AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #5

[fran]

I agree with both of you. I believe the records will be sealed so that the prosecution can cover its arse. Taking this case back to the very beginning and the confession, things were screwed up. When the cops lied to the boy about someone seeing him, they put the boy in the position of no matter what he said, he would be lying. This is very difficult for a child that is sensitive to the lying issue to begin with. And this child admitted that he often got in trouble for lying BEFORE the cops lied to him. Then all the other discrepancies in the confession that were never addressed. What are the answers to those questions?

And then it goes on from there. The question about the gun - was it really the murder weapon? Has that officially been determined? The fingerprint on the gun that is from unknown origins? Why is the fingerprint unknown? LE should be able to figure that one out fairly easily and there is no excuse for not doing so.

The motive - and no way do I buy the 1,000 spanking BS. It appears there was no diary. From all accounts this boy had a fairly decent relationship with his dad. They went hunting, fishing, etc. So why did it all fall apart? I don't believe it was the new wife because she had been around for years before they got married according to some.

And then there are the plain logistics - this double murder would have been very, very difficult for an 8-year old to accomplish. Maybe not impossible, but very difficult. I have puzzled over this aspect for many an evening and I'm just not seeing it happening. I would love to talk to the crime scene reinactor person!

I'm really hoping the mom makes some headway in her appeal or that she files an appeal on behalf of her son. AND I want to know where the heck the GAL was during the plea hearing!!!!!! I call that a failure to perform the duties assigned by the court!

Salem

I believe NOT having the GAL present was a strategic move by the pros and with the courts approval. The GAL was assigned BY THE COURT, they knew very well he SHOULD HAVE been there.

They're playing this out by NOT having the competency hearing so they can say the child is competent, because he hasn't LEGALLY been declared incompetent.

But the GAL let the 'cat out of the bag' by telling the news reporter that BOTH psychologists deemed the child INCOMPETENT.

IMHO, there's NO WAY BOTH SIDES were NOT aware of that FACT. In addition, the pros made a statement to the news agency that they were fairly certain 'the boy would be deemed incompetent.'

I honestly don't see how LEGALLY they can accept this plea deal.

NO WAY, imho,
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hey Fran - what is you response to this question - particularly as to the attorneys standing for it (I know you think the boy might have been "bribed" into accepting the plea)? But why would his own attorneys railroad him into a plea if reams of evidence clearly pointed away from him? And why would the Judge stand for it? I know you think the cops screwed up, but do you truly think all of the other people closest to the facts of this case are in cahoots to pin these murders on an innocent child?

Wood would have been Attorney of the Year in Arizona if he could have exonerated this boy.

If they thought him innocent then Wood/Brewer would get much more positive exposure from it if they had not plead this case. This could have sealed their careers and their demand would have gone up ten fold. Both would have become a household names and that is how attorneys get to be the top attorneys in their state, by winning high profile cases.

imoo

 

[Salem]

If what is in the rest of the unrevealed evidence points away from the boy, then why in the world would his own attorneys, who have been in the boy's corner from day one, ever stand for that or even the boy for that matter?

Yes, what happened to the crime scene reenactment guy for the defense that was going to prove the boy did not do this crime? Where was the discovery on those results? Judge Roca told the state and defense they both must turn over discovery when they received it.

imo

Its about time and money OBE. I also think that the boy's attny may be doing what the attn'y thinks is best for the child. A trial for the murder of 2 men would be quite a taxing event for a child of 9 years. This plea deal is more complicated than it looks, at least in my opinion.

If the prosecutors have not turned over (disclosed) any of the exculpatory evidence and the defense does not know that, the defense may not want to risk the jury verdict. The defense would be going to court saying the defendant retracts his confession and he didn't do it. Not a real strong defense. It would take time and money to track down other suspects and/or prove that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence they did not share. Generally things like that don't come out until the 2nd or 3rd appeal. Hard to discover when someone is trying to hide it. And yes, I know what the judge said, however I live in the real world and I don't assume that all players are honest and forthright.

The pros want a deal so they don't have to face the media scrunity, the crime is solved and they can move on. The defense wants a deal because they don't want the child to go to jail, they don't want to have to do an investigation of their own, because the child can not pay and the state will not pay for some things and its the easy, less time consuming way out. The boy wants a deal because he wants to go home with his mother. That one's easy - he's lonely, he's scared and he wants to go home. If this kid had money - you can bet that some attorney would take this case and rip St. Johns LE, DA and Judge to pieces at a trial.

