![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (16)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleAlfred English had been accused of pointing a small silver handgun at Joshua and Linda Hendon at the office of English & English, North Brittain Street, on Feb. 12.
A "no true bill" means that jurors have decided there is not probable cause to support the charges, or that the charges should not be pursued.
According to English's attorney, Kelly Wilson, English testified in his own defense before the grand jury.
"We are grateful the jury saw our side of the story," he said.
Wilson added that a suspect testifying before a grand jury is "unusual" and isn't something that happens every day.
"We are very pleased with the outcome of this case," Wilson added.
The police report concerning the incident stated that Mrs. Hendon called 911 from her cell phone while at the law firm and that the disagreement occurred over a civil matter. Joshua Hendon told police he had been to English's office "on more than one occasion" trying to obtain a check to him from Erie Insurance.
The check in question was in the amount of $4,050 and was made out to Joshua Hendon and his ex-wife, Bridgette.
The police report said that Mr. Hendon told English that he would sign the check. English put the check on the desk along with a pen, the report says, and Mr. Hendon then took the check and put it in his pocket.
"Mr. English tried to get the check back," the police report stated. The check did have a small tear, the report said, and English stated that the check was owed to J.R. Warren for the removal of a burned-out trailer.
The report claims that Mr. and Mrs. Hendon stated when they tried to leave the office, "that the lady (Patricia English) blocked the doorway."
"When they looked back Mr. England pointed a small silver handgun at them. That is when Mr. Hendon asked his wife to call the police," the report said.
The report said that Patricia English stated she was standing in the doorway as the Hendons were leaving.
As the responding officer arrived at the law office, the report states that the Hendons had just come out of the office and then Mr. English came out.
"Mr. English was very upset that Mr. Hendon had taken the check and wanted it back," the report reads. "Mr. English first stated he didn't bring the gun out of the office. He later stated he did not have a gun."
The report stated that employee Adria Sharp told officers Mr. English had the gun in his pocket and employee Patricia English stated Mr. English had the gun out but did not point it at the Hendons.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
Mr. English should not have tried to trick Mr. Hendon by not telling him about the due bill on the trailer removal and should have kept his pistol in his pocket. What was he going to do, shoot the Hendon's for such a trivial thing? There was no indication that either of the Hendons offered any threats of physical harm to Mr. English. English acted stupidly, and is a lucky fellow to have gotten off the hook. Of course, Mr. Hendon needs to settle his debts, but there are better ways than at gun point.
TrailRider,
That is a pretty hasty summation to make given that you were not in the room on the day in question. Besides, I think most people know if a service is provided, like having a trailer removed, you have to pay for it.
If the check was made out to Mr. and Mrs. Hendon, then they had the right to do with the money what they pleased. It was not Mr. English's money and he had no right to keep it from his clients. If he had money owed to him or his other clients he should collect it through the court system just like everyone else. NOT AT GUN POINT. He of all people should know that. Then again lawyers think they can do what they want. Fortunately for him, this took place in his own office. Even all the conflicting witness' statements weren't enough to crack the old Bedford County buddy system. Another example of who you are is all that counts in the corrupt Bedford County Court system!
Is this what our town paper has come too? Repeating the same story over again? Is Brian Mosley too busy to be professional and write something new. He shouldn't be allowed to cover the growth of vegetable much less a story like this. Also, it doesn't say that the Hendon's were HELD AT GUN POINT it says that they looked back and saw a small gun pointed at them. If they are even telling the truth. Also did anyone ever stop to think that if the lady was standing in the doorway that they had to get out somewhere after taking the check and going through that doorway. If she was in the way my first thought is that they had to shove her out of the way to get outside. Maybe they assulted her in the process and that's why the gun was pointed or English put it in his pocket or whatever. I think that all of the facts should have been put in place here and instead of repeating the same old story a new story should have been written, maybe about, oh I don't know, why he was not found guilty or why there was not enough evidence. What about his side of the story anyway? I do agree with the others though that the bill should have been paid by someone. It would not surprise me at all to see that the Hendon's are being sued next.
