| Author | Post |
|---|
k.dubb
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
Just read that Matt Dunagan's case was overturned by the Supreme Court. Very disappointed to hear about this. DO ANY OF THE COURTS CARE ABOUT CANDACE????????????????????????????
|
charley47
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 130 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
| No they don't. He's just a poor old boy who had an "accident". I just don't understand.
|
SouthernRain
Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Oct 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, USA |
| Posts: | 1145 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
I don't have a dog in this fight...don't know either one of them personally. But if his light turned red and he supposedly ran it, her light would have been red also and she ran a light too.
|
Deaglos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 1904 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
I also dont know either, and heard that a witness testified they both ran light.
So I have no clue. I know Cadace has had a terrible time, but I do not think Matt has had an easy one either, as he has to live with it as well.
|
dragonmom
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Lindale, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:00 pm |
|
| Don't forget that he was DUI and not for the first time.
|
SouthernRain
Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Oct 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, USA |
| Posts: | 1145 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
tereca33 wrote: dragonmom wrote: Don't forget that he was DUI and not for the first time.
do we really know if he was DUI ? no....just cause the paper said that doesnt mean he was...I have some inside info on this situation and he was not DUI
I heard he was not DUI also...from a reliable source. I feel horrible for Candace but I feel horrible for Matt too.
|
jadedlady
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
| This is an answer to lots of prayer for the Dunagan family. Matt was not DUI, this was a horrible accident, where unfortunately someone was severely injured for life. I know that this young man has probably asked himself a hundred times what he could have done different, but the fact is that more than likely it was a mistake on both drivers parts.
|
The_WaTchR
Member
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
Quoted from the 05/26/06 Rome News Tribune article by Lauren Gregory:
"A jury of six men and six women found Dunagan, 26, guilty of reckless driving, serious injury by vehicle due to reckless driving and failure to obey a traffic control device. He was acquitted of driving under the influence and serious injury by vehicle due to driving under the influence."
|
k.dubb
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:54 pm |
|
jadedlady wrote: This is an answer to lots of prayer for the Dunagan family. Matt was not DUI, this was a horrible accident, where unfortunately someone was severely injured for life. I know that this young man has probably asked himself a hundred times what he could have done different, but the fact is that more than likely it was a mistake on both drivers parts.
Matt was probably not "over the legal limit", however, anytime you consume anything into your body that may cause you to be "slowed in your responsiveness", you ARE under the influence. All driver's have a duty to drive safely, AS SAFELY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE" to avoid such situations. I know driver error does come into play, but come on, alcohol was ALSO into to play on that day. Only God could ever know if Matt WOULD have done anything different, I KNOW that he COULD have, by not entering into his body a beverage or TWO while driving a tractor trailor on the roads that our families drive on. BIG TIME MADD SUPPORTER HERE!!!!!!!!
(P.S. If you live anywhere in this area, then you know driving around these log trucks is a MIRACLE in itself!!!!!!! It's a fight for your life with these guys!!!)
|
jadedlady
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
| Matt was not driving a tractor trailer.
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
Another example of a family defending its own til the death and thereby teaching the remainder of the family that you can do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences, and we'll do our best to teach you that there are no consequences for your actions...................
after his previous DUI convictions and arrests for drugs, that's probably how he came about the belief that everything can be fixed and ended up in this mess in the first place...........................
|
Deaglos
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 1904 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 07:00 pm |
|
edited to add well i geuss all i wrote below is even better if no alc. and no truck. Do you detest trucks that much and I also support MADD, was a member of SADD and SAFTYE. But will not plan all on that withoout proof.
It is true that there are many issues with the logging trucks and the way they drive, but it also sounds like you greatly are against any judgement on his innocents as he was mainly driving a log truck. As to his drinking I have not a clue as I was not there, have not read any police reports, and can only go by what I hear.
I have heard that in Matt's defense, when he tried to give his statements he was basically told to be quiet and just listen and do not talk by the officers. I also do not believe that as officers at an accident always try to get all sides.
So I will withhold judgement on the young man until such a time as I see eveidence. Just because he drives a truck does not make him guilty, and I also will withhold judgement on alcohol until i see the test results for myself.
Last edited on Mon May 19th, 2008 07:03 pm by Deaglos
|
jadedlady
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
Matt was not in a logging truck or a tractor trailer he was in a utility truck.
Yes, I believe that the trucks (loggin,etc) and dump trucks that we have to travel with do drive extremely too fast. I do not for one minute condone drinking and then driving for anyone.
Last edited on Mon May 19th, 2008 07:09 pm by jadedlady
|
k.dubb
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 07:17 pm |
|
Deaglos wrote: edited to add well i geuss all i wrote below is even better if no alc. and no truck. Do you detest trucks that much and I also support MADD, was a member of SADD and SAFTYE. But will not plan all on that withoout proof.
It is true that there are many issues with the logging trucks and the way they drive, but it also sounds like you greatly are against any judgement on his innocents as he was mainly driving a log truck. As to his drinking I have not a clue as I was not there, have not read any police reports, and can only go by what I hear.
I have heard that in Matt's defense, when he tried to give his statements he was basically told to be quiet and just listen and do not talk by the officers. I also do not believe that as officers at an accident always try to get all sides.
So I will withhold judgement on the young man until such a time as I see eveidence. Just because he drives a truck does not make him guilty, and I also will withhold judgement on alcohol until i see the test results for myself.
No Sir, not against the innocent. Are you sure that when told by the officers to to be quiet and listen, the officer's may have been trying to read him his rights, or maybe trying to read him the implied consent to testing, or maybe the officers were trying to make sure everything was on audio and video to protect the innocent as well as the officers? As far as tractor trailors sir, I don't not hate them. My husband drives a truck long haul, i am familiar with what is involved in trucking, I can also assure you, that being on these roads for MANY hours a day, I do see alot of log trucks hauling *** to get the loads. I see the log trucks cross the double yellow line, I see the log trucks operating with sub standard equipment. I assure you that i'm not discriminating against the truck driver's. I know they have a job to do. But, back to your statement. I am for upholding the law, I am for protecting the innocent.
|
romegasir
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Rome, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 2345 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
This discussion was had on another board, about a year ago............................and for those of you who actually have no dog in the fight, DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT I SAY, DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT OTHERS SAY..........do your own research. I know some of the officers involved in this case and they have been maligned in many different ways, from being called lazy, incompetent to being outright liars............................one was accused of IGNORING a witness, who the defense claimed begged the officer to listen to his version of events and the officer refused.............in court it came out that what really happened was the witness asked the officer "do you need anything?" and the officer said "Nope, I got it under control"................a far cry from the defense claim.
This is from RNT article:
"Lanier’s motion for mistrial was based on the fact that testimony as well as a videotape shown this morning mentioned the word “number” surrounding Dunagan’s DUI arrest. Floyd County Superior Court Judge J. Bryant Durham Jr. had previously ruled that no reference to specific blood alcohol content could be admitted into evidence during trial."
Now, if Tereca is correct and the blood alcohol test showed ZERO, why would the defense want that excluded??????????????? anyone?????? (and presuming that the blood alcohol test showed ZERO) why would the officer bother charging him with DUI?????????????
|
Current time is 04:56 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...   |
|