I think a deal is a disservice to both the men that died and the child.

Salem

 

[Trino]

Its about time and money OBE. I also think that the boy's attny may be doing what the attn'y thinks is best for the child. A trial for the murder of 2 men would be quite a taxing event for a child of 9 years. This plea deal is more complicated than it looks, at least in my opinion.

If the prosecutors have not turned over (disclosed) any of the exculpatory evidence and the defense does not know that, the defense may not want to risk the jury verdict. The defense would be going to court saying the defendant retracts his confession and he didn't do it. Not a real strong defense. It would take time and money to track down other suspects and/or prove that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence they did not share. Generally things like that don't come out until the 2nd or 3rd appeal. Hard to discover when someone is trying to hide it. And yes, I know what the judge said, however I live in the real world and I don't assume that all players are honest and forthright.

The pros want a deal so they don't have to face the media scrunity, the crime is solved and they can move on. The defense wants a deal because they don't want the child to go to jail, they don't want to have to do an investigation of their own, because the child can not pay and the state will not pay for some things and its the easy, less time consuming way out. The boy wants a deal because he wants to go home with his mother. That one's easy - he's lonely, he's scared and he wants to go home. If this kid had money - you can bet that some attorney would take this case and rip St. Johns LE, DA and Judge to pieces at a trial.

I think a deal is a disservice to both the men that died and the child. Salem

You've stated the deal is a disservice to the men and the child. What is the alternative for the boy? To have a trial? To go home with no penalty, no therapy?

 

[Salem]

You've stated the deal is a disservice to the men and the child. What is the alternative for the boy? To have a trial? To go home with no penalty, no therapy?

Aye Trino - I don't know. I wish I did. I would like to see conclusive proof that this boy did this. It would make it so much easier. As it stands, I don't think he did it and I think all the players are taking the easy/lazy way out.

If this child killed two men for no apparent reason, then no, I do not think he should go home where he will live with his mother and younger sister. He is 9 now and I would venture to guess by the time he is 13, he will be taller and heavier than his mother. I think that is scary, myself.

What I would like to see is proof that the child did this.... so far, it does not appear that the pros has anything SOLID to convict the child with, so WHY is the def agreeing to this plea, against the mother's wishes, prior to the competency hearing? I don't believe it is because the def attny thinks the kid is guilty because if that were the case, then mom probaby would agree with the deal. I think it is because the def doesn't want to get into a long drawn out trial they will not get paid for. And I think that is really sad.

There is no way this child realizes the long term impact this plea is going to have on his life. Think back to when you were 13, 14, 15 and the decisions you made? If you knew then, what you know now, would you have still made ALL the same decisions? Probably not, huh?

I don't feel like anyone is looking out for this child's best interests, not even his GAL - who is supposed to be doing just that! Unless, the court really did go behind the GAL's back and have the hearing without the GAL knowing? Media reports don't make it sound that way, they make it sound like the GAL just didn't go - which makes no sense to me.

If the child really did this, I don't want him to go unpunished, but I want to know if this child is really guilty.

Salem

 

[Formynextnovel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formynextnovel
As a teacher, and as a student, I am entirely uncomfortable with the idea that ANYONE, including an officer or another professor, might have a fire arm on their person in a space where the purpose should be to facilitate learning, to challenge each other's assumptions, and to encourage each other to take risks. An implication that there is an emminant threat to our lives or to our bodies is not condusive to creating an environment where ideas can be fully expressed, explored, or communicated.

Persoanlly, I would rather die shot with a gun that was never allowed into the classroom than teach to students who are allowed to carry concealed weapons, and who know I am allowed to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoobsinMI:

My girlfriend's daughter WAS a student at VT, and WAS there that day. She has a vastly different opinion than you do, of how she'd "rather die."

(And you misspelled "eminent." However, I'm not sure that is the word you were looking for...."imminent" maybe?)

My sister-in-law, who I love dearly, was in that building, and hustled to the drill field that day. She lost several of her favorite TA's and many of her friends. I was present at her graduation when they acknowledged all those in her class who would have graduated too, who instead were murdered in a classroom. In many instances such as this, you may hear of teachers who offer up their lives, acting as shields to protect their students. I pray I would do so myself, or will do so, should I be called, and would expect the majority of those fine souls who gave their lives agree with my assertion.

