by Antoinnette Borbon
In a preliminary hearing involving a pizza parlor brawl in Winters, the court would learn that an off-duty West Sacramento police officer, Steven Godden, would identify his alleged assailants as, “f— faggots, queers,” in a statement given to an officer from the Winters Police Department.
Miguel and Alfredo Moreno are being charged with assault on an officer and assault with a deadly weapon, among other charges.
The Winters police officer, who will take the stand tomorrow, arrived on the scene the night of May 16, 2014, to find, as he put in his written report, “a very belligerent man who identified the two alleged assailants by using gay slurs and profanity.
In his report given to Corporal Albert Ramos, Officer Jose Hermosillo wrote that off-duty Officer Steven Godden was even belligerent to the emergency medical team treating him that night.
Officer Godden said he went to eat dinner with his children after their little league game. His best friend, Jose Lopez, and a few other friends from the game joined them at the Pizza Factory in Winters.
Under direct examination by Deputy District Attorney Jay Linden, Officer Godden explained to Linden that, while at the little league game, he did have a couple of beers and then drove with his children in the car to the Pizza Factory to eat.
Godden stated, “I know, I’m disappointed in myself for doing that.”
He testified that he and Mr. Lopez went to the pizzeria to eat with their families. Once Jose had gone to the bathroom, Godden said that he walked over toward the bathroom as Jose Lopez and Miguel Moreno were coming out.
Godden said, “I asked Jose, what the h—- were you doing in there? Kissing?” But Godden stated, “It was a joke.”
Godden said that he had met Alfredo Moreno a few years back through mutual friends, and knew he was gay. But he did not know his brother, Miguel. He said that he and Jose returned to their table and had a few beers while eating their pizza.
It was a bit later when Alfredo Moreno, the brother of Miguel, walked into the pizza parlor. Godden said Alfredo accused him of hitting his brother Miguel. (It was unclear, at this point, if or when Miguel was struck).
Words were exchanged and a brawl broke out, leading to Godden suffering a blow to the head. Godden explained that he tried to keep a fight from happening, pushing the defendants outside, trying to get them to leave, go home.
Godden described Miguel to be very drunk, so drunk he could barely stand.
Godden stated they would not leave but instead kept coming at him and his friends. It was within seconds that everyone was fighting.
He said the two defendants were throwing things – napkin holders, cheese shakers, mugs and silverware, and turning over chairs and tables during the brawl. Other families were witnesses to the incident.
Officer Godden was struck in the head, causing him to suffer a concussion. He said he could not recall some of the events and/or the specifics of how they happened but that it was the two defendants who wanted to fight.
During the brawl, Godden said, one of the brothers was put through a plate glass window, but he claimed he did not see how it happened or who was responsible.
Godden asserted he was defending himself and his friend, but denies that he was ever belligerent.
During cross-examination by Attorney Fidel Martinez, representing Miguel Moreno, Godden would contradict the written report made by both Officer Hermosillo and Corporal Ramos. Godden was asked why he would refer to the two alleged assailants as “f—faggots, queers,” but Godden stated, “I do not recall saying faggot, only used homosexuals to identify them to the officer who was taking the report.”
Martinez asked Godden if his father was a former police chief of Winters. “Yes,” he replied.
Godden told Martinez that he only had a couple of beers at the little league park and then maybe one at the parlor.
“I disagree with the officer’s statement, I was not belligerent. I told Miguel to leave, go home and sleep it off and he wouldn’t, he swung at me, shadow boxing, putting himself into a fighting stance.”
In cross-examination by Deputy Public Defender, Dan Hutchinson, representing Alfredo Moreno, he would begin by asking the officer just how many beers he drank while at the park. “I had about 4 or 5,” stated Godden.
“Did you drive your children and another to the pizza place?” asked Hutchinson. “Yes, I did,” answered Godden. “How many did you have at the restaurant?” Hutchinson asked. “I only had one more Corona before the fight broke out.”
Mr. Hutchinson asked Godden about his position as officer, and Godden said he had been off on medical leave because of a shoulder injury, but is now on permanent leave since the incident.
“So, you are now medically retired since this incident?” questioned Hutchinson. “Yes, they told me my paperwork went through and I am now retired,” replied Godden.
Hutchinson moved onto the conversation between Godden and his friend Jose near the bathroom. “So at the time you asked your friend Jose what they were doing, asking if they were kissing, you had no idea that Miguel’s brother was gay?”
