Ron Cummings Arrested 2009.08.06 RE: Battery involving brother-in-law #3

[cajun]

I'm just interested in knowing if he is related in anyway to any of the Cummings?

I doubt it. I don't think he's originally from FL anyway, I think OH where he went to college.

 

[cajun]

But I thought "only guilty people need lawyers" ?? didn't someone say that?

Did Ron say that?

 

[Baxter]

What's interesting about it?

Many people thought he had a public defender, not hired a defense attorney.

 

[texasmommy39]

Certainly.



Affirmative. (For clarity, as the question is worded unusually, that means that I have never committed an act of violence against another except in self defense, but NEVER out of simple anger.)



Yep.



Me, and LOTS of people I know. Pretty much EVERYONE I know, now that I think about it.



Yes and yes.



The only one I can think of is self defense, in other words defending against a physical attack (not a verbal attack) that I did not initiate. What other reasons do you have in mind?

As humans we are violent by nature, but, it is within our ability to control it and yes there are a few (Gandi) that exemplify that truth. IMO I have a little mean streak and have acted in violence against another (3 sisters and one pesky brother. I have spanked my children because they needed it not because they deserved it and yes I will cuss out anyone that could cause me to wreck my baby.(my Car) I am a very honest person and I guess More human than some portray them selves to be in this world. IMO Ron made a bad choice under the circumstances. We do not know the truth of this matter and I doubt that it is what we have been led to believe. (like so many other things)
Are the Croslin's involved in the abduction of HaLeigh? Did Ron Beat his brother in law up because he believed he took and has harmed Haleigh? If Misty was guilty why would Ron beat his brother in law up if they all would be or covering for one another to protect Misty? Misty didn't seem to want to leave or take off after Ron went to jail and heck she showed up with cash to get him out of jail. Productive investigation and discussions here and we still have not found HaLeigh?:bang:Can we all agree that Ron is human and has made some mistakes just like everyone else here on this forum and within this case (crystal) and get on to figuring out why Haleigh? Why that night? Why not JR? The crime scene is a clue we can still gleen again and after 6 months something might stand out.
I believe a family member took HaLeigh from the MH that night. A family member (could be non blood related) with a motive that was planned. IMO I do not believe the evidence and the investigation show HaLeigh has been harmed or killed. So a family member plans this abduction not to harm or kill Haleigh can only leave a few theories. Ron(he was at work) is not a suspect nor is Crystal(she answered the phone at 3:49)
Ron believes Misty is inocent of harming and hidding HaLeigh or of being a cause for HaLeighs abduction IMO because of his actions to defend and protect her since the begining. Now he could be wrong or keeping his enemy close ,but, IMO it makes a little more sence to look else where because this brick wall is not ever going to budge. This is all my opinion and hope I have not offended anyone in suggesting Ron is inocent and is not a suspect and will have his day in court and we will be able to then hear the truth then.....maybe.

 

[Flossie JMO]

Many people thought he had a public defender, not hired a defense attorney.

I guess we can look to rumors, we don't know that he hired a lawyer he is paying for. I don't believe he did.


I think there are more than one lawyers out there who know he has been railroaded and needs help JMO

 

[cajun]

Many people thought he had a public defender, not hired a defense attorney.

You don't know if he's a hired attorney or not. Could be he is working for Ron the same way he did this man.

"
Nathan James Keyes
The judge agreed to a March trial for Nathan James Keyes, charged with firing a handgun at a sport utility vehicle on North Ponce de Leon Boulevard in August.



Keyes, 28, has been charged with four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and two counts of discharging a firearm from a vehicle



Berger also approved Keyes' application to be declared indigent on a motion filed by attorney Terry Shoemaker.



Shoemaker has been representing Keyes for no charge.



The defendant's original bond was set at $1 million. It was later reduced to $225,000, but he can't pay that either, Shoemaker said."


http://www.staugustine.com/stories/011409/news_0114_020.shtml

 

[Baxter]

You don't know if he's a hired attorney or not. Could be he is working for Ron the same way he did this man.

"
Nathan James Keyes
The judge agreed to a March trial for Nathan James Keyes, charged with firing a handgun at a sport utility vehicle on North Ponce de Leon Boulevard in August.



Keyes, 28, has been charged with four counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and two counts of discharging a firearm from a vehicle

Ok, then that would be pro-bono, still not a public defender.

Berger also approved Keyes' application to be declared indigent on a motion filed by attorney Terry Shoemaker.



Shoemaker has been representing Keyes for no charge.



The defendant's original bond was set at $1 million. It was later reduced to $225,000, but he can't pay that either, Shoemaker said."


http://www.staugustine.com/stories/011409/news_0114_020.shtml

Ok, then that would be pro-bono, still not a public defender.

