Why Has The Jail Spent More Than $100,000.00 Over Budget?
At a recent Budget Committee Meeting it was announced that the jail was more than $100,000.00 over budget. How could this happen, was no one watching the books?
Chief Deputy Chapman explained the situation in fine detail and it’s not pretty. The reason the jail is so far over budget is the medical cost incurred treating prisoners. A female prisoner seems to have convinced herself that it’s her responsibility to get pregnant and the county taxpayer’s responsibility to pay her medical bills. Of five children she has had I’m told three including the one she is currently pregnant with were gifts from the county taxpayers. As of Friday this person was still in St. Thomas Hospital racking up thousands of dollars a day in hospital costs and overtime for deputies that have to continue guarding her around the clock. The story was told had one time this woman was forced out of the jail on probation, against her will, in an effort to avoid the county having to pay for yet another baby. She is said to have told deputies upon leaving that she would be back that the county would pay. After leaving the jail she went straight to a convenience store and robbed them then sat and waited for the police to come get her. She basically was back in jail before the paper work for her release was completed.
It seems that some have learned to work the system so well and the justice system has become so broken that people are going to jail for their medical and dental care. If you do meth until your teeth rot out the county is obligated to get you new ones or fix the ones you have. A five or six thousand dollar dental bill is not that unusual. If you have a serious illness simply commit a crime and go to jail for free treatment.
People are being put on probation time and time again in an effort to avoid the huge medical bills being created but those who work the system know this and continue to commit crimes until they get back in the jail.
Chief Deputy Chapman explained the situation in fine detail and it’s not pretty. The reason the jail is so far over budget is the medical cost incurred treating prisoners. A female prisoner seems to have convinced herself that it’s her responsibility to get pregnant and the county taxpayer’s responsibility to pay her medical bills. Of five children she has had I’m told three including the one she is currently pregnant with were gifts from the county taxpayers. As of Friday this person was still in St. Thomas Hospital racking up thousands of dollars a day in hospital costs and overtime for deputies that have to continue guarding her around the clock. The story was told had one time this woman was forced out of the jail on probation, against her will, in an effort to avoid the county having to pay for yet another baby. She is said to have told deputies upon leaving that she would be back that the county would pay. After leaving the jail she went straight to a convenience store and robbed them then sat and waited for the police to come get her. She basically was back in jail before the paper work for her release was completed.
It seems that some have learned to work the system so well and the justice system has become so broken that people are going to jail for their medical and dental care. If you do meth until your teeth rot out the county is obligated to get you new ones or fix the ones you have. A five or six thousand dollar dental bill is not that unusual. If you have a serious illness simply commit a crime and go to jail for free treatment.
People are being put on probation time and time again in an effort to avoid the huge medical bills being created but those who work the system know this and continue to commit crimes until they get back in the jail.
posted by Allen Barrett | 7:51 PM
149 Comments:
This is terrible, what can be done about it.
Are they getting pregnant in jail?
I suggest when they are let on probation, don't look for them.
But if they are setting there waiting on the police what can be done.
The government should stop paying them, take children away from unfit mothers like that.
Don't fix their teeth or let a rough dentist pull them without pain drugs.
No they are not getting pregnant in Jail, they come to jail pregnant and then they want the county to take care of them for free, As far as not taking care of them or being rough or not using pain meds, that is against the ethics of most healthcare workers. I say do what Arizona did. Build a huge fence, give them the materials and let them build a tent city. After that, it is all up to them. Let them plant a garden, take care of cattle, sheep chickens or whatever, and try to become self sustained. If that doesn't work, let the punishment fit the crime. If they kill someone, kill them. If they hurt someone because they are drunk, let the family of the one who was hurt dish out the punishment. You get my drift. And tell the ACLU that if you are in prison or jail, you don't have rights except what is laid out in the constitution.
1:31 I get your drift and love it.
I know you have to take care of them, which I think is awful, but just pull the tooth if hurting, no filling or cap.
The government isn't out to help the poor working man or woman.
What love for fellow man we have.
I have heard if you get on meth you have to have it. How can someone be in jail for thirty days or more and not have withdrawls. Do they have visitors that slip in to them?
7:47 Do you have someone in jail?
You can love your fellow man but not like what they do.
Contact your State Representatives (House and Senate) and let's tell them we taxpayers are tired of footing the medical costs involved with inmates.
The government helps millions of people with their medical bills. We, as taxpayers, pay for so many deadbeats and lazy folks health care. The inmates are just a small number of them. I imagine you will get a snub when you call a representative.
I don't like it anymore than the next person, but we can't deny health care when it can potentially be life threatening. That is just the way it is. Better to pay for them in jail than to have them on the streets stealing, murdering and giving your kids drugs.
DAW
"You might get a snub from your representative" so don't bother doing anything.