My sister-in-law may hold a differing opinion. I don't know, as she still can't talk about what she heard and saw that day. But for my own standard of what a classroom, of what an education ought to be, my conviction still stands, and will not be shaken or cajoled by fear for my own, my single and, god-willing, lesson-teaching life.

Perhaps this is for another thread. The connection I mean to draw is this: I do not put it past any young person, at any age, this day and age, to premeditate and follow through with murder. From here on out, expect the next new case you see to be unheard of and unprecidented. We had better learn to deal.

My mother, a middle school teacher at a private school (the best and most loved teacher I know), had to teach in vague fear for years to a class that included a student who would regularly draw pictures of his teacher being axed or shot to death, a student who the administration could never quite pin down with a specific enough offense to expel, of whom other students claimed, said things like, "I'm going to kill you," on the playground. I don't want to know where that grown child is today.

I apologize that my dyslexia and lack of a good home computer to download spellcheck software for this blog weakens my comments/arguments. I know it does, as I tell my students it does.

But hey, I'm not turning this in for you to grade.

 

[claudicici]

...formynextnovel,I completely agree ,to arm teachers would be devastating...the solution is in prevention,detection,care ,communication.....not fighting fire with fire....if teachers were allowed to be armed it would not take long for a teacher to abuse that power,I did not read this entire thread but I can't believe someone suggested teacher's should be armed...

 

[Fairy1]

Confessions are not all about the defendant unburdening the whole truth. It is not uncommon for a defendant to confess to a part and be evasisve or untruthful about other parts to lesson their accountability. Or are you saying someone came in the home once he had left to summon the neighbor and they put the gun on the dog cage then? This boy said he let Nellie out of the dog cage.

Where does it say that there is an unknown print on the gun? An unidentifiable print does not mean it belongs to another person. It can mean that they did not have good enough samples of the suspect's fingerprints in question and needed clearer ones. It may mean that not all 13 points needed were visable to validate who the print belonged to........

imoo[/quote]

FGS - How many 8-year-old CHILD confessions are on record? I'm sorry, but you give this child waaaaaaaay too much credit. To a certain extent, if this child was above average intelligence (evidence of which we have never seen) I could believe that he could have planned these murders, executed these murders, come up with the story of a strange car in the area, the walk and whatever else he "confessed." But to conclude that he had the presence of mind to wipe the prints off the weapon (which cannot be located) and to concoct a confession made up of half truths is too much. The majority of ADULT perps cannot even manage such forethought How can you possibly believe that yourself?

And as far as the fingerprints are concerned, this boy has been primarily in custody for MONTHS and if they had conclusive prints on the murder weapon, which apparentlyh belonged to this child, they've had plenty of time to get their match.

IMO - the forensic evidence has been inconclusive and the ONLY reason the def attorney caved to the plea deal was to avoid a trial - for the sake of the child. IF he is not the killer, he still is completely traumatized by the fact that his beloved father was murdered (probably in his presence) and that HE was blamed for it. Either way, he needs serious therapy and perhaps the only way his attorney could ensure that would happen is by taking the deal.

 

[Salem]

Okay Fairy - you are much more generous than I when it comes to the boy's defense attny - and you are probably right. If they plead, then the state pays for the therapy, right?

Salem

 

[Formynextnovel]

Confessions are not all about the defendant unburdening the whole truth. It is not uncommon for a defendant to confess to a part and be evasisve or untruthful about other parts to lesson their accountability. Or are you saying someone came in the home once he had left to summon the neighbor and they put the gun on the dog cage then? This boy said he let Nellie out of the dog cage.

Where does it say that there is an unknown print on the gun? An unidentifiable print does not mean it belongs to another person. It can mean that they did not have good enough samples of the suspect's fingerprints in question and needed clearer ones. It may mean that not all 13 points needed were visable to validate who the print belonged to........

imoo

FGS - How many 8-year-old CHILD confessions are on record? I'm sorry, but you give this child waaaaaaaay too much credit. To a certain extent, if this child was above average intelligence (evidence of which we have never seen) I could believe that he could have planned these murders, executed these murders, come up with the story of a strange car in the area, the walk and whatever else he "confessed." But to conclude that he had the presence of mind to wipe the prints off the weapon (which cannot be located) and to concoct a confession made up of half truths is too much. The majority of ADULT perps cannot even manage such forethought How can you possibly believe that yourself?

And as far as the fingerprints are concerned, this boy has been primarily in custody for MONTHS and if they had conclusive prints on the murder weapon, which apparentlyh belonged to this child, they've had plenty of time to get their match.

