(12/26/07) Do you agree with the Attorney General's decision to drop the case against former Lexington police chief Stace Day? Why? - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina

(12/26/07) Do you agree with the Attorney General's decision to drop the case against former Lexington police chief Stace Day? Why?

Do you agree with the Attorney General's decision to drop the case against former Lexington police chief Stace Day? Why?

  • BP, Lexington
    Yes, apparently the good folks in the town of Lexington do not care that he beat his wife so why should the state try to convict him for the fifth time? I think he should get his job back along with back pay. Give him two guns and a baseball bat so he can dish out his own brand of Justice to the kindly townfolk who support him so much.
  • DW, Gilbert
    I agree with it, even though I think the couple should have had to pay court costs. It was expensive to keep trying this case! The wife either lied or changed her story once she got back with her husband. She should have had some consequences. I do hope Mr. Day is not allowed to go back into law enforcement. But this is SC, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him get another law enforcement job soon.
  • vc, chapin
    It should have been dropped the minute she said she didnt want to press charges. All DV laws should be amended to stop this foolish rush to prosecute when the "victim" backs down. If she drops the charge and gets hurt later, sorry but thats her fault. It should not be the government's (taxpayers) job to police us in our homes when no one wants it. Have sanity and common sense been totally obliterated by liberals, lawyers and other ne'er do wells?
  • RB, Prosperity
    Yes. Enough is enough. The mans career is already destroyed. It should never been tried again after the first time. This is nothing short of a waste of taxpayer dollars when there are so many cases pending for worse violations. The couple has made up and living together again. Pray for them and let by gones be bygones. They have suffered enough. It probably shouldn't have been tried in the first place.
  • WN, West Columbia
    Yes I do, the reson is: It saves the tax payers money. Chief Day's cases were costing the tax payers money that they work hard for, and if Cheif Day's case had a hung jury all the times that they tried him, then drop it.
  • DT, West Columbia
    McMaster's decision appears to have made from a prosecutor's point of view. I believe he is right. Given the precedent of three previous trials and three hung juries, McMaster doesn't believe he can get a conviction. But according to a story in "The State," McMaster does believe Day is guilty. It's just that he can't persuade a jury of that guilt. So in deciding to drop the case he is simply acknowledging that there are limits to what the justice system can do. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Only the Days â€" and specifically Laurie Day †know the truth. And unless â€" or until â€" there is another incident at the Day's household that is where we must leave it.
  • sg, wc
    YES, the goverment has spent enough of our money on this one,the agruement is over between the 2 people, the police needs to wait til next time they agrue and one gets killed, then you have a real court case, hopefully this won't happen!
  • CB, Kershaw
    Yes I think they should not persue it anymore,three times and they still could not find him guilty, why waste the taxpayers even more.
  • MB, Columbia
    One time is enough. It should have never gone to trial if the wife refused to testify against her husband after admitting her part. Case should have been thrown out.
Powered by Frankly