First Prev
of 4
Next Last
looking

Alliance, OH

#1 Jun 13, 2013

“Is who I am”

Since: Aug 08

Scottsville

#2 Jun 13, 2013
okay....and?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#3 Jun 13, 2013
This is a big time story that will grip the town in its clutches for months to come. Will justice be done? Will money win out and make the charges go away? Stay tuned Scottsville, it's about to get heated. I hope the debate on here can stay civil.
Hopefully

Monterey, TN

#4 Jun 13, 2013
Lynn should get time.. no probation. bout time.
froy

Lafayette, TN

#5 Jun 14, 2013
that doesnt make any sence why jeff is faceing more time than lynn,cause if she hadnt of stole the pills, he couldnt have sold them,but either way i still say he will be the only one to do any time,poor man always goes to prison
Let the System Work

Warrenton, VA

#6 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot Dad asks, "Will justice be done? Will money win out and make the charges go away?"

Hopefully, of Franklin, said, "Lynn should get time.. no probation. bout time."

These comments are made before the trial has even begun.

An indictment is not an indication of guilt. An indictment is simply the first step in trying to determine if the accused persons are guilty of the crime.

Have we already tried and convicted these people, here on Topix? It sounds to me as though we have.

Couldn't we just let the court system work it's way through this one, accept it's verdict when it's over, and then move on with our lives?

"Will justice be done?"

Probably not to the satisfaction of the gathering lynch mob here on Topix.
froy

Lafayette, TN

#7 Jun 14, 2013
they hae all admited that they done the crime, its not a matter of guilt or innocense
Patriot Dad

Greensburg, KY

#8 Jun 14, 2013
Let the System Work wrote:
Patriot Dad asks, "Will justice be done? Will money win out and make the charges go away?"
Hopefully, of Franklin, said, "Lynn should get time.. no probation. bout time."
These comments are made before the trial has even begun.
An indictment is not an indication of guilt. An indictment is simply the first step in trying to determine if the accused persons are guilty of the crime.
Have we already tried and convicted these people, here on Topix? It sounds to me as though we have.
Couldn't we just let the court system work it's way through this one, accept it's verdict when it's over, and then move on with our lives?
"Will justice be done?"
Probably not to the satisfaction of the gathering lynch mob here on Topix.
You seriously believe that there is any doubt? No lynch mob forming but you will be hard pressed to find any sympathy for someone who stole thousand of dollars worth of drugs and then sold them for tens of thousands. There are quite a few people hooked on pain killers in this town and these people own that.
Let the System Work

United States

#9 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot Dad wrote:
<quoted text>
You seriously believe that there is any doubt? No lynch mob forming but you will be hard pressed to find any sympathy for someone who stole thousand of dollars worth of drugs and then sold them for tens of thousands. There are quite a few people hooked on pain killers in this town and these people own that.
Do I seriously believe that there is any doubt? Yes, I do. Our Constitution says there is.

In our American system of Justice we are supposed to have a presumption of innocence until the person is convicted in a court of law.

Patriot Dad says, "you will be hard pressed to find any sympathy for someone who stole thousand of dollars worth of drugs and then sold them for tens of thousands."

I didn't see them steal it --- did you? They are "accused" of stealing it. If you are an eye witness to the theft then you should go to the prosecutor and get on his witness list and testify against them.

All that any of us here know is opinions formed on the basis of hearsay. We aren't supposed to convict people on the basis of hearsay.

You say, "There are quite a few people hooked on pain killers in this town and these people own that".

I agree that the alleged crime is serious. Drug dealing is a heinous crime. The penalties meted out for it are usually harsh, as they should be.

The fact that it is such a serious crime with such severe penalties makes it all the more important that we do it correctly. The purpose of the trial is to listen to -sworn testimony- to decide if they are guilty as accused.

The seriousness of the charge has no bearing --whatsoever-- on whether they are guilty or not.

Local hearsay and gossip has no bearing --whatsoever-- on whether they are guilty or not.

Judgement is not ours to make. A proper court of law is the place to decide their guilt or innocence. Once that court has done it's work and reached a verdict, I will condemn them as vigorously as the next person -- if they are found guilty.

Do I suspect they are guilty? Yes.

I like to think that the detectives who pursued this case are honest and objective and believe they have evidence to make the charges stick.

But the ultimate decision is for the proper legal process to determine, be that a jury decision or a plea bargain.
Patriot Dad

Greensburg, KY

#10 Jun 14, 2013
I agree that they deserve a trial and will get it. I am usually the first to look for the good in others and give the benefit of doubt. In this case they were caught with the drugs and thousands in cash. Not hard to do the math on this one.