Green07
My "summation" is only an opinion based on what was reported in the online news article. Obviously that opinion (or a different one) would have had more basis if I had been in the courtroom during testimony. However, based on what was reported, Mr. English acted rashly. And, as jdl.7971 noted, the check was in the Hendon's name. So, unless Mr. English had some legal obligation to collect money owed the person who hauled off the trailer then he did not have any right to try to trick Hendon or retrieve the check.
good going burt.i said so beforehand.
Look there is information missing from this article. More details are needed for me to even have a comment regarding this situation. And, I would be under the impression that most of the bloggers should refrain from their comments until more facts are presented.
With that being said, I do believe that English should be our first language. The headline, 'No true bill' returned on English, was funny to me as I took it to mean that English was overturned and that we all had to learn Spanish and other languages that the Somalis speak.
Oh my............
A Stupid Redneck from Mississippi, looking for job with the Vikings.
Is this the same English family, that ran the pop-corn stand years ago?
Mr English did not try to trick Mr Hendon. He tried to trick Mr. English by saying that he was comming by to sign the check with every intention of taking that check. You see he was supposed to sign the check so Mr. English could pay out on the removal of the trash and debris. Just because your name is on a check doesnt mean you have a right to it. Lamey you are right on target. And folks this is america and we have the right to bear arms. If someone was taking something out of your home would you point a gun and tell them to stop? Yes the cops gave it to them because of that but that does not mean it is rightfully thiers. And whoever is slamming Brian for running this article is just stupid. Yes I said it Stupid. Obviously it is big news here look at all of the posts even the person complaining about brian is surely here posting away. I think that person should be blocked from posting.
Well, let Mr. English go and try to cash that check without Mr. Hendons signature. Good luck with that! It was JUST AS MUCH his money as Mr. Englishs. Was Mr. Englishs' name on that check? I don't know i am just going on what was said in the article. If there was a third partys name on that check, it didn't say so.
Had Mr. Hendon not signed the check at all, what would Mr. English have done? There is nothing he could have done that I know of other than sue him for the amount owed. I guess he could have pulled a gun on him and forced him to sign it at gunpoint. That is exactly what I said in the other post. That lame answer runs both ways Lamey.
Apparently you are missing the whole point here.
Mr. English "pointed" a gun at Mr. Hendon. Enough said. It doesn't say that Mr. Englishs' name was on the check. I don't know, I wasn't there, I am simply basing MY OPINION on what the article states. If the situation WAS that Mr. Hendon took a check made out to Mr. English, then yes, he would have had every right to CALL THE POLICE and PRESS CHARGES. I may have done the same thing if Mr. Hendon threatened me in my own home or business. He may not have walked out of there alive if it was made out to me. I didn't hear a threat made or altercation taking place.
"My powers of deduction lead me to believe that Mr. Hendon had every intention of having his new geeker endorse the check as if she were his ex."
Lamey
This is your opinion and only speculation.
It really doesn't have a thing in the world to do with Mr. English pointing a gun at Mr. Hendon which is the issue at hand and the point you are missing.
"What is lame is the assumption that you have made in which I was insinuating that it was Mr. English' check. What is even more lame than that is that you say that there was no third party listed."
Lamey
I never insinuated anything close to that. "It was JUST AS MUCH his money as Mr. Englishs." It was not Mr. Englishs' check, therefore that statement is true.
I hate that we all have to baby feed Lamey "common sense" but here we go. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE EX WIVES NAME IS ON THAT CHECK. MY NAME, YOURS, A THIRD PARTY, OSAMA BIN LADENS OR BARRACK OBAMAS. IT DOESN'T GIVE MR. ENGLISHS, WHO IS NOT ON THE CHECK THE RIGHT TO POINT A GUN AT ANYONE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY!
YOU CAN'T POINT GUNS AT PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING MONEY!!! IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!
"Mr. English was very upset that Mr. Hendon had taken the check and wanted it back," the report reads. "Mr. English first stated he didn't bring the gun out of the office. He later stated he did not have a gun."
