salary cost the tax payer more money than the salary they would have earned anyway. I didn't say I disagreed with the outcome, I'm just saying the bill didn't hurt the small amount of taxes you barely pay.
Not Guilty

Parkersburg, WV

#12 Jul 15, 2013
I think the bigger problem is trying a case that's self defense. The money is one issue. I believe they wasted a bunch here more than salaries they wasted time on putting guilty people in jail.
David

Huntington, WV

#13 Jul 15, 2013
Not Guilty wrote:
I think the bigger problem is trying a case that's self defense. The money is one issue. I believe they wasted a bunch here more than salaries they wasted time on putting guilty people in jail.
Another Dunbar participant. Interesting. I agree with your statement though. It's unfortunate the time an innocent man was behind bars. Innocence by a jury of his peers. The money is no issue. Being locked up when you shouldn't be is a major issue. However, according to the law & his peers, he can breathe a sigh of relief.
Guilty

Parkersburg, WV

#14 Jul 15, 2013
Why don't we just try everyone in Huntington with murder 1 and if that don't stuck well charge them with possession, lol we will convect them one way or the other.

Charge them with everything and something will stick.
Knows

Ashland, KY

#15 Jul 16, 2013
Tax Payer wrote:
I wonder what they spent to prosecute this guy for defending himself and they lost. Using tax payers money for them to do what ever they want to. Who knows how much this really cost and what did it cost the defendant that was not guilty. The jury said he was not guilty, he should get his legal fees reimbursed at the least.
"Defending himself" ? Searls was fighting his brother inside the bar, John broke it up. Then he goes outside, waits for John to come out...then shoots him 3 times. Once in the back. If he was so afraid of John why did he wait for him outside? Why not take his cowardly a$$ home? No one laid a hand on him until he shot and killed John. Maybe you should know the facts before you open your mouth and let all that stupidity flow out.
law

United States

#16 Jul 16, 2013
Knows wrote:
<quoted text>"Defending himself" ? Searls was fighting his brother inside the bar, John broke it up. Then he goes outside, waits for John to come out...then shoots him 3 times. Once in the back. If he was so afraid of John why did he wait for him outside? Why not take his cowardly a$$ home? No one laid a hand on him until he shot and killed John. Maybe you should know the facts before you open your mouth and let all that stupidity flow out.
The law is clear he was charged, tried, He was defending himself. Get over it.
law

United States

#17 Jul 16, 2013
Knows wrote:
<quoted text>"Defending himself" ? Searls was fighting his brother inside the bar, John broke it up. Then he goes outside, waits for John to come out...then shoots him 3 times. Once in the back. If he was so afraid of John why did he wait for him outside? Why not take his cowardly a$$ home? No one laid a hand on him until he shot and killed John. Maybe you should know the facts before you open your mouth and let all that stupidity flow out.
In the back?? It just came out that side dumb ass.
ok

United States

#18 Jul 16, 2013
Does not matter what a person believes its the jury's decision if he is guilty or not. Not you, it sounds like you are emotionally involved.
lol

Hansford, WV

#19 Jul 16, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
That's too funny, if you charge them it don't mean anything else. No options. That's BS. Charge them with what they did and let a jury make a decision. No second places for a prosecutor.
You really don't know WTF you're talking about, do you?
Perry Mason

Charleston, WV

#20 Jul 16, 2013
It was a good case, the prosecution messed it up. You can read the judge's comments from the prior week where he was upset that things hadn't been filed on time. Evidence didn't come in that should have.
Searls had fired shots outside a bar not long before this. I wouldn't celebrate him being out on the streets.
nope

Avella, PA

#21 Jul 16, 2013
David wrote:
I think tax payer & you are stupid DAVID are the same person, or are sitting in the same room. Hey, be an adult, use your name. Don't hide. Now, still waiting. Tell me how the police, prosecutor, & judge, who are all public employees who get paid salary cost the tax payer more money than the salary they would have earned anyway. I didn't say I disagreed with the outcome, I'm just saying the bill didn't hurt the small amount of taxes you barely pay.
I'm not going to attack you David, but you are wrong. First, his 2 defense lawyers get $65 an hour for every hour outside of court and $85 and hour in court - from tax payer money. Each juror gets $40 a day (not 5) plus lunch and parking. So, for each standard day of court, the State shells out over $2,000 in cash in addition to the opportunity cost of the state employees who can't go anything else while the trial is ongoing. This doesn't include all the incidental costs of prisoner transport, lawyer prep time outside of court, defense investigation and support costs, etc. I'm sure this prosecution cost well over $50,000.00.

I'd caution everyone also: an acquittal is not the same as innocence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Name one place you'd like to see a racist white... 5 min Ramius 23
Mariah Roberts Baby Daddy/ WHO 25 min JOKES 8
Does St Mary's Hospital Drug text every newborn? 28 min rebel 16
Walmart buying Camden park 33 min X councilman 1
Todd chow 1 hr Just wondering 1
Religious bible thumpers who are terrible people 1 hr Nancy 104
Al Quada Pivot 1 hr -zaphod- 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages