The Red Bull question could be important because certain substances produce negative consequences in combination with other substances. The question, obviously, wouldn't be phrased: "Did you drink a can of Red Bull that night?" Rather, the question would be: "What over-the-counter products did you consume in the X number of hours leading up to the shooting?"

 

Maybe he had peanut M&Ms as well! And a nut allergy caused him to lose his mind! This Red Bull theory takes the cake for ignorance.

JW24, thanks for the Grand Jury information. The behind the scenes maneuvering is fascinating to me. I'm sure those involved on a daily basis consider it boring.

You're saying I should speculate about percentages, but not about the deputy's physical-mental state. If I'm an attorney representing Samantha Ramsey's mother, I'm gonna want to know everything that might have affected the deputy's physical state and state of mind that fateful night.

 

I am asking that you add something beyond playing devil's advocate?

 

Maybe he had peanut M&Ms as well! And a nut allergy caused him to lose his mind! This Red Bull theory takes the cake for ignorance.

 

Or...and I know this sounds crazy...or the girl who had smoked weed and drank until she was a .12 BAC, who refused to stop for him and hit him with her car....well her actions caused him to fear for his life.

I am asking that you add something beyond playing devil's advocate?

I prefer to wait until the attorney for Samantha Ramsey's mother has an opportunity to challenge the evidence, as we know it. I doubt if there was anything adversarial going on in the grand jury room last week.

Or...and I know this sounds crazy...or the girl who had smoked weed and drank until she was a .12 BAC' date=' who refused to stop for him and hit him with her car....well her actions caused him to fear for his life.[/quote']

 

No, it was the Red Bull. That's who's to blame for all of this

I prefer to wait until the attorney for Samantha Ramsey's mother has an opportunity to challenge the evidence, as we know it. I doubt if there was anything adversarial going on in the grand jury room last week.

You may never get that chance...they may scream and shout and say who knows what in the media trying to raise pressure on the county to settle out of court. I just don't think that from everything that has been released that any attorney will spend his own time and money by taking this to trial and possibly getting nothing. They will try to get a settlement and may get one, but it won't be near what many think they'll get.

You may never get that chance...they may scream and shout and say who knows what in the media trying to raise pressure on the county to settle out of court. I just don't think that from everything that has been released that any attorney will spend his own time and money by taking this to trial and possibly getting nothing. They will try to get a settlement and may get one, but it won't be near what many think they'll get.

I believe an out-of-court settlement, accompanied by a gag clause, is usually the end result.

I've asked over and over for people to assign blame percent to the girl and the Deputy and only a few have done so. The reason as some of you know that I'm asking is if this goes to a Federal Civil Trial...that "What percent were each to blame?" becomes the number one question for the jury.

 

If the jury, after hearing all of the evidence in the Civil Trial finds that the girl is 51% to blame and the Deputy is 49% to blame...guess how much of the requested amount the family will receive? 0% If the girl is more culpable (51% or more) in what happened than the deputy, her side loses in a Federal Civil Trial.

 

If the Jury decides that the Deputy is 51% to blame and the girl is 49%, then her side would win and she would receive 51% of what ever the jury would award her side.

 

I was party to a Federal Civil Case (gave depositions, had to testify and sat right next to the attorney throughout) some years ago and that is roughly how it works.

 

So unless it can be proven that the young lady had less that 50% blame in this case, there is no way it will ever go to trial.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the county offered a small settlement...I also wouldn't be shocked if they didn't. At this point the Counties insurance Carrier will determine what is the cheapest way out, in most cases it cost much less to settle than to go to trial and win.

I believe an out-of-court settlement, accompanied by a gag clause, is usually the end result.

It will only be gagged if the girls family chooses to, no reason for the county to gag it. I think FOI would force the county to release the settlement number if there was one. County can't be gagged like a private company could be.

It will only be gagged if the girls family chooses to, no reason for the county to gag it. I think FOI would force the county to release the settlement number if there was one. County can't be gagged like a private company could be.

Not so much the amount. Has more to do with not continuing to speak out against BCSD, deputy or the grand jury decision. One example would be public statement issued by girl's mother critical of fact she learned about death of her daughter and grand jury decision through news media and not sheriff's department.

Not so much the amount. Has more to do with not continuing to speak out against BCSD, deputy or the grand jury decision. One example would be public statement issued by girl's mother critical of fact she learned about death of her daughter and grand jury decision through news media and not sheriff's department.

 

Is the Sheriff's Department responsible for the notification? Wouldn't that fall on the prosecutor?

 

One thing you learn in law enforcement real quick is once the prosecutors get involved it is their case and you are just a witness. In other words, the police defer to the Commonwealth Attorney on all matters moving forward.

Is the Sheriff's Department responsible for the notification? Wouldn't that fall on the prosecutor?

 

One thing you learn in law enforcement real quick is once the prosecutors get involved it is their case and you are just a witness. In other words, the police defer to the Commonwealth Attorney on all matters moving forward.

Thank you for the clarification. In her statement, Brandi Stewart (mother) specifically mentions sheriff's department (only) in first non-notification and both BCSD and special prosecutor's office in second non-notification.

Thank you for the clarification. In her statement, Brandi Stewart (mother) specifically mentions sheriff's department (only) in first non-notification and both BCSD and special prosecutor's office in second non-notification.

 

I don't want everyone to take my words for the definite procedure on how this is done but I think her latest beef is with the Special Prosecutor and not the Sheriff's Department.

 

If anyone knows better please share it with us.

JW24, thanks for the Grand Jury information. The behind the scenes maneuvering is fascinating to me. I'm sure those involved on a daily basis consider it boring.

 

Actually, there are few boring days, and it's never a boring day for people who litigate. My bread and butter is on the transactional side (tax work, oil and gas, business corporations, things like that), so it's a bit calmer, but I'd say that any trial lawyer would say there's never a boring day.