I am neither judge or jury. They will get their day in court.
tinponyrider

Westmoreland, TN

#11 Jun 14, 2013
Let the System Work wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I seriously believe that there is any doubt? Yes, I do. Our Constitution says there is.
In our American system of Justice we are supposed to have a presumption of innocence until the person is convicted in a court of law.
Patriot Dad says, "you will be hard pressed to find any sympathy for someone who stole thousand of dollars worth of drugs and then sold them for tens of thousands."
I didn't see them steal it --- did you? They are "accused" of stealing it. If you are an eye witness to the theft then you should go to the prosecutor and get on his witness list and testify against them.
All that any of us here know is opinions formed on the basis of hearsay. We aren't supposed to convict people on the basis of hearsay.
You say, "There are quite a few people hooked on pain killers in this town and these people own that".
I agree that the alleged crime is serious. Drug dealing is a heinous crime. The penalties meted out for it are usually harsh, as they should be.
The fact that it is such a serious crime with such severe penalties makes it all the more important that we do it correctly. The purpose of the trial is to listen to -sworn testimony- to decide if they are guilty as accused.
The seriousness of the charge has no bearing --whatsoever-- on whether they are guilty or not.
Local hearsay and gossip has no bearing --whatsoever-- on whether they are guilty or not.
Judgement is not ours to make. A proper court of law is the place to decide their guilt or innocence. Once that court has done it's work and reached a verdict, I will condemn them as vigorously as the next person -- if they are found guilty.
Do I suspect they are guilty? Yes.
I like to think that the detectives who pursued this case are honest and objective and believe they have evidence to make the charges stick.
But the ultimate decision is for the proper legal process to determine, be that a jury decision or a plea bargain.
It seems to me that no one is alleging or convicting anyone, but expressing their opinion of how they feel about the situation. Innocence until proven guilty; don't know how much dealings you have had with the court system, but you would have found that its just the opposite, you will be treated that you are guilty until you can prove yourself to be innocent. And they were caught red handed with the goods.

Hummmm stranger things have happened within the court system. Money talks and B/S walks. Most likely the main culprit will get off and the little guys will go to the pen. They all should go, no plea bargains.
Let the System Work

Warrenton, VA

#12 Jun 14, 2013
TPR,
I will agree, the prosecutor believes a man is guilty or he wouldn't charge him. He tries to prove it to the jurors, otherwise there'd be no trial.

Your defense attorney tries to refute the charges and show that you are not guilty.

The law assumes you to be --not guilty-- until such time as the prosecutor proves otherwise. Under the law, the burden of proof is upon him.

The jury, supposedly is made up of people unfamiliar with the case.

In the jury selection process both lawyers will quiz the potential jurors. The prosecutor wants to be sure the jurors will convict if the evidence warrants it.

The defense lawyer wants to be sure that the jurors are not familiar with the case -- that they haven't already formed an opinion.

At the trial no one can just get up and say, "They were caught red-handed". Rather, someone, under penalty of perjury, must swear under oath, "I caught them red-handed."

What you will hear from sworn witnesses at a trail in a US Federal Court, may vary a little from the rumors going around the streets of Scottsville and on Topix.

After hearing the -sworn- testimony of the witnesses for both sides, the jury wiil make it's decision.

We are all human, thus there is no perfect system. It is doubtful that there will ever be a truly unbiased, impartial jury, especially in this internet age.

Im-perfect as it is, the system we have beats having a mob of agitators and hotheads up on the square firing up a lynching party to string them up.

It's almost certain, no matter how this trial turns out there will probably be people on both sides crying foul. Anyway, they will be here on Topix. That's just human nature.
redneck rehab

United States

#13 Jun 14, 2013
Yea the system is crazy man they keep running me up on public intoxication.If the old lady would quit chasing me out the house with her broom i wouldnt be intoxicated in public

“Is who I am”

Since: Aug 08

Scottsville

#14 Jun 14, 2013
Patriot Dad wrote:
I agree that they deserve a trial and will get it. I am usually the first to look for the good in others and give the benefit of doubt. In this case they were caught with the drugs and thousands in cash. Not hard to do the math on this one.
I am neither judge or jury. They will get their day in court.
Correct!! I hope we can get on with life now. I'm betting not. lol
Mmmmmm

Newport, KY

#15 Jun 14, 2013
Thr reason why all this is federal NOW, is I HEARD Marty napier rolled on them all. If someone is facing as many criminal Burgarly charges and possession of firearm charges in warren co as Marty, and all the Felony charges he has is allen is out on the streets! Makes you wonder if what I heard was true!
Let the System Work

United States

#16 Jun 14, 2013
Mmmmmm wrote:
Thr reason why all this is federal NOW, is I HEARD Marty napier rolled on them all. If someone is facing as many criminal Burgarly charges and possession of firearm charges in warren co as Marty, and all the Felony charges he has is allen is out on the streets! Makes you wonder if what I heard was true!
Exactly what are you suggesting? What you're saying isn't clear to me.

Who's Marty? How does Marty figure into this? He wasn't one of the people charged in the indictment. Are you suggesting Marty informed on them and cut a deal on charges against him?

