Re: Update on Dan's Case -- Dearborn County Public Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

Subject: Re: Update on Dan's Case

Author:
Says it all

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:28:02 02/14/12 Tue
In reply to: Matt Brewington 's message, "Update on Dan's Case" on 19:09:49 02/13/12 Mon

"The strongest evidence refuting these charges was Judge Humphrey's failure to attempt to control Brewington's behavior through the inherent powers of his court. If Brewington's conduct toward Dr. Connor was so intimidating that it constituted obstruction of justice, Judge Humphrey could have ordered Brewington to stop, backed with the threat of contempt. But he did not. Dr. Connor could have sought a restraining order. But he did not. None of the alleged victims took any steps to protect themselves from Brewington. Yet the State contends that Brewington was allegedly such a threat that it needed to step in and stop him using the harshest means possible. The alleged victims' failure to take any less drastic steps belies any such contention. Instead of utilizing other means, such as using the inherent power of the court or a restraining order, to stop Brewington from continuing his alleged threats, these alleged victims were content to wait out the long process of a grand jury investigation and criminal prosecution. This shows that they were not
concerned about an immediate risk of violence from Brewington, but rather wanted to punish him for not treating them with the respect they felt they deserved. One of the core principals of the First Amendment is that the State cannot criminalize disrespect. Watts, 394 U.S. at 708; Black, 538 U.S at 358."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Update on Dan's Case	Matt Brewington	08:18:10 02/14/12 Tue