"I don't like it anymore than the next person" but I don't want to make waves and stir up trouble about it.
"we can't deny them health care" so we must provide them with the Cadillac plan.
"Better to pay for them in jail than have them on the streets" it doesn't matter that some only go to jail so they get the best of care the people in charge what what's best.
Until we the people demand something change nothing will.
DAW
All talk and no 'do'?
You can cry and scream until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to get you anywhere. That seems to be what you are best at. There are some things in life that you can't change, so it is better to move on and worry about yourself.
Howard,
I don't give credit to very much you say. After talking with my grandfather, you seem to be clueless about alot of the things you complain about.
DAW
To daw
how can you call someone clueless when you have to ask your grandadad everything?Did you forget to look in the mirror this morning and see stupid wrote on your head?
hey there 12:02,
First of all it would be "stupid written on your head" not wrote!
So thanks for the laugh I got when you called me stupid. It seems that idiots never win.
Since my grandfather attends a large majority of all meetings, I would say that he is a credible source to weed out what is true and what is "heresay". I guess your brain doesn't function well enough to understand that logic.
Thanks,
DAW
DAW
Don't you do anything without asking grandpa? Jack is getting on in years and at his age even he is bound to get things wrong. Why don't you attend a few meetings yourself and get first hand knowledge which you can share with the rest of us who can't get off work to go ourselves?
daw ,I looked back and read what I "wrote" and I still can't see where I called you stupid. I said it was wrote on your head.sorry that I wrote it wrong.you make a lot of mistakes yourself.I did not call you a name like you did in calling me an idiot.So who is the smart a-- here. Good night John Boy.Say high to grandpaw!
I went to a couple meetings and saw all that I needed to see. 3:06, for the 10th time, please tell me who you are? I trust an older mans word way more than some of the clueless commissioners.
DAW
Clueless commissioners ain't that what Barrett has been saying and now he's a trouble maker. DAW are you Barrett posting as DAW?
There are some clueless commissioners. I would have to agree with WAB on that one. Some of them are as ignorant as the fool that posted 3:06. They are also just as cowardly. Guess they went to the chicken coop until the rooster crows in the morning.
DAW
I must say that redneck that posted at 12:02 and again at 3:06 more than likely isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Usually, when you greet a person the saying is "HI" not "HIGH". I think you proved DAW's point, IDIOT. I suggest Webster's dictionary, Lord knows you need it. If I were you, I wouldn't reveal your name. LOL!
Daniel I am so disappointed that you have now become part of the name calling group of troublemakers. I thought when you started writing that here's a man that will stand up to Barrett and defend our leaders but you are just like him criticizing others when you aren't perfect either. Calling people names and embarrassing them isn't very Christian or nice. Sorry you got a glass of the kool-aide.
8:58,
I will stand up for those that deserve it, but when someone calls me stupid and mistakenly dogs out my grandfather I take it personally. I didn't call anyone a name that didn't desserve it. WAB isn't always wrong so I won't argue just because he writes something.
Thanks,
DAW
To daw, where did I call you stupid in 3:06 and 12:02.Did I call you stupid? I said stupid was "wrote" on your head. Read again at least three times or ask grandpaw to explain it to you.You call me an idiot and then a fool. What does the Bible say about calling someone a fool?How could you have ask me ten times for for my name when I only posted three time to you? I did not call you stupid,but if this keeps on I may have to.
To 11:45 Where did I say the word
high in either of my posts that I wrote.What the Lord knows about me is between me and Him so you need to stay out of it please, Thanks.
LOL to you and yours to.
11:35 I'm not DAW but been reading your post, so bright one what did you tell DAW to say to his grandpaw?
Good night John Boy.Say high to grandpaw!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:06:00 PM
I really don't like to see anyone call someone on their grammar or spelling, but your remark needing calling on.
You might as well give it up 11:35. You called someone stupid and are trying to backtrack. Telling DAW that it is written on his head is calling him stupid. Anyone with sense enough to get out of the rain knows that DAW isn't stupid. Maybe you are jealous or threatened by him? Then you lied about what you wrote. You call yourself a Christian. Shame shame shame.
1:12
I dont think he called himself a Christian.
Thanks 1:12 for your kind words.I quit just bacause of JERKS like you.I can't compete with your name calling. So long.
YAY! HOORAY!
DAW, Deserve is spelled D E S E R V E, not desserve.
Typing error. I spelled it right the first time it was used in the post. Thanks so much!
DAW
4:18 Since we are talking about spelling, what about bacause in 3:37's post? lol
How come DAW can make a spelling mistake but everyone else gets called an idiot and fool?I can understand why the guy has had .
If we had spelling contests on here, we would all lose. Including myself!
DAW
When was someone else called a name for a spelling mistakes, 7:23?
I always thought there was a space between a question mark or period before starting a new sentence.
I don't know what any of this has to do with the budget of the jail. Just someone wanted to get it off tract.
Ewe awl are knot thee best spellers inn thee world. Eye hope ewe can sea what eye am dewing.
Now get off the spelling and get back to topic. It does not matter why someone is in jail, the punishment should fit the crime. We should not have to pay thousands of dollars for there mistakes. If you use meth, and meth rots your teeth, Deal With It. I have no sympathy.
OOPS, that should be their mistakes.
Still not running that farm I see. You're posting at 9:45 A.M.; 11:26 A.M.; 4:53 P.M. Not putting in a full day's work for a full day's pay? If I were your boss, I'd done fired you! Someone should let the boss (if he really has one)know what Daniel is doing. Or maybe he's on the boss's computer trying to keep up with politics and trying to convince everyone how smart he is. Hummmmmm!
10:42,
I would say that you would be lucky to be anyones boss. Being ignorant is not a good qualification for a managerial position.
Thanks,
DAW
So DAW you might want to take your own advice and never put in for a managerial position, per your own statement you are not qualified.
That is a great one 2:10, you got me there. I should be able to stop laughing in a couple hours. Go back and hide in your cave.
Just curious 10:42, why is that you are so worried about DAW's job? You are probably the same person on here that couldn't figure out why he had only been on this blog for a short amount of time yet he had read all the old archives. Bahahaha. Bet you still haven't figured that one out. In this day and age, people have these things called phones... and with these phones you can browse the web, talk to people, you can order a flippin' pizza if you want! He's not on your time. Don't worry about him.
Children, Children!!
You shouldn't have to fix the meth teeth unless hurting, then pull pull.
As far as delivering babies while in jail, one night is long enough in hospital.
That's all expensive, but don't act like they are queens and give the royal treatment.
Why can they not be held responsible to pay there debt when they get out?
It's not DAW I'm worried about 10:19, it's his boss that I'm concerned with since DAW is being paid a salary (I assume) by that poor man or woman boss while he's on the blog.
Just curious also how he gets by with it.
Prob best you worry about yourself 9:52. You seem a little obsessed with DAW. Do you have a job??? Drawing unemployment??? Spend your day playing solitaire???
I assure you that my employer doesn't want you to waste your time worrying about them or what I do. I hope this will help you to rest better and get back to the subject.
Thanks,
DAW
I cant speak for medical bills, butin regards to dentistry, they only pay for extractions...no fillings or crowns. I have seen some where every tooth in their mouth needs to be pulled.....some have nothing but roots left due to the meth. Its pure guesswork as to which one to pull at that time. You just have to ask the inmate to point to the one that hurts the most. Make no mistake about it, they KNOW how to work the system. If the jail refused treatment, they will find some scumbag attorney to file a lawsuit..and amazingly, will win every time. Its a lose-lose for the county.
The county is faced with major financial problems, a huge tax increase looms on the near horizon, there are some who are consistently abusing their positions in government, who lie and steal with such arrogance they only laugh when confronted. So why are people wasting time criticizing spelling, grammar and worrying about a private citizen and his relationship with his employer, with so many real problems that need to be dealt with?
Look no one has displayed perfect grammar or spelling even when spell check is used and what happens between two private citizens simply is not our business. The problem is rather simple in that these stupid criticisms about such trivial and pervasive molehills are used to direct attention away from the real problems.
It's like Anthony Weiner is on the front page while the illegal, unconstitutional bombing of Libya
is pushed to the back pages.
People know everything there is to know about Angelina Jolie but how many know about the Obama administration selling guns to the Mexican drug cartels then having them used to kill unarmed American Agents?
The sad truth is many are just uninterested, for whatever reason, in knowing anything other than what they have become comfortable with and that is very sad for the country.
Gonzales named principal of Elkton School.
Tee Jackson owed him that after shafting him under oath on the Barrett, Winkles case.
11:27
Oh come on. Are we back to going after Mr. Jackson again? Did it ever occur to you that Dr. Gonzales got the job because he was presumed to be the best fit for the school, or are you just trying to stir up needless trouble?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:26:00 AM,
Trust me, that was the last reason that crossed my mind. Not trying to stir up anything.Just exercising my right to free speech. That is still legal isn't it?
5:15
Absolutely. And it's my right to ask about your motivation.
What was Dr. Gonzales's job before being appointed principal of Elkton?
Has he been principal before.
Just asking?
He has been an assistant principal at Spring Hill High School for the past 4-5 years.
What about Mr. Cardin at GCHS? I wish him the very best at the high school. He needs a lot of support from the public and the Central Office.
What?? No post about the new lawsuit that is strangely reported by WLX from L'burg and not reported by our own WKSR. Looks like the mighty allan barret is getting his butt sued for lying and slandering others. Looks like the good preacher man is trouble again. GO CLAY ALL THE WAY!!!!!
Yea, Go Clay All The Way! Cost this bankrupt county even more money! To all of the whiners out there saying Mr. Barrett is costing the county money with his lawsuit, I sure hope you are going to jump on the anti-clay bandwagon.
Just read the article on the WLX website about Mr. McAllister. SERIOUS MENTAL INJURY ? Is this guy not a retired State Trooper? SERIOUS MENTAL INJURY ? What a joke. He is about to open a whole new can of worms. Not only is he about to try and make Van Zant and the police dept look incompetent, he is about to show everyone how weak of a man he really is. Does'nt he realize that the city will issue a full investigation into everyone involved. I don't see how Mr. Barrett would be named. All he did was present a video to the police department. He has no authority to arrest anyone.
If the suit is only against WAB then it shouldn't cost the county anything.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:09:00 PM, once again, all you have to do is read! The suit is against Glossip, Barrett and the City.
10:45
I think the individual who started this entire mess should definitely be named in the lawsuit. And if he is shown to have lied, I believe the tv station that came down here to air the incident should be asked to come back and do another story. After all, is it not truth that we all seek in matters such as this?
"After all, is it not truth that we all seek in matters such as this?" The truth? Yes, only when it's against Mr. Barrett. Please tell me how this lawsuit is any different than Mr. Barrett's. Other than the fact that Mr. Barrett isn't seeking any monetary compensation or claiming any kind of "mental injury". I too think McAllister is going to step on a lot of his friends toe in the police dept before this is over.
I think Clay should of stayed out of it, minded his own business and he wouldn't of been arrested.
Did Mrs. Vanzant ask him to move her sign out?
Just let the courts figure it out. The amount of money is crazy. For that reason I am of the same opinion as I was about the Doctor. Nothing wrong with the suit, the amount just makes McAllister seem like he is doing it for the wrong reason. Does WAB think this one will also be settled in a back room for $2-$4 million?
DAW
8:01
I don't think Mrs. Vanzant asked Clay to move her sign out from Barrett's so it could be seen. Even if she had, that's not the point. He didn't move Barrett's signs, and I honestly believe the court will find that to be the case.
You need to ask yourself one basic question. Exactly who provoked this incident in the first place? It certainly wasn't Mr. McAlister, was it?
It was McAlister for even stopping where the signs were with all the fuss about them.
9:50
Still, who started this whole mess and hid out there with a camera to try and catch someone moving his signs? Mr. McAlister was simply moving Mrs. Vanzant's sign out to where it could be seen like it was before the Barrett signs went up on both sides of it so as to obscure it from viewing. That's ALL the man did, and somebody (my opinion) is going down for defaming his character.
Is this not going to cost the city a lot of money defending this suit?
Will this law suit not cause all the people posting anonymous on this blog to be reveal?
The one some call enabler said he was called or notified as soon as Clay was arrested and he went out and saw WAB’s signs still there.
Did someone from the police department not do something wrong by calling him/her? Will it not be investigated who called and to whom?
Will the police be afraid to arrest anyone now, no matter what?
What has happen about the doctors law suit?
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. The "county" has nothing to do with it so Vanzant is not involved expept for the fact that barrett was trying to cover her signs to hinder her campain effort and Clay moved her signs. She has nothing to do with "city" police department. I think that would be the Mayor of Pulaski, not the County Executive. And anyone who thinks barrett did not instigate this whole mess is just as big of idiot as he is. I hope he pays dearly.
Remember Mr. Barrett was out all that day waiting to trap anyone he could. He did have a rediculous amount of signs there and he did want to trap someone. If anyone remembers seeing him out there all day please speak up.
10:20
Why would those who have posted anonymously need to be revealed? They have nothing to do with the lawsuit and are not on trial. I really don't think you would want the one you call an enabler to testify anyhow. So what if someone called and told him what was going on? What difference would that make other than to help Mr. McAlister's case? For all you know, it was an anonymous tip anyway.
How many more thousands of dollars will it cost taxpayers to defend against this suit?
Does the city have two lawsuits now. The doctors and Barret and Clay's?
Better move out of the city they will have to raise taxes.
I am so suprised WAB has not been on here to respond with some kind of foolish fingerpointing jibberish. But I guess he is at the lawyers office trying to see if he is even going to be able to keep a pair of shorts. Look to stir trouble long enough and you eventually get caught in the pot and your goose gets cooked. But I will bet that the great WAB still will not learn his lesson-- he will never learn that he is the problem and never the solution.
Maybe clay called Vanzant when he was arrested. He is allowed a phone call or have I been watching to much TV?
6:07
Great post. Sadly, I think you are right.
If someone had been stealing my signs I would of been watching to catch them. That is probably what the one stealing them thought is the reason they didn't show up. Sorry Clay didn't think about that.
8:00
But the point you are missing is that Clay only moved Mrs. Vanzant's sign away from those placed on both sides of it so as to block its being viewed.
1:04 No I never missed your point you've pointed it out over and over.
I'm 8:00 and I said I was sorry clay didn't think about WAB might be watching and since he stopped beside the signs he could be accused of tampering with the signs,whether it was Vanzants or Barrets. Is that any planner?
You need to cool it and not get so mad. I never said anything against Clay or Vanzant.
2:24
If it appears that I say the same thing over and over about the matter, it's because I believe what I am saying to be the truth. Please don't confuse my passion for justice with anger.
224
I put out a lot of signs for Mrs. Vanzant. There were occasions when I would have to stop and put one back up when the wind blew it down. There were occasions when I would decide to move a sign to a different location for better visibility. Would you say I was tampering with Mrs. Vanzant's signs in either situation?
You know, Saul of Tarsus was a very evil man who persecuted others before he became an apostle by the name of Paul.
I've heard of someone having things stolen from their home and garage several times, so they set a camera up to watch and see if them came again.
They caught them on tape finally, was that entrapment?
12:01
But this incident occurred on public property. Perhaps it wasn't entrapment, but it was a clever trap, wouldn't you say?
No, I wouldn't say it was a clever trap. I would say it was a clever plan. And it worked. The officer saw enough of the tape to believe it and apparently so did a judge. I wouldn't think they issued a warrant on Mr. Barent's word alone. Then ironically a portion of the tape is destroyed, the officer is demoted, and forced to make an apology. That is was is so troubling about this situation. Too many coincidences for my taste. This person who is always against the blog owner no matter the topic, don't you think it is more than a little strange? Surely you are not that biased. Or do you really believe that warrant was issued on WAB's word alone and there was no evidence. REALLY? Then more troubling than anything I've read on this blog is the fact that our law enforcement agency is mixed up in this. Why do you think the officer went to the judge and why do you think the judge signed a warrent if there was no evidence? Why do you think that candidate that you believe is wrong on everything does not have the same rights as you and I. That's what you have essentially been saying. You sound almost afraid that he will shed some light on "business as usual." Nobody takes what you call "name calling " as personal as you do when it's not even them being called a name, no adult that is. What is your motivation for the cover-up you desire so badly?
Vic Wade
McBurg, TN
Vic Wade, excellent post. And you signed your name, take that ENABLER!
Mr. Wade great post, I agree 100%.
Vic
You can call it a plan or whatever, but the fact remains that it was a baited situation that was sure to stir up trouble. But this time, as one writer so eloquently put it, the one stirring this pot is finally going to have his own goose cooked.
You mentioned that police cannot arrest someone based only on what another says. Wrong. That happens all the time. For example, a police officer could come to my house and haul me to jail because a neighbor down the road accused me of a crime. I would then have to prove myself innocent in a court of law. As i see it, this sign ordeal is the same thing.
You stated that some of the video tape is missing. How convenient. How could that have happened? Who had time to do that when the tape was turned over to the TBI? And the judge signed the warrant based on what the officer told him. It's as simple as that.
Who is "against" the blog? Who said those that I don't believe in don't have the same rights as others? Those are ALL your words. I happen to believe in free speech, even when I disagree with someone. But the difference between me and the one you so eaqerly defend is that I don't resort to calling people names and attacking them in other ways just because we disagree. Now, as for rights, I believe we all have a right to make our opinions known without being threatened (bully tactic), called names, and being falsely accused of somehow enabling evil and wrongdoings. Oh, and by the way, I don't fear any light that would be shed on something when it is wrong.
My motivation for a cover-up? If you are talking about the McAlister situation, I am unaware of any attempt by the police or by Mr. M. to deceive or hide the truth. I believe this will come out in court. The Lord willing, I plan to be there to see this happen. Will you?
I hope I have cleared up some of your misunderstandings. Perhaps you should stop drinking the hate and resentment kool-aid and start thinking for yourself. Just a suggestion.
Now who is costing the county money?
7:09 AM Whether or not you call people names on this blog, I don't know. However, you constantly tell people if they don't like the way things are run by our elected officials in Giles county, then pack up and leave. Now isn't that a nasty statement or do you feel you are justified? You say this to people who were born and bred here and also to those who have moved here from out of state or even out of county. Without that handful of people moving into Giles county, spending more on properties than local people can afford to do, swelling the government coffers and spending their hard earned bucks in Giles county, how do you think this county would be without them?
You also state you are in favor of free speech, yet if you suspect one posting on this blog comes from someone who has lived elsewhere or posts something in favor of the blog owner, you pounce.