“No, I did not – did not know Alfredo was his brother,” asserted Godden.
Godden said that Miguel was not happy after he jokingly asked his friend what they were doing.
Hutchinson asked Godden if punching someone without justification would get an officer fired. “Yes, it would,” Godden replied.
Godden said he had to explain his black eye to his sergeant after asking him how he got the black eye.
It was shortly after the incident Godden was put on medical retirement, but Godden asserted it had nothing to do with the incident.
When Hutchinson asked Godden to stand up and demonstrate what he meant by a fighting stance, he stated, “I can’t, I can’t remember, counsel.”
“Did you get a copy of everyone’s statement emailed to you from your sergeant and did you read what Jose told the officers? Did you ask him to change his statements?” Hutchinson inquired.
“I read my part, but yes, I did know that he told Ramos that, but it is incorrect,” Godden replied.
Godden said that it was his wife, Lisa, who forwarded the email with all of the statements taken from witnesses that night to Jose and the others. But he said he did tell Jose to read the reports, although he asserted, “I did not tell him to change his story.”
Godden testified that he never punched anyone but once he was punched by Alfredo Moreno, he grabbed Alfredo, putting him into a chokehold, squeezing his neck – to gain control, to stop the fight. He said Alfredo kept swinging and kicking at him.
Hutchinson, per Godden’s explanation, demonstrated for the court how he put Alfredo Moreno into a chokehold.
Godden said he saw silverware flying in the air and that Alfredo came at him swinging a utensil and that was when he grabbed him, putting him into the chokehold.
He said it was in self-defense that he took control of Alfredo.
Testifying for the prosecution was Jose Lopez, Godden’s best friend.
Lopez told DDA Linden that when he was in the bathroom, Miguel Moreno had offered him cocaine. After an exchange of words, the two began pushing each other and it was at that point Lopez and Moreno came walking out of the bathroom.
It was then the comment was made to Lopez, “What the h—-were you doing in there, kissing?” by Godden, which Moreno was not happy about.
The Left Wing Headline (that tells just part of the story):
“Off Duty Police Officer Uses Hate Speech in Pizza Parlor”
The Right Wing Headline (that tells just part of the story):
“Police Officer attacked by Homosexual in Pizza Parlor”
It sounds like BOTH the gay guy and cop were acting like idiots and it sounds like the REAL story has to do with:
“Yes, they told me my paperwork went thru and I am now retired.”
Where government workers can retire in this case (as in so many) with the “chief’s flu that gives than a huge tax break when they screw up rather than getting fired with no pension (see below):
“An extraordinarily high percentage of California public safety workers retire with special disability retirement benefits, qualifying them for half their last annual salary for life, tax-free. Two out of three retirees in the California Highway Patrol receive the medical pensions, as do nearly half of retirees from local police and fire departments.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1133729/posts
SOD: I have to laugh a bit. While I condensed the headline down, it was Antoinnette’s original headline and I’m fairly sure that she’s a Republican. Perhaps you should stop taking the Frankly pills.
“Frankly pills!”?
Those are just common sense pills with just a touch of snark. Everyone should take them!
I can think of someone who needs a dose. Where can they get the prescription filled?
SOD–I agree, the retirement thing is what seemed most significant to me in this story; otherwise just another drunken brawl; Saturday nite at the ring: In the left corner, the old politically incorrect (gay person) facing off against, in the right corner, the new politically incorrect (the guy who insults gay people based on their gayness); let the battle begin!
Interesting stats you brought up on the prevalance of disability–it seems to me that disability claims warrant much more scrutiny; and that those who do not have a completely incapacitating disability be offered (and trained for) another job in the department (not patrol officer) that their disability can accomodate, and not be eligible for a gravy early retirement doing nothing on the taxpayers dime.
SOD
I truly appreciate your perspective on this one. I think it is really hard to know where to start with this one in terms of egregious behavior.
1. 4-5 beers while attending his kids sporting event ?
2. Driving his kids from sporting event to pizza parlor under the influence ? And “I know. I’m disappointed in myself for doing that” is his response ? Do you think that would have satisfied him if he had pulled one of us over for driving after 4-5 beers ?
3. The egregiously boorish behavior in the pizza parlor with kids present – just joking ?
4. His actions during the brawl, “Godden explained that he tried to keep a fight from happening, pushing the defendants outside to leave, go home” in which he admits to “pushing the defendants” but of course his motives were completely peaceful.