 

[elle1919]

Hi elle,

I hope I am not misunderstanding your question.

The discovery request means that Ron's attorney is requesting discovery from the prosecutor. The prosecutor will have to turn over any and all evidence that will be used at trial against Ron. The police reports, witness statements, etc. Anything that is in their possession that can and may be used against Ron at trial. That gives the defense a chance to prepare trial strategy. It's typical for the prosecutor to ask for reciprocal discovery. The defense has to turn over a witness list, and any documents, exhibits, etc that they may use.

Thank you kindly for your answer. So can we expect to see the "discovery" in this case as we have in the CA case? I know it's Florida but I was wondering because we haven't seen much along the lines of documents and evidence in Haleigh's case. I understand that is because no charges have been brought though. TIA

 

[raeann]

There was an interesting discussion on one of the cable news shows last night regarding a case from Florida where the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a person who had been in jail for two years for shooting a person who entered his car and assaulted him. This man had drawn a gun to protect himself, the "assaulter" got out of the car and RAN away, and the man shot him anyway as he ran. The court said that the law that applies to someone entering a home to assault someone also applies to vehicles in Florida and they ordered the release of the man as he had not broken any law.

This means that although many have suggested that RC could have shot HC---some have even said that they believe that he should have, which is appalling-- the TRUTH is that the LAW in Florida says that Tommy C could have legally shot Ron the minute that he entered the car and attacked him. Thank God neither of these two took it to that extreme. Just wanted to post this to show that the original contention of a number of posters was incorrect and actually the opposite of the truth--according to the Florida Supreme Court.

jmo

 

[elle1919]

But I thought "only guilty people need lawyers" ?? didn't someone say that?

In the past I have stated that I am of the opinion that an innocent person does not need an attorney. However, since following some cases here on WS and researching crimes against women and children, I have formed an opinion that innocent parties often require representation in legal matters and when faced with charges carrying fierce penalties.

Someone who is innocent and tells the truth, and the truth never changes, may require the representation of a seasoned attorney, but in my opinion only after the point that they are charged with a crime. A person that refuses to cooperate with LE or investigators without an attorney might be legal and accepted but it gives me a cause to pause. Just being honest. At this point it does not appear that RC has refused to cooperate with LE in the assault case. Perhaps Misty could learn something and agree to meet with LE to clear up any inconsistencies they may have with her story on the evening Haleigh went missing.

 

[texasmommy39]

One does not have to be Gandhi to know that settling disputes with your fists is ineffective. Some people are violent by nature, which is why we have prisons, but some are not. I am not, for instance.

I am glad to hear that. Ron is our topic though and the claim he is the violent monster remember.

 

[cajun]

There was an interesting discussion on one of the cable news shows last night regarding a case from Florida where the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a person who had been in jail for two years for shooting a person who entered his car and assaulted him. This man had drawn a gun to protect himself, the "assaulter" got out of the car and RAN away, and the man shot him anyway as he ran. The court said that the law that applies to someone entering a home to assault someone also applies to vehicles in Florida and they ordered the release of the man as he had not broken any law.

This means that although many have suggested that RC could have shot HC---some have even said that they believe that he should have, which is appalling-- the TRUTH is that the LAW in Florida says that Tommy C could have legally shot Ron the minute that he entered the car and attacked him. Thank God neither of these two took it to that extreme. Just wanted to post this to show that the original contention of a number of posters was incorrect and actually the opposite of the truth--according to the Florida Supreme Court.

jmo

Well since Tommy was trespassing on private property Castle Doctrine goes into effect and I don't believe Tommy had any right to shoot anyone. I would have to look at the case but someone being carjacked is much different than someone going on someone else's property and approaching someone aggressively in late night hours. If you could point me to the name of the man who's conviction was rightfully overturned I would appreciate it.

 

[Malesherbes]

Well since Tommy was trespassing on private property Castle Doctrine goes into effect and I don't believe Tommy had any right to shoot anyone. I would have to look at the case but someone being carjacked is much different than someone going on someone else's property and approaching someone aggressively in late night hours. If you could point me to the name of the man who's conviction was rightfully overturned I would appreciate it.

How were they trespassing? Did they kick in the doors to Annettes house? Did they make Ron come outside?

 

[MaedchenX]

Can I offer an example of how this might play out? Granted some of the circumstances are different, but I think it is still somewhat relevant.

