Expositor Arrested in White County

[fyi]

Judge Benningfield or any judge in his position can only give a maximum of 11 months and 29 days. If the DA wants more time he must take it to a higher court. Judge Benningfield oversees divorces, juvenile cases and misdemeanors.
The "big crimes" are seen in the other courts. I could be mistaken but I believe this is true.

[JeffBob]

LOL wrote:

<quoted text>
Well I could care less what you think. Are you mad because your in the paper? LOL nuff said!!!!!!

I have never had a traffic ticket of any kind, much less been arrested for any crimes, never been in the paper! But, this is not right on the paper's part. Like I said, that posting is "UNWORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION" Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!

[tnchick78]

Rabbit50 why are you so worried!? Your pic mustve been posted lol! Don't put yourself in the situation to be arrested and ya wont have it to worry with!!! CRY ME A RIVER!!

[umusbjokin]

rabbitt50 wrote:

i think it is absolutely absurb that in my opinion (jim shanks) has nothing better with his paper than to publish mug shots now of those arrested,and yes it is public info but defaming someones character although they are innocent until proven guilty is wrong,and i do not condone anyone,s illegal acts,but do you know how this affects arrested from the view of potential employers and or credit institutions that may be pending,,some however have made bad mistakes in their lives and putting photos now of those arrested is just setting self esteem and integrity to a level pretty low by the expositor because in mmy opinion again Mr.jim shanks you do not care it is public info

O please!!! Do you really believe that these individuals made a one time bad choice? The majority of these criminals are REPEAT OFFENDERS! Let the town see them for who they TRULY are. I know I want to know who's living near me, and if they have a history of cooking meth, molesting children, driving drunk, or beating people when they're pissed off!

[rabbitt50]

tnchick78,,first of all i said i was a parent of child arrested,,secondly i don,t care if they publish provided they know for fact the accused are guilty and yes i am ok with it provided they know their info after the accused are heard in court now that would set an example to anyone, and yes i got arrested once for absolutely something i had nothing to do with and if your name was jane or john doe would and they were another jane or john doe in same town with same name would you want your pic plastered on a newspaper when you were never the right individual in the first place that should have been arrested

[well]

Seems to me putting the picture in the paper would reduce the confusion caused when only the names are published. They use the mug shot of the actual person that was arrested.

[freezin]

Was there really a man with a gun at the Expositor? If so what happened?

[sad]

Me Again wrote:

Just read the paper and seen where they have pictures of people arrested in White county. I think its a good idea,great job Expositor!

what happened to innocent until proven guilty bet you would change your mind if you or one of your family members picture was in there

[fish head soup]

Im just here for the beer...An soup...

[oxford]

Im sorry you child got into trouble. I have never said my child won't do anything. I hope and pray they don't. I have heard many parents say their child would not do, and then it turns and bites them in the butt. If your child is found innocent, have a article put in the paper letting everyone no they are innocent. I was talking about the repeat offenders earlier when I made my statement. There are some that has their name in the paper week after week for the same charges. I hope your child is not guilty of the charges and is found innocent.

[attaboy]

far as i know theres two more people in the county with the same name as mine,i,m glad they put the pictures in the paper,that way i,ll know for sure if its me or not

[Thankful]

I agree innocent until proven guilty but I am thankful that the expositor is now posting pics with the names because there are 3 other people in Sparta with the same name as me, one of which is in trouble all the time. When you try to live an upstanding life and this is happening, it hurts your reputation because the public don't always know that there are others with the same name. At least with the picture, they can see and know for sure it's not the same and there's no question.

[proof in being caught]

sad wrote:

<quoted text>what happened to innocent until proven guilty bet you would change your mind if you or one of your family members picture was in there

If your caught making meth, messing with children, dui,or something else and your caught red handed, then you are guilty. In my opinion no need even for a trail. YOUR FREAKING GUILTY. You are not innocent, YOUR GUILTY!!!!!

[agree]

sad wrote:

<quoted text>what happened to innocent until proven guilty bet you would change your mind if you or one of your family members picture was in there

Innocent until proven guilty is unknown in this county. Whether the court system follows this statement, the populate of White County does not. I have never seen anything like this.

[Not Guilty]

Yes, many of these people are repeat offenders. So what. Repeat offender or not, they have the same legal rights as you do, which means they are not guilty until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. Many of these folks were found innocent in court, yet they have been convicted in the media. Is the newspaper going to print exonerations of these people? No, of course not, no more than Oddie Shoupe is going to get up in public and say, "We made a mistake here folks, we arrested an innocent person." Yes, these arrests are public record, but how many people are going to search out the information? The paper prints it because it's dirt. The newspapers print what people want to read and it seems what they want to read is dirt about their neighbors. Guess it makes people feel superior, who knows. But the fact is that it hurts innocent people. Someone said that 80% of these folks are repeat offenders. What about the other 20%. What if it were your picture? What if it were your spouse or child or parent's picture printed in the paper for arrest just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or wrongly accused of something they didn't do. It happens ALL THE TIME, folks. It's hard enough to get justice in the court room. Let's not be convicting people before they even get to court. The basis for the American justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until proven innocent". And yes, by the way, the reason I'm up in arms about this is because my picture was in the paper. And yes, I'm a repeat offender. And guess what......I was found INNOCENT. That's right......DISMISSED. As in go home, get on with your life. Now explain to everyone why your picture was in the paper if you're working so hard to get your life together and really are staying out of trouble. Must be that you're guilty this time too, just like the other times. Not necessarily true and not for the sheriff or for the readers of the paper to decide!! It affects your life negatively and it's so unnecessary.