5. Ability to very selectively remember who said what to whom, but not how one individual got ejected through a window ?
And all of those points before we even get to the retirement issues.
I cannot think of a better example of how there appears to be one standard of behavior for the police, and a completely different standard for the general public.
Why is the title of this article “Off Duty Police Officer Uses Hate Speech in Pizza Parlor” when the trial is about
“Miguel and Alfredo Moreno are being charged with assault on an officer, assault with a deadly weapon amongst other charges”?
When I saw the title I thought the officer was on trial for hate speech.
I don’t think hate speech is illegal.
Maybe so, but why that title?
Ask Antoinnette
Just curious, you said you condensed it, what was her full original title?
“Pizza Parlor brawl involving off duty cop entails hate crime slurs against defendants”
That’s a pretty big difference in those two titles. It doesn’t surprise me that David had a hand in it.
For one thing, it wasn’t a hate crime. Other than that, not sure it changed that much
It was a brawl that has two men on trial for “being charged with assault on an officer, assault with a deadly weapon amongst other charges” and the hate speech is just a part of the equation. You chose to make it the issue with your title. This is typical of the Vanguard.
I see David added “Brawl” to the title.
It was in originally and then fell off.
The headline, tone and content of this article is anti-cop and socially divisive in the spirit of the standard leftist groupism platform.
The actual headline should have been: “Drunk People Doing Stupid Stuff… Again”
There is a difference between the behavior of a private citizen and the behavior of a police officer or at least there is the expectation of that difference.
Frankly
““Drunk People Doing Stupid Stuff… Again””
Right, left, or in the middle makes no difference on this one. Unless, of course you do not believe that police should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen since they are sworn to enforce the applicable laws on others.
Off duty police cannot get drunk and do stupid stuff but everyone else can?
true. off duty police officers cannot because they are never really off duty.
I don’t think this is a factual statement. There is an ethical standards of conduct that certainly prohibits certain behavior. There is a line.
But there is another line when members of the public… especially the media… take this too far.
Are all government employees held to this same standard?
Are teachers held to this same standard?
Are firefighters held to this same standard?
Absolutely not. “Off Duty Teacher Involved in Drunk Brawl and Hate Speech” would never be a headline and you know it. Yet I would see that teachers as being more potentially damaging to society than the average cop doing the same.
I think the problem here is that we have a minority segment of the population that tilts anti-cop for various reasons and they are hyper with every opportunity to paint cops in negativism. Shame on them.
Frankly asks:
> Are all government employees held to this same standard?
No, but NFL players and Preachers are…
I think that if a local teacher got drunk, got in a brawl, and used racial or sexual slurs and got arrested — yeah, we’d hear about it.
Most public employees are subject to a code of behavior extending beyond the workplace. For example, adultery is not illegal, but a public employee might be subject to discipline up to and including termination for the “appearance of impropriety.”
Police officers, in particular, should be held to this higher standard of behavior, in consideration of the considerable power they wield.
;>)/
That was my point. A teacher holds great power to destroy a life. Many government employees have absolute power to do great damage to people. Why the fixation over cops if not a general dislike.
How about this headline: “General Dislike of Cops by a Segment of the Population Leads to Numerous False Claims of Racism and Hate.”
How about “Liberal Media Dislikes Police, Loves Junk Science & Specious Claims of Racism”.
how about “right wing commenters are over-sensitive about the slightest criticism of police officers, even when they act like boors”?
It looks like the retired Police Chief, Steve Godden, retired after an 11-month disability leave (cancer). He was (is?) super active in Winters, retired in 2004. His son, Steven, started his police career in West Sacramento.
http://wintersexpress.com/091604.pdf
TBD wrote:
> It looks like the retired Police Chief, Steve Godden, retired after
> an 11-month disability leave (cancer). He was (is?) super active
> in Winters, retired in 2004
Former Chief Steven C. Godden got a (mostly tax free) pension of $72,408 in 2011 (most recent year I could find) and Steven M. Godden had total pay of $126,405 in 2012 (most recent year I could find)…
biddin wrote:
> adultery is not illegal, but a public employee might be subject to
> discipline up to and including termination for the “appearance of
> impropriety.”
Can you name a single public employee who has been disciplined or terminated (not voted out of office but terminated) for adultery?
Frankly
No. He cannot. Are policeman not sworn to uphold the law ? Does he get to slide in and out of this professional commitment at will ?
Also, how can he be acting as a “non officer” and the defendants accused of assaulting an officer
And one more point. I think that those who have had a family member killed by a policeman would disagree with your statement that a teacher has more power to destroy a life.