IMO - the forensic evidence has been inconclusive and the ONLY reason the def attorney caved to the plea deal was to avoid a trial - for the sake of the child. IF he is not the killer, he still is completely traumatized by the fact that his beloved father was murdered (probably in his presence) and that HE was blamed for it. Either way, he needs serious therapy and perhaps the only way his attorney could ensure that would happen is by taking the deal.

Innocent or guilty, I only hope someone makes sure he GOES to therapy.

 

[Fairy1]

Okay Fairy - you are much more generous than I when it comes to the boy's defense attny - and you are probably right. If they plead, then the state pays for the therapy, right?

Salem

Thank you, Salem. Generous - no. Openminded and fair - I SURE HOPE SO!

But yes, this is my personal feeling about the case. I don't believe the forensic evidence was such that the state could prove it's burden and yet, the child needs help. As he will likley wind up with his mom - who has limited financial resources - I feel it was his attorney's hope to get him whatever help he needs by any means.

 

[fran]

Hey Fran - what is you response to this question - particularly as to the attorneys standing for it (I know you think the boy might have been "bribed" into accepting the plea)? But why would his own attorneys railroad him into a plea if reams of evidence clearly pointed away from him? And why would the Judge stand for it? I know you think the cops screwed up, but do you truly think all of the other people closest to the facts of this case are in cahoots to pin these murders on an innocent child?

Seriously, scm,.....This case should be alongside the OJ case, as a study in what not to do when doing a murder investigation and filing premeditated murder charges. Really.

Between the bogus confession of this (then) 8 yo child and the rush to file charges by the DA before they had one shred of evidence against the accused other than ASSUMPTIONS, this case has since been about CYA for everyone involved. All along they've been trying to put things up on the court website that points towards this child, but all that I've seen falls with a thud. Beyond a doubt this child? ehhh,.......NOT, IMHO. The DA sees that too.

Rather than taking their ball and going home and starting anew, they've been trying to CYA by trying to pull one of the charges (threatening) so they can file later as an adult, pulling the confession because of the question of legality, but yet (threatening) they will use it against him if he testifies and tells his original story? Remember? he walked upon the scene?

BOTH sides knew they MAY not be able to win this case.

The DA knows that if they go to trial, the def can bring up EVERYTHING else, that frankly, we've talked about here on Weblseuths. Between threats against one of the victims, drug dealing, cheating on spouse (multiple), angry b/f's, several witnesses referred to disgruntled employee, and on and on.....you see my point?

Then you have the def who faces possibly TWO trials, one now, one when he's 15 and as an adult, possibly 25 years (from then). This scenario alone would make any def attorney hesitant to continue. Even if he knew he could win, you're talking about the next 6 to 9 years, for this NOW child, in and out of institutions, doctors, court hearings, trials,...............all for an unknown outcome. Even IF they won, his CHILDHOOD would be totally ruined.
or
Plea guilty to one count, see a few doctors, live with his mom and be a little boy.

Why would the judge sign off on this?.........All of the above.

The word 'justice' sounds pretty hollow to me with regard to this case. Here, it seems it's more about winning, or the appearance thereof, at all costs.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

**WARNING....LONG off topic**

We all use our little life experiences and things we've seen to bring us to the point of an opinion or whatever, with regard to cases we read about. This case is no exception for me. Before everyone spouts off how they would NEVER plea guilty or let anything go when they know they're right, all I've got to say to that is 'NEVER say NEVER.'

This isn't in any way near the magnitude of this case, ie murder, but a few years ago I had an experience with LE that changed how I view police (they're not ALL above the law) and how I saw an accused at trial.

My then 17 yo daughter was stopped in a public place for curfew. She wasn't doing anything wrong, just 'out' with her bf who was over 18. She thought she would get in trouble for curfew, so when the officer asked her birthdate,..........yep, she lied adding a year. Well, they called us and we told them her correct birthdate and we had to go and pick her up and she was sighted for lying to an officer.

FWIW, she totally knew she was in the wrong for lying to police,........because I had told her NEVER lie to police......She completely understood she was in the wrong with that regard.

What she didn't know was she wouldn't have gotten in trouble for curfew because she was with someone who was not in violation. They could have all just been able to walk away, no harm, no foul.