[they will]

if you go to the paper Monday and take the dismissed order from the court they will print it

[alot of]

Not Guilty wrote:

Yes, many of these people are repeat offenders. So what. Repeat offender or not, they have the same legal rights as you do, which means they are not guilty until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. Many of these folks were found innocent in court, yet they have been convicted in the media. Is the newspaper going to print exonerations of these people? No, of course not, no more than Oddie Shoupe is going to get up in public and say, "We made a mistake here folks, we arrested an innocent person." Yes, these arrests are public record, but how many people are going to search out the information? The paper prints it because it's dirt. The newspapers print what people want to read and it seems what they want to read is dirt about their neighbors. Guess it makes people feel superior, who knows. But the fact is that it hurts innocent people. Someone said that 80% of these folks are repeat offenders. What about the other 20%. What if it were your picture? What if it were your spouse or child or parent's picture printed in the paper for arrest just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or wrongly accused of something they didn't do. It happens ALL THE TIME, folks. It's hard enough to get justice in the court room. Let's not be convicting people before they even get to court. The basis for the American justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until proven innocent". And yes, by the way, the reason I'm up in arms about this is because my picture was in the paper. And yes, I'm a repeat offender. And guess what......I was found INNOCENT. That's right......DISMISSED. As in go home, get on with your life. Now explain to everyone why your picture was in the paper if you're working so hard to get your life together and really are staying out of trouble. Must be that you're guilty this time too, just like the other times. Not necessarily true and not for the sheriff or for the readers of the paper to decide!! It affects your life negatively and it's so unnecessary.

alot of cases are dimissed by plea bargain

[JeffBob]

Not Guilty wrote:

Yes, many of these people are repeat offenders. So what. Repeat offender or not, they have the same legal rights as you do, which means they are not guilty until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. Many of these folks were found innocent in court, yet they have been convicted in the media. Is the newspaper going to print exonerations of these people? No, of course not, no more than Oddie Shoupe is going to get up in public and say, "We made a mistake here folks, we arrested an innocent person." Yes, these arrests are public record, but how many people are going to search out the information? The paper prints it because it's dirt. The newspapers print what people want to read and it seems what they want to read is dirt about their neighbors. Guess it makes people feel superior, who knows. But the fact is that it hurts innocent people. Someone said that 80% of these folks are repeat offenders. What about the other 20%. What if it were your picture? What if it were your spouse or child or parent's picture printed in the paper for arrest just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or wrongly accused of something they didn't do. It happens ALL THE TIME, folks. It's hard enough to get justice in the court room. Let's not be convicting people before they even get to court. The basis for the American justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until proven innocent". And yes, by the way, the reason I'm up in arms about this is because my picture was in the paper. And yes, I'm a repeat offender. And guess what......I was found INNOCENT. That's right......DISMISSED. As in go home, get on with your life. Now explain to everyone why your picture was in the paper if you're working so hard to get your life together and really are staying out of trouble. Must be that you're guilty this time too, just like the other times. Not necessarily true and not for the sheriff or for the readers of the paper to decide!! It affects your life negatively and it's so unnecessary.

This is about the best post, yet, that I have seen on topix! I can certainly see how you feel. My opinion is these pictures should never have been published in the paper. In the public eye, it makes everyone look guilty, whether they are or not.
And please, don't any body come back & say "Yeah, you're probably one of the ones in the paper." I'm not! I agree with innocent until proven guilty.

[just my opinion]

rabbitt50 wrote:

well you didn,t see alderman yates of doyle on arrest page neither did you see the boruff boy that was arrested on mug shots in the paper did you,so you tell me only proves expositor is prejudice on who they want to expose,and there is for example many others but expositor chose who they wanted to exploit

YES. r boruff was in there. they did not need to run james yates AGAIN. he has already been on the front page and the website (for a week). You may want to check the "DATES" of the arrests in that issue.

[BubbaTheLoveSpon ge]

In my time with the sheriff department, I came across maybe 2-3 people that I thought were innocent. That's it. Everyone else, even if they'd say they weren't guilty of what they were charged with would often admit to doing other stuff they never got caught doing, so it equals out. With that said, our justice system is based on the ideal of innocent until proven guilty in front of a impartial jury of your peers. Putting names in the paper, that's I guess is ok. Most people don't remember names a week after reading them unless it's someone they know. Putting pictures though, most people have visual memories and by putting pictures, the paper is just making it harder in my opinion for the jury pool to be impartial. I'm not one for letting guilty go at all, but things should be fair in the way it was created.