Cocaine is an expensive drug, and people just don’t go around offering it to strangers at the drop of a hat, especially of the same sex. So I figure there are two plausible options: was Moreno dealing drugs, or cruising (for hookup)?
In one slight defense of the Moreno’s, if citizens get in a brawl, is it assault on an officer if they are off duty? I don’t get that.
So charge the Moreno’s with assault and battery, and disturbing the peace. Was coke found?
What really riles me is we may have to pay Godden’s pension benefits for 40 years! He is 41 years old, 41 … plenty of time to rehab his shoulder, or be fired / suspended for his erratic behavior.
There were many witnesses, including the Moreno’s: we should learn who threw the guy out the window. Let me guess … Gooden?
Is it legal to have the other witnesses statements? And wouldn’t forwarding the statements to other witnesses be considered tampering? (By Lisa / Elizabeth Gooden?)
I resent the “safety” employees retiring with pensions for disabilities the rest of us just have to live and continue to work with like injured knees, backs and shoulders. The rest of us just so more sedentary work but we don’t get to retire. The fire and police employees should have to do the same. And if they are in an office and not in active roles, they shouldn’t be paid as if they were in dangerous professions.
Hmm. I wonder if he was carrying a concealed weapon??
“A Winters Police Officer, whom will take the stand tomorrow, arrived on scene …”
Of the many grammatical mistakes I see on the Vanguard, this one is new to me.
Grammar police are the most frightening of law enforcement.
“The person who would proof read Hilter’s speeches was a Grammer Nazi.”
–Nick Offerman
Alan, Nick Offerman did not misspell “grammar.” Then again, maybe I expect too much.
LOL, good one Rich.
I have focused on the Marsh trial article this morning, then the other articles. I am just now getting to this, so i am very sorry that no editing has been done yet. I will get started, and hopefully eliminate complaints. Please refresh periodically, as I will be updating as i go through it.
You do a great job Highbeam. I often misspell words and notice my mistakes after I post. Unlike so many others on here I just leave my mistakes up without another post trying to correct them. I think everyone gets that while typing fast or because of keyboard problems mistakes will be made and people can pretty much figure out what one was saying without another correction post.
Thanks, BP. We all try – this is a volunteer enterprise that we each believe in, and we each fit our contributions in between actual jobs and school and whatever. The authors who have been in court on this and the Marsh trial are going as much beyond the call of duty as possible, and their energy and efforts are outstanding.
Thank you for that comment, Highbeam…..yes, true for all of us…so I think we are all due a few mistakes…lol
I was so tired today, the balif kept staring at me as I could not keep my eyes open…..but it was well worth being there to catch the ending of this story….lol
Alcohol was involved.
What a surprise.
“Martinez asked him if his father was former Police Chief of Winters, ‘Yes,’ he replied.”
When I was a kid, Winters used to be a notorious speed trap for drivers going up to Lake Berryessa. The one cop on duty–not sure if it was Chief Godden–would hide in his patrol car somewhere along Grant Avenue near Railroad Ave. The speed limit was 55 mph for most of the way. Then it became 45 mph. Then a block later 35 mph. And then a block later 25 mph.
Drivers who did not slow down quickly enough or missed one of the 3 changes in speed would often get nailed for speeding by that one cop in Winters. I cannot remember if the theme song playing in his patrol car was from Deliverance or the Andy Griffith Show. Either way, Winters was not the friendly town to visitors back then it is today.
That’s still going on. Got stopped a few years ago at 2:30am for “not staying within the lines” even though my speed was fine. Did I wander over a line? I have no idea, not another car in site. I think they just stop everyone who passes through that time of night.
OK, so Daddy being the former police chief probably gave his son a lock for the soft treatment and early retirement. Is Chief of Police Sergio Gutierrez tight with the senior Godden?
POLICE ETHICS, INTEGRITY, AND OFF-DUTY BEHAVIOR: POLICY ISSUES OF OFFICER CONDUCT
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=144541
Emphasis added.
Police cannot drink on duty.
Off duty police can drink.
Just one of many differentiation facts that help us all understand that there is a need for nuance and moderation with respect to comments about any cop’s off-duty behavior. Yes cops are held to a higher standard. But the media and public should also be held to a standard of consideration for what is normal and average human behavior, and what is truly worthy of being labeled as connected to bad cop behavior.