A few weeks later when we appeared in court, she was sentenced to 10 hours community service which she was totally willing to do because, face it, she lied.........But then, AFTER she plead guilty and was sentenced, the judge asked me if I wanted to read the officer's report. OhMyGosh! That officer of the law lied about 'WHY?' he stopped my daughter and her b/f. When she read it her jaw dropped and she was sputtering in disbelief!

Seriously, I know she told me the truth about the circumstances of the 'stop' and IF there had been anything CLOSE to what this officer said, he would have told my husband that night, at the scene. He didn't, he's a liar. As a short aside, I was told by a number of the kids friends that that particular officer always stopped teens and gave them a bad time for EVERYTHING.

Long story short, although we knew that guy lied just to give himself 'probable cause' to stop my daughter in the first place, she was wrong for lying, the case had already been heard, so we decided to just let it go. But believe me, I learned a few valuable lessons.

JMHO
fran

PS......heck, one of the lessons I learned got me thrown off as a potential juror a few months later. I couldn't honestly say I wouldn't hold it against the defendent if he didn't testify on his own behalf. I mean, if witnesses are 'lying' about you, wouldn't you want to get up and say 'Hey, that's not true!'.........do as I say, not as I do.

PPS....Reading about so many kids getting in trouble with the law........I raised 6 children and wouldn't you know, the ONLY contact with LE was with the youngest, about 5 months before she turned 18! LOL, we either did some things right, or one thing wrong.

PPPS...OTOH, and ON topic,... We had a LOT of firearms in our house, ALL the kids knew how to shoot and they NEVER once handled the guns when they weren't supposed to. With regard to HOW this crime is alleged to have evolved, even my husband who could hit 99 out of 100 in skeet (singles, doubles, any which way), couldn't have pulled this crime with a single, bolt action 22 like LE wants us to believe this child did. No way! and that's saying a lot!!! fran

 

[southcitymom]

Seriously, scm,.....This case should be alongside the OJ case, as a study in what not to do when doing a murder investigation and filing premeditated murder charges. Really.

Between the bogus confession of this (then) 8 yo child and the rush to file charges by the DA before they had one shred of evidence against the accused other than ASSUMPTIONS, this case has since been about CYA for everyone involved. All along they've been trying to put things up on the court website that points towards this child, but all that I've seen falls with a thud. Beyond a doubt this child? ehhh,.......NOT, IMHO. The DA sees that too.

Rather than taking their ball and going home and starting anew, they've been trying to CYA by trying to pull one of the charges (threatening) so they can file later as an adult, pulling the confession because of the question of legality, but yet (threatening) they will use it against him if he testifies and tells his original story? Remember? he walked upon the scene?

BOTH sides knew they MAY not be able to win this case.

The DA knows that if they go to trial, the def can bring up EVERYTHING else, that frankly, we've talked about here on Weblseuths. Between threats against one of the victims, drug dealing, cheating on spouse (multiple), angry b/f's, several witnesses referred to disgruntled employee, and on and on.....you see my point?

Then you have the def who faces possibly TWO trials, one now, one when he's 15 and as an adult, possibly 25 years (from then). This scenario alone would make any def attorney hesitant to continue. Even if he knew he could win, you're talking about the next 6 to 9 years, for this NOW child, in and out of institutions, doctors, court hearings, trials,...............all for an unknown outcome. Even IF they won, his CHILDHOOD would be totally ruined.
or
Plea guilty to one count, see a few doctors, live with his mom and be a little boy.

Why would the judge sign off on this?.........All of the above.

The word 'justice' sounds pretty hollow to me with regard to this case. Here, it seems it's more about winning, or the appearance thereof, at all costs.

JMHO
fran

Okay - I am sincerely trying to find an answer to my question in there! Are you saying you DO think all these folks - the Judge and the boy's defense attorneys and the Pros are in cahoots and trying to pin a double murder on an innocent boy when the facts they have don't support that?

 

[fran]

Okay - I am sincerely trying to find an answer to my question in there! Are you saying you DO think all these folks - the Judge and the boy's defense attorneys and the Pros are in cahoots and trying to pin a double murder on an innocent boy when the facts they have don't support that?

Yep

JMHO
fran

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you, Salem. Generous - no. Openminded and fair - I SURE HOPE SO!

But yes, this is my personal feeling about the case. I don't believe the forensic evidence was such that the state could prove it's burden and yet, the child needs help. As he will likely wind up with his mom - who has limited financial resources - I feel it was his attorney's hope to get him whatever help he needs by any means.