I too hope to get a seat in the courtroom so I guess we will know who you are when we see you on the witness stand on behalf of C. McAlister since you know so much about the minute details of the case, you are sure to be called. If not by the plaintiff then surely by the defense. And remember, one defendent happens to own this blog.
Enabler, It's my understending that the tape was in the hands of the police dept for 2-3 days before it was returned. If there was nothing on it why did they even have it in their possession?
Someone is innocent until proven guilty. The enabler has that backwards. That is common knowledge.
nail on the head 9:30
9:42 Excellent point!
Here's another thought: if the police dept had a tape that showed no one tampering with signs (which is against state law) why did officer Glossop and the magistrate issue a summons? And, if the tape contained zero, why didn't the Pulaski police dept. charge Barrett with wasting their time?
9:30
Your post contains a lie or two that need to be pointed out.
No, it was not a nasty statement to suggest that unhappy people should move somewhere else. Why do you think so many people move down here from up north? It's a man's right to move wherevwer he pleases, isn't it?
You state that I pounce whenever I "suspect" that someone posting is not native-born? That's a lie.
However, there are more than one of us who have stated something to the effect that some people move in here thinking they know it all and that they shopuld be telling us how to live. I admit to that. Yes, I favor free speech, but not the kind of consdescension I see here on this blog.
No, I'll not be testifying for Mr. McAlister, but plan on being there, the Lord willing. Why would the defense call me to testify anyhow? Please explain. Thank you.
3:00 pm Many people move South to get away from the Northern snows and from Florida to avoid hurricanes. I agree its a person's right to move whereever they please but that also means they can stay or not move as you constantly suggest, which IS a nasty statement. What happened to your southern hospitality or did you never have it to begin with? As for the court case, since you are such a bright spark, figure it out for yourself.
Will they check into who posted on this blog they heard the news as soon as Clay was arrested and drove out and saw Barrett's signs still where they had been?
Looks like they would need that proof that Barrett's signs were still there right after Clay was arrested.
I'm been asked, "is the sign on HWY 11 before Richland Creek bridge saying "Historical Site" if that was because of the sign caper?"
I laughed and said, "I think the signs was on the other side of the road and don't know why it's a Historical site."
3:46
Lots of people knew about the incident right after it happened. Who is on trial here...the ones named in the lawsuit or the one who was told what had happened?
How did lots of people know about the incident right after it happen?
Was it after dark or before?
It could be important how anyone knew about it so quick.
Maybe Barrett was set up.
3:46 said Looks like they would need that proof that Barrett's signs were still there right after Clay was arrested.
I can't see that statement is for or against Clay or Barrett.
WAB, can you give any details on this suit, or do you have to keep it close to the hip for now? There are some on here that feel they know all the facts. I would rather hear it from you. They would keep up the mindless chatter for 6 months.
DAW
8:06
Set up? Now that's an irony if I ever heard one
So what you are saying Mr. Enabler is that officer Glossup told the magistrate some tall tale that convinced him to sign a warrant against a retired officer. With absolutely no evidence? What would cause the policeman to do that and risk his name and career? You think he took the blog owner's word for it only. According to you, Mr. Barret is a joke to all officials but in this particular case, they all took his word as factual proof with nothing to back it up.Why would they do that? I think you watch too much t.v. I don't know of a case where a citizen can make an accusation with no proof and policemen will simply show up and arrest someone at their home without an investigation. I am asking some legitimate serious questions and I would appreciate your leaving off the sarcsatic kool-aid drinking remarks as well as judging my character by saying I am hate-filled, resentful, and not thinking for myself. How could you possibly know if that is true or not about me? To my knowledge we have never met. I am asking because I want to learn. Would you mind answering the questions that you know factual information on? You've stated many times that you know " for a fact". I don't see how that is possible unless you were there. Were you? Or were you simply told by a 3rd party all of your information and accepted it as fact due to your bias against Mr. Barret? You could and SHOULD be a witness in court if you have as many facts as you claim. It would be your duty to come forward and save us taxpayers the cost of a trial if you have that many facts. If all of the things you spoke of are indeed the truth and you "know for a fact" as you claim, and let this lawsuit proceed, then I submit that it is you that is costing the county money, and lots of it. You could simply force this lawsuit to a screeching halt. That would save the county tax dollars, burn Mr. Barret, and you would be a hero. It's a no brainer. Step up to the plate, offer your proof that the officer did not investigate, the judge did not investigate, and the whole thing was started by Mr. barret and it was not for justice but rather for an opportunity to stir up trouble.
Again, I don't appreciate your judging me.