The report stated that employee Adria Sharp told officers Mr. English had the gun in his pocket and employee Patricia English stated Mr. English had the gun out but did not point it at the Hendons.
Who in the world was on this jury?
If there were ever a mountain made out of a mole-hill...this would have to be the equivalent of Mount Everest...I could not help but comment when I saw all of this back and forth about who the check belonged to, blah blah blah.
Let's just start (and try to stay) at ground-level. Good sense should tell anyone that, generally, unless you live some kind of "gangsta" lifestyle, people only pull guns when there is a threat of life and/or safety. And the law says that people can use guns if they need to protect their homes and places of business.
I don't know how anyone can see this situation as anything other than what it simply was: a man felt threatened in his private place of business, he responded (maybe we should take a poll here how many would resort to grabbing a gun if they were threatened at home or private business?), then the police were called, the situation was handled by them, then the Hendons filed a complaint, a special, non-biased, prosecutor from an entirely different district (someone that none of the good-ol-boys around here knew), the case was heard by a jury, and finally, the jury did not see a reason, by law, to charge Mr. English with anything. End of story.
All of this other who-what-when-where-how is way beyond the point...the legal system became involved, and there were no charges filed. Everything above and beyond that (i.e. whose check it was, who should sign it, etc) is a civil matter. That's why we have civil court, and that's why we have criminal court. They are separate. But, you can't have a newspaper story without the who-what-when-where-why-how, and that's how we end up with people making fill-in-the-blank speculations (who has a right to the famous check??). Crazy assumptions (i.e."good ol' boy system"). He said. She said. Oooh! Wonder who burnt down that old trailer in the first place?? Gosh, it sure doesn't take much to get into some Jerry Springer material, does it?
One thing that has not been taken into account at all...because of lawyer-client confidentiality rules, lawyers are not at liberty to discuss anything about their clients/cases. That makes it difficult for an attorney to issue statements even in their own defense. So, clients can say anything that they want to anybody about their cases, their attorneys, etc., but lawyers cannot. So we need to all remember that when a professional, such as a lawyer, judge, doctor, is accused of anything. Wonder how many times "No Comment" means "Oh if I could only tell you..."
I think I will self-indulge just for a second (it is so tempting, isn't it??), ....and ask: "Does anyone really believe that the English's wanted this "copy-and-paste" article printed as it was last week? I would think that printing something like, "Jury did not indict", and then explaining what that means for all the people who are not legal-system savvy, would suffice. But, for me to assume that it's all about selling papers would be as bad as all these people assuming "facts" about this case, and you know the old phrase about assuming.... Oh well, Nancy Aamons on Channel 4 didn't do any better....
Yeah I wonder who burnt that house down myself. I know that The ex wife had just got it in the divorce and Josh's new wife his ex wifes ex-best friend was pretty upset about it. Things that make you go Ummm....
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE EX WIVES NAME IS ON THAT CHECK. MY NAME, YOURS, A THIRD PARTY, OSAMA BIN LADENS OR BARRACK OBAMAS. IT DOESN'T GIVE MR. ENGLISHS, WHO IS NOT ON THE CHECK THE RIGHT TO POINT A GUN AT ANYONE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY!
YOU CAN'T POINT GUNS AT PEOPLE FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING MONEY!!! IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!
You are quite eloquent yourself, Lamey. You seem to be one of the very few with good sense. Loved what you said about "throwing signs!!" Soooo true!
Jdl.7971, where did you get your law degree? Even if by some miracle you were able to earn one, you wouldn't make a very good attorney. You see, the law isn't black and white, like the Ten Commandments....THOU SHALT NOT..... So maybe it would be hard for you to understand that while it IS against the law to hold someone at gunpoint and rob them, it is NOT against the law to use necessary force (even guns!) in your own home or place of business, if there were any reasonable threat that makes you feel the need to defend yourself against harm or loss of property. It comes all the way from the good ol' U.S. Constitution, which still to this day