Also, I wonder, If they tried to sell any of these drugs across the state line, would it not automatically become a Federal case?

There could be a number of legitimate reasons why the feds are prosecuting it.

Another thing I have heard, but I'm not sure, is that there is no parole or early release, time off for good behavior, etc if you are convicted and sentenced by a federal court. You serve the full amount of time.

So these people may end up doing considerably more time if convicted by the federal court system.
looking

Alliance, OH

#17 Jun 14, 2013
Let the System Work wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly what are you suggesting? What you're saying isn't clear to me.

Who's Marty? How does Marty figure into this? He wasn't one of the people charged in the indictment. Are you suggesting Marty informed on them and cut a deal on charges against him?

Also, I wonder, If they tried to sell any of these drugs across the state line, would it not automatically become a Federal case?

There could be a number of legitimate reasons why the feds are prosecuting it.

Another thing I have heard, but I'm not sure, is that there is no parole or early release, time off for good behavior, etc if you are convicted and sentenced by a federal court. You serve the full amount of time.

So these people may end up doing considerably more time if convicted by the federal court system.
Feds may be involved since the drugs were stolen from a pharmacy. That involves the dea and that is federal.
tinponyrider

Westmoreland, TN

#18 Jun 14, 2013
Let the System Work wrote:
TPR,
I will agree, the prosecutor believes a man is guilty or he wouldn't charge him. He tries to prove it to the jurors, otherwise there'd be no trial.
Your defense attorney tries to refute the charges and show that you are not guilty.
The law assumes you to be --not guilty-- until such time as the prosecutor proves otherwise. Under the law, the burden of proof is upon him.
The jury, supposedly is made up of people unfamiliar with the case.
In the jury selection process both lawyers will quiz the potential jurors. The prosecutor wants to be sure the jurors will convict if the evidence warrants it.
The defense lawyer wants to be sure that the jurors are not familiar with the case -- that they haven't already formed an opinion.
At the trial no one can just get up and say, "They were caught red-handed". Rather, someone, under penalty of perjury, must swear under oath, "I caught them red-handed."
What you will hear from sworn witnesses at a trail in a US Federal Court, may vary a little from the rumors going around the streets of Scottsville and on Topix.
After hearing the -sworn- testimony of the witnesses for both sides, the jury wiil make it's decision.
We are all human, thus there is no perfect system. It is doubtful that there will ever be a truly unbiased, impartial jury, especially in this internet age.
Im-perfect as it is, the system we have beats having a mob of agitators and hotheads up on the square firing up a lynching party to string them up.
It's almost certain, no matter how this trial turns out there will probably be people on both sides crying foul. Anyway, they will be here on Topix. That's just human nature.
Oh I do understand what you are saying and agree with you. But there is a lot of if, ands and buts in your context. Hehehheee That's where the money comes into play, for the lawyer.
Free Country

Red Boiling Springs, TN

#19 Jun 15, 2013
We have so many scum bags running loose that have been busted time after time. They get what looks to be a long lock up time. But almost all of them are back out in our community's in a couple of months or weeks. (Look back a year or two in the arrest reports in the paper.) I say put away the repeat offenders first then deal with the first timers. Money is what is putting case in federal court. It makes some others involved not look so bad.
Correct

Lafayette, TN

#20 Jun 15, 2013
Let the System Work wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what are you suggesting? What you're saying isn't clear to me.
Who's Marty? How does Marty figure into this? He wasn't one of the people charged in the indictment. Are you suggesting Marty informed on them and cut a deal on charges against him?
Also, I wonder, If they tried to sell any of these drugs across the state line, would it not automatically become a Federal case?
There could be a number of legitimate reasons why the feds are prosecuting it.
Another thing I have heard, but I'm not sure, is that there is no parole or early release, time off for good behavior, etc if you are convicted and sentenced by a federal court. You serve the full amount of time.
So these people may end up doing considerably more time if convicted by the federal court system.
You do not have parole in the federal system. The only thing they offer is 54 days per year of good time. So if you are convicted for 5 years and get in no trouble you do the entire 5 years minus 270 days for good time.

Since it is federal you are guaranteed to get a hefty conviction unless they take a plea bargin. They have minimum mandatory sentencing. So you are charged with this crime you automatically get this amount of time. With them it is 1+1=2 unless you get a decent plea deal.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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.

Scottsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Post Office In Scottsville 5 hr BMartin1980 1
Who are the worst people to rent from? 8 hr Halfway 1
Waitress at Dumplings 16 hr john 16
Affairs at sumitomo 18 hr unoriginalusername 6
Red headed older lady at smoke shake BbQ 20 hr Chucky 12
News Lucas Goodrum's Stepfather Found Dead Inside Bu... (Jan '08) Mon Common s 360
wreck Mon wandering 1

Scottsville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Scottsville Mortgages