Vic Wade
Vic
Look, all I know is that Mr. Barrett's signs were indeed in the same location following the incident as they were that morning. I saw them before Mr. McAlister supposedly moved them, and I saw them right after the arrest. Now, one of two things could have happened. Either they were not moved at all, or someone put them back where they had been that morning. That would be speculation at best, so anything I saw wouldn't prove or disprove anything, would it? And neither I nor the person who called and told me this are on trial here.
I really hate that Dean Glossup got caught up in this mess. If memory serves me, didn't he make a statement in the paper that he was pressured to arrest Mr. McAlister? I could be wrong about that, but seems I do recall reading something to that effect.
You say you would appreciate my leaving off any sarcastic remarks? Well, I would likewise appreciate your not calling me a name that is and has always been a lie. I hate deceit and corruption as much as anyone else and would never knowingly go along with something that is wrong.
So you are saying Dean Glossup buckled under pressure from a citizen to pursue to legal action with no evidence? Basically what I am I am reading is that you really don't know anything for a fact about this case and that your bias against Mr. Barret should negate his legal rights to protect his property.
I really doubt anyone would hand over as evidence a tape that showed nothing relevant to the alleged crime and a respected officer and judge would take up the gauntlet to persecute a former officer. Sounds to me like a case for defamation just might exist, but not Clay's defamation. If Clay's case has merit, one would logically have to question the character of Dean and the judge. I'm not a cheerleader for Mr. Barret by any means but I am a cheerleader for justice and I do have an ability to think logically and use common sense. You can't have it both ways, "Barret Bashers."
Vic
Vic
Bias has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Barrett signs were right where they were after Mrs. Vanzant's sign had been moved out from between them. That being the case, one or two things had to have happened. Either Mr. McAlister did not move the signs or someone hurriedly put them back where they were immediately after Mr. M. supposedly pulled them up. Is there any other possibility as to what might have happened? I can't think of one.
Lastly, I don't think anyone is bashing Mr. Barrett. I see it more as criticism of his behavior and total shock that he continues as he does. I have never had a serious problem with his opinions although we have disagreed on the zoning issue. He occasionally has some good ideas on some things, but the way he comes across to people turns them off. I'm not the only one who has told him this.
Being a cheerleader for justice muself, I just hope the truth comes out, regardless of what it actually is.
8:15 Appears Mr. Wade has got you on all points and your responses are just floundering. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Mr. Barrett took a couple of new signs and placed them where the original signs had been?
Excellent points Mr. Wade. Thank you.
9:44
No, that doesn't occur to me at all. Had the signs been pulled up and thrown down the bank, why on earth would Mr. Barrett put them back up and remove proof that the signs had been moved? I think that in itself is an excellent point.
10:34 You really don't comprehend what you read, do you? I wrote that perhaps Mr. Barrett placed NEW signs where the original ones had been, that would mean leaving the ones thrown down the bank where they fell. Duh.
You two morons remind me of the cripple fight episode on Southpark.
11:51
Duh! Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he have left the old ones down the bank? Wouldn't you think that putting up new ones exactly where the others were would jeopardize his argument that his signs had been tampered with?
CRIPPLE FIGHT!!! CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!!
1:31 Again, you can't comprehend what you read. I didn't come close to suggesting Barrett went down the bank, brought the thrown signs back with him and replaced them. I suggested he perhaps placed two NEW signs where the others had been. Don't ya know these people who run for office purchase around 250 - 500 signs each? And, if you saw the TV news report on the incident you would have seen Barrett's signs laying in the ditch while had had signs up top in place. I give up on your mind.
2:04
Look, I understand perfectly what I said. And I never stated that Barrett went down a bank to retrieve signs that, in my opinion, were not there to begin with. If there were signs down that bank, why would Barrett jeopardize the "crime scene" by replacing them? Can you comprehend that question?
You give up on my mind? Good. I just hope you won't give up on yours. It appears to need some help.
CRIPPLE FIGHT!! You two sound like idiots. Maybe you are. CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!
8:03 Ms Shallow Mind. It will all come out in the trial.
8:42
Yes, and I look forward to it coiming out. Oh, and that would be mister to you, mister.
Be careful what you post on this blog.
http://www.columbiadailyherald.com/articles/2011/06/27/top_stories/01libel.txt
Explains why WAB has been silent.
Heard tax assessor Steve McGill made a strange comment in the commission meeting Monday. Anyone know the details of what happened?