Unusually disingenuous, even for you Frankly. Are you telling me that if you or one of your agents go out on the town, tie one on, start a fight in a public place, involving $X in damages and criminal charges, you wouldn’t be on the carpet with someone? Even in your quasi-private position, you have standards of behavior that you are expected to uphold. Despite your constant allegations of my disrespect for authority, I managed 30 years in public employment with a spotless disciplinary record, even with a reputation for an outlandish lifestyle and being confrontational with management. Not physically assaulting anyone or drinking to excess in public no doubt were contributory factors to my success. While you are quick to label anyone who disagrees with police policy and practices, “Cop Hater,” you might be interested to know that I have close family in law enforcement and have had as far back as the 19th century, in Texas. The only violation I have ever received was failing to signal for a lane change.( I paid the fine.) The fact that I find the current practices common in all police departments antithetical to the good conduct of a free society does not make me part of your bullsh*t ” “General Dislike of Cops by a Segment of the Population Leads to Numerous False Claims of Racism and Hate.” The fact that you are blindly defending any and all acts committed under the color of law indicates a fascinating lack of curiosity or disinterest in the ingredients of the sausage, due to knowledge thereof.
Every ying needs a yang. Otherwise we become unbalanced and go off the rails as the irrational and absurd is indoctrinated into our collective “wisdom”.
We have already been pulled off the rails on the messaging for law enforcement. The media sensationalizes everything they can find because it sells. And there are segments of the population that dislike cops in general. And a larger segment that distrusts cops in general.
I don’t argue that police should not be held to a higher standard. What I argue is that police don’t get due respect for the difficulty of the job and the fact that they are also part of the human race.
I no more blindly defend any and all acts committed under the color of law than you do defend any and all acts in rebellion of authority.
But someone needs to speak up in defense of the irrational and absurd criticism of law enforcement. Why do you think most of us in this town can walk around the streets and sidewalks without much fear of harm?
“I don’t argue that police should not be held to a higher standard. What I argue is that police don’t get due respect for the difficulty of the job and the fact that they are also part of the human race. ”
In this case, the guy was off-duty and got into a fight.
A guy getting into a fight when all the involved had been drinking is not a story is it?
It ended up in court, and Antoinnette says there is more to the story.
Ok. I will wait and read. From my perspective it is only a story because the fight included an off duty cop… a reason that I believe is indicative of a problem. And that problem is anti-cop bias, or over criticism of the employees of law enforcement.
Frankly wrote:
> A guy getting into a fight when all the involved had been
> drinking is not a story is it?
If they are both white it is not a story but if one guy is gay it is a “hate crime” story and if one guy is black it is a “racial profiling story”…
Frankly and SOD are correct. The Vanguard is only covering this story because it involves a cop and hate speech, otherwise you would’ve never read about this trial. Just look at the title of the story and it’s obvious where the Vanguard wanted to go with it.
We cover dozens of a trials each year, many of them non-eventful.
About thirty years ago, a friend who was a bit of a trouble-maker in Davis was working delivering pizza. He dropped of a pizza at an apartment in Davis and noticed that among those partying at the apartment with alcohol and drugs were a couple of police officers who had arrested him and (he felt) not treated him well. He noticed from their body language they hardly noticed him and he didn’t think it registered who he was. He called the chief of police and told him to send a squad car to 12345 A Street #678 to see what it was his officers did in their off duty time.
Just sayin’.
Frankly
Do you consider drinking 4-5 beers and then driving normal human behavior ?
If a non police officer had done this would you not consider it a DUI regardless os his subsequent behavior ?
It depends, 4-5 beers in what span of time? I’m 6’2″ tall and weigh 240 lbs. and I guarantee you I can drink 4 to 5 beers in a 2 hour span and not be legally drunk.
Actually, in the second hour you would be at .08, which is legally drunk in California. Or you’d just be on the edge of it. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/con-news/2012-09.html
You don’t know me or my tolerance and the alcoholic content of the beer I might be drinking.
Since I stated 4 to 5 drinks in a 2 hour span even looking at your chart I’d only be a .03 drinking 2 drinks per hour.
5 drinks in 2 hours at your body weight would be legally intoxicated. And it’s the guys who think they have “tolerance” that get drunk without meaning to. Plus, someone who says he’s had “4 – 5 beers” is probably understating it.
Most people don’t know how many drinks it takes to make them legally drunk.
Just to clarify how much you understand about this: you know you only process about one drink per hour, right?
You’re the one that put up the chart.
.03 for 2 drinks an hour for a 240 lb. man.