As a young man, my father was involved in a court case (which he pursued) over an assault in which he slapped a man in a phone booth after the man pushed him. The circumstances were as follows: My father was out late one night in the city, he wanted to call for a ride home. The only phone booth was occupied by another young man. The other young man remained on the line for several minutes. Impatient, my father knocks on the phone booth. No response. He wait a bit longer, knocks again on the phone booth. No response. He then, and this is crucial, opens the door and not so kindly demands the man to get off the phone. The man pushes him out of the door. My father slaps him. The man, understandably, becomes upset and threatens to call the police. My father, convinced that he was in the right encourages him to do so, moreover he brings the man to the police station to file a report. They both file charges. Eventually this is brought before the court, my father wins, because he is acknowledged to have acted in self defense. It is appealed by the second party to a higher court, this time he is found to be at fault because he entered the phone both and confronted the individual in a threatening manner.

(I just want to add that this was a civil rather than criminal matter and played out in the courts of another country, so again different but applicable)

My father was in the wrong, he now (30 years later) knows this and brings this up as an example of the consequences of acting on anger. As thinking, feeling human beings we have many choices. Engaging in violent behavior is one of those choices, and with very few exceptions, it is the wrong one-IMO.

 

[tehcloser]

I strongly disagree with "Humans being violent by nature". As humans we all have the ability to get angry.........but anger and violence are two completely different things. Saying everyone is violent by nature is an excuse, a cop out.........used by or for people to excuse out of control behaviour. There are thousands of excuses for bad behaviour and we need to stop...........society suffers because of it.

 

[Malesherbes]

I strongly disagree with "Humans being violent by nature". As humans we all have the ability to get angry.........but anger and violence are two completely different things. Saying everyone is violent by nature is an excuse, a cop out.........used by or for people to excuse out of control behaviour. There are thousands of excuses for bad behaviour and we need to stop...........society suffers because of it.

I agree, I think its absurd to imply we are all violent by nature- If that was the case why do we have laws to protect society against savage people who have to use their fists to get a point across?

 

[cajun]

Ok, then that would be pro-bono, still not a public defender.

I don't know where anyone got he had a PD. It says nothing about him having one other than for his first court appearance.

2009-08-062DEFENDANT PRESENT FOR FIRST APPEARANCE HRG 8/6/09

2009-08-062ADJ INS P D APPOINTED FOR FIRST APPEARANCE ONLY

2009-08-063AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY

2009-08-064ORDER APPOINTING PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR 1ST APP HEARING

 

[cajun]

How were they trespassing? Did they kick in the doors to Annettes house? Did they make Ron come outside?

They were told not to come over, they did anyway, that's trespassing. If they had kicked the door in that would be B and E. Ron had every right to go out on the property he lives on, you don't have a right to come on that property and especially after being told not to come over.

 

[Malesherbes]

They were told not to come over, they did anyway, that's trespassing. If they had kicked the door in that would be B and E. Ron had every right to go out on the property he lives on, you don't have a right to come on that property and especially after being told not to come over.

How do you know they were told not to come over? Because thats what Misty says?

But they didn't kick the door- its not like Annette lives on a sprawling property with a mile long drive with yards full of dogs and no trespassing signs-

Let me ask you, now, does the home have windows? How about doors and a working phone? If someone showed up at my home after I told them to go away, I would just stay in the home and not get all gung ho on them-

Didn't Annette say she made Ron go back in the home but he didn't listen and decided to come back out for some more? Didn't Annette say that Ron started hitting Jr Croslin while he was in the car trying to leave?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

There was an interesting discussion on one of the cable news shows last night regarding a case from Florida where the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a person who had been in jail for two years for shooting a person who entered his car and assaulted him. This man had drawn a gun to protect himself, the "assaulter" got out of the car and RAN away, and the man shot him anyway as he ran. The court said that the law that applies to someone entering a home to assault someone also applies to vehicles in Florida and they ordered the release of the man as he had not broken any law.

This means that although many have suggested that RC could have shot HC---some have even said that they believe that he should have, which is appalling-- the TRUTH is that the LAW in Florida says that Tommy C could have legally shot Ron the minute that he entered the car and attacked him. Thank God neither of these two took it to that extreme. Just wanted to post this to show that the original contention of a number of posters was incorrect and actually the opposite of the truth--according to the Florida Supreme Court.

jmo

It isn't incorrect to say that Ronald could have shot a person coming at him in an aggressive manner if he felt his life, his wife, or his property were being threatened. By law, Ronald could have stayed at the door with a gun and when Tommy rushed him...he could have countered that attack.

Every case is different and you can't say for a fact that Tommy could have shot Ronald legally, imo. There were extenuating circumstances here, imo. Tommy perhaps could have used deadly force at that point and maybe it was what Ronald was trying to prevent. Maybe Tommy threatened it before he got into the van. We have no idea what was said during the exchange or what threats could have been made from either side.

Sorry, but as "appalling" as it is...it is the law.

They did not have to be inside GGS' house to be trespassing, imo. They were uninvited troublemakers intent on causing the exact scenario which played out, imo.