To the one they call the Enabler or Rabid: You have a true gift of ducking or dodging questions, or more accurately, ignoring them. Literally countless times you have posted "I know for a fact." Now suddenly you claim not to know anything for a fact and perhaps the strangest statement of all, (and you have said it more than once) that you are sorry Dean got mixed up in all of this. He is a police officer who did his job. I happen to think he is a good officer and he didn't shirk his duties. You still haven't answered why you seem to believe that Dean and the judge apparently acted on Mr. Barret's word alone and issued a warrant on a retired officer. And you persist in the bigoted position that Mr. Barret did all of this to bait Clay. If you had property tampered with, you would attempt to catch the culprit, I assume. I know I would. I have no clue as to Clay's guilt or innocence and frankly I don't really care. But obviously he was there and something happened. I have enough respect for the police officer and judge, neither whom I have ever met, to believe that they did not prematurely without cause, issue that warrant. You want to stay on the fence on this one and Mr Enabler, Rabid, or whatever your name is, that fence is barb wire this time. If you believe in the good character of officer Glossup and the judge, then you have to believe they investigated, viewed the tape and had cause to have a warrant against Clay. If you believe Clay got caught up in Mr. Barrets "trouble making", then what does that say about Dean Glossup and the signed warrant by a sitting judge? Is there anything else you "know for a fact?" You seem to be doing a lot of backing up and implying that we who have figured out where your view points lie, have simply misunderstood you. "Look" I just call it like I see it.
Vic Wade
Vic Wade
You always make common sense and excellent posts. Thank you.
Thank-you, 12:52. As I said in a prior post, I just call them like I see them. I do appreciate the compliment. Thank you for taking the time to express your feelings.
Sincerely,
Vic Wade
What a laugh. Ray Charles "saw" thingsbetter than you apparently can.
so now you're into making fun of the hanicapped, you should go back to calling people names after you apologize for such an insensetive remark.
10:08
Think you need another drink, there was nothing like making fun in
9:49's post.
1:13 It wasn't funny but would the person have said such a thing had a blind person been standing there? If you wouldn't make such a comment to someone's face then you know it was insensitive. Poor taste reveals a poor character and this remark reveals a cowardly demeaner.
How does the great one know he/she wouldn't of said it to his face?
Cowards always talk big behind the backs of those being talked about.
9:33 Is that what goes on in the talk on the street?
Can't be on this blog because this is in front of anyone wanting to read it.
vic (aka deanna)...
You are so incredibly transparent. Your anger and name-calling give you away.
As for the signs, I DO know for a fact that there were two barrett signs right there in the same position as they were the day prior to the arrest of Clay McAlister. What I DO NOT know is whether or not someone hurriedly put them back up or replaced them on the afternoon of the arrest....or whether they never were moved in the first place. Ok?
I believe the judge acted based on Dean's comments. That's just an opinion, but do you know anything to the contrary?
Here's my opinion about the troublemaking you mentioned. I believe all three men got caught up in it. That is a shame, and it's going to cost taxpayers a bunch of money.
to 8:49 I don't read this blog every minute like you but even I know based on what was written by WAB that he replaced the signs that same evening.
9:01
Why would wab replace the signs and destroy any proof that they had been moved? Think.
10:29 for someone who does a lot of writing on here you don't seem to do much reading.
I read at least one place where WAB said he put up new signs and had the old signs taken by the TBI for fingerprinting. Don't know if it's true but it would explain why new signs were put up.
But why would he move signs that had been tampered with? Please help me understand. Looks like he would have been better served to have left them where they were supposedly thrown. Would that not be considered altering the crime scene?
What does all this matter. Hopefully when the trial comes around we will learn or will we.
Does anyone know the trial date yet? I want to be there to watch it all unfold.
Don't count on a trial. I am sure there will be a settlement.
You mean the city is going to settle so we want know really what went on?
The city, Glossup and Barrett will all agree to pay Clay off?
I would think so. I am sure that the insurance company for the city will see what the liability of the cost of going to trial would be. I imagine Clay would be happy with Barrett making a public apology if he wins. I think that would be better than the money.
What about Glossup, does the city insurance company cover him?
I hope you asked Clay if an apology would satisfy him, before making that statement.
9:11 Is the city going to pay the doctor off so it want go to trial?
I wouldn't doubt it. Political correctness has everyone scared to touch the race issue.
Everyone better move out of the city, their taxes is going to go up to pay for the insurance to pay for the lawsuits.
Pay them off and nothing anyone could be doing wrong will come out.
Clay does'nt want an apology. He wants the money. I've heard that he needs it.
10:33,
You are a supreme D.A. I hope you know what that means.
Isnt Clay a hardened retired Highway Patrolman? Doesnt say much about our state law enforcement if some poor pathetic hick town preacher can cause him severe mental injury. I think Mr. Barrett had signed up for the Men Staring At Goats experiment in the military but it was full. So he must have taken the only other class vailable, Men Causing Mental Illness To Jackass'.
11:11
Here's my opinion as to why barrett is so distrustful of others who hold positions of status and/or power. I think it's because he lacks the ability to attain to such an office...at least in Giles County.
11:44 Did you ever think, probably not. Did you ever consider that maybe Barrett is distrustful of others because of dealing with people like you?
Post a Comment
<< Home