In fact, per the chart, if I drank 4 drinks in the first hour I’d only be a .06
Antoinette told me to remind everyone there is still another day of hearings on this one. Not done yet.
To all of you who commented:
I sincerely apologize, this was actually a mistake to send it last night….my fault, not David’s. Yes, as David says, it has two parts.
In this story, there are so many different witnesses and theme’s I could have chosen from a few, but you won’t understand that til the following part is posted. Of those titles, just to name a few: Good cop vs. bad cop behavior, witnesses get caught lying on stand, children fear for their life in parlor brawl, cop get an early retirement after Winters brawl,….and the list can go on and on….
But for what was heard yesterday, the focus seemed to keep going back to the hate speech….so I chose to emphasize that in title, perhaps it may not have been best?
As for my political stance, I am republican but not really one to concern myself with politics too much, not my purpose in this world, my views are Christian first, above all else..and David respects this about me.
I apologize for grammer mistakes…once again, not a seasoned journalist…just a person concerned about true justice.
Too, saying I am Anti-cop, is wrong….in fact, this case is about a “Good,” cop, actually a couple of them who we will hear testimony from today. A few good cops who did their job that night and reported exactly what they heard the off duty officer do and say. It was Godden (off duty cop) who put the rookie officer down for telling the truth…that will be in the next article….
It is often difficult to come up with the perfect title….especially trying not to offend.
But, over all do agree that a cop is held to a higher accountability than just citizens, they should be mindful of the example they set for others. I agree, if it were a citizen pulled over for a DUI, he would never have gotten off by simply stating, “I am disappointed in myself.”
This article seemed to get quite a bit of a sarcastic humor….lol….
I welcome the criticism and appreciate all of your comments…Please stay tuned!!!
Antoinnette wrote:
> But for what was heard yesterday, the focus seemed to
> keep going back to the hate speech…
It is interesting that many Republicans call songs like NWAs “F the Police” or Ice Tea’s “Cop Killer” “hate speech” but most Democrats only refer to speech that “their friends” dislike as “hate speech” (and crimes against groups that vote for Democrats in large numbers “hate crimes”)…
P.S. I’m wondering if Antoinnette wants to confirm or deny David’s post above that says:
> I’m fairly sure that she’s a Republican
P.S. I’m not a Republican or Democrat and it was only when I stepped back from the “our side needs to win” mentality that the people bringing up “hate speech” are just like the people on the other side bringing up “gangsta rap” as a distraction so people don’t focus on what they spend most of their time doing … getting as much taxpayer money to their friends relatives and donors as they can…
Don’t apologize for your title. It was fine. Some of these folks just want to feel persecuted and complain.
I thought Antoinnette’s original title was fine, it was David’s spin on it when he changed it that I’m referring to. I don’t know who you’re referring to feeling persecuted, but if you’ve read the Vanguard over the years cops getting persecuted on here is not out of the norm.
One last thing:
If the Enterprise and other news outlets fail to mention seriously important statements given in testimony that may be in favor of defense’s case, does that make them all “anti-defense,” because it happens…trust me and you do not need to be an expert in your profession to catch what is missed, just a person who listens and is not afraid to write on it. I am not in a popularity contest….lol
I am not biased towards either side…I just believe that at least there is an entity who can give an account from both sides…each day of trial, not a few hours here and there.
There is a greater purpose than just a news story for the Vanguard. Hopefully, there are things that can be corrected in our system…and I believe they work on that….I have faith.
Once again…only opinion….and thanks for reading.
It would be good to hear if retired police chief Godden is there?
I’m not the one who came up with the term,”hate crime speech or etc,” comes from prosecution side doesn’t it?
As for me being Republican, yes, I am but don’t get too involved in politics anymore.
I am amazed at the response over a title but again, remind you that the story is not done.
I’m wondering what will be thrown at me if I make the stance for Christ first…..lol.
All good though….appreciate feedback!
“I’m wondering what will be thrown at me if I make the stance for Christ first…..lol.”
I don’t even know what that means.
Alan, I am not sure either….think I lost my train of thought….lol
Thanks, DavisBurns…this has been interesting…lol
I can’t wait to let you read how this ended up today….quite interesting…
oops, forgot to mention…Steve Godden Sr. retired Chief was not present, actually I was pretty much the only one beside witnesses testifying left inside courtroom during prelim. It was a request by defense not to have potential witnesses in the courtroom while hearing took place, judge granted his request.