Respectfully, Fairy, I will never believe that.

An attorney who thinks his client is innocent or that the State doesn't have the evidence, would never let him plea to a deal, that they know all too well, this boy will tote around with him for the rest of his life. There are other agencies that the mother could have gone through if it was simply wanting to see he got mental therapy.

If the state could not meet its burden then the defense nor the boy would have any incentive to plea but would continue to plea Not Guilty like he did at the beginning before all of the evidence came in.

No matter if the records are sealed when he becomes 18 this case was nationwide and wherever he goes from hence forward he will be known as the boy who killed his father and his father's co-worker.

Imo, the defense did know the evidence the State had and so did the boy and he and the attorneys were trying to save this boy from doing a long prison term when he became of age for he wouldn't always be 9 years old and they knew it.

Like Wood said in his interview........if given the 240 days to then be reassessed again.....the boy could be taught during that time the ends and outs of a trial proceeding. I do think this boy is of higher intelligence. Wood stated they were trying to get him a scholarship where he could attend a private school.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

fran,

"PPPS...OTOH, and ON topic,... We had a LOT of firearms in our house, ALL the kids knew how to shoot and they NEVER once handled the guns when they weren't supposed to. With regard to HOW this crime is alleged to have evolved, even my husband who could hit 99 out of 100 in skeet (singles, doubles, any which way), couldn't have pulled this crime with a single, bolt action 22 like LE wants us to believe this child did. No way! and that's saying a lot!!! fran"

Strange how people see things so differently isn't it?

My hubby has been an avid hunter practically all of his life. When I told him in detail how this crime happened, he still has his .22 youth model single bolt action rifle in the gun safe. He took the unloaded gun down and we went to his mom's farm and he took the weapon along. He followed through showing how easy it was to load, eject, reload, aim and fire each time. It took only a few seconds each time to go through the entire steps.

Then he told me that I have to figure in the surprise of the attack and that it came without any warning because that too gives the shooter an advantage. I am sure he is not as quick as he once was when he was younger, but I was amazed at what little time it actually took to go through all the steps each time. About 6 seconds for him to do it.

Our grandsons competition shoot and they use their single bolt action .22s and can squeeze off more than 10 shots in a short period of time and they are around this boy's age.

I knew this gun was easy to shoot. I had one when I was 7 years old but I gave that gun to my brother and haven't shot that type of gun in years. Watching my husband go through the simple steps made it much clearer for me again. This gun's intended purpose is to be a very simple mechanism made especially for youths.

imo

 

[SoobsinMI]

But for my own standard of what a classroom, of what an education ought to be, my conviction still stands, and will not be shaken or cajoled by fear for my own, my single and, god-willing, lesson-teaching life.

Kids and adults, should be able to go to school, and focus on learning. I agree with that. I guess I'm just tired of criminals taking out good people, because they can. I don't want to be a sitting duck, and I don't want that for my children.

I apologize that my dyslexia and lack of a good home computer to download spellcheck software for this blog weakens my comments/arguments. I know it does, as I tell my students it does.

But hey, I'm not turning this in for you to grade.

Heh, that's funny!

 

[SoobsinMI]

...formynextnovel,I completely agree ,to arm teachers would be devastating...the solution is in prevention,detection,care ,communication.....not fighting fire with fire....if teachers were allowed to be armed it would not take long for a teacher to abuse that power,I did not read this entire thread but I can't believe someone suggested teacher's should be armed...

Don't believe it...because it didn't happen. Formynext novel and I disagree about people having guns to protect themselves. I believe Formynextnovel included security guards on campus.

 

[fran]

The boy's mother, thru her attorney, objected to the plea deal. The judge rejected her objection.

The mother cried in the courtroom throughout these proceedings.

The def attorney said he knows the mother didn't like the plea deal, but it wasn't her choice to make.

To believe that this def attorney, this pros, and this judge would not take this plea deal even IF they knew the child is innocent, is being naive, IMO. It's done day in and day out in courtrooms around the country.

A def attorney NEVER asks his client if he's guilty. He couldn't perform his job if he did. It's a 'don't ask, don't tell.' :silenced:

It's economics and CYA. Plain and simple.

We'll see IF this plea deal stands. IMHO, Eryn, the boy's mom, is not going to go away quietly. She's already made a first steps to voicing her objection, through her attorney the day of the plea hearing and through her appearance on GMA. I BELIEVE she's only begun to fight.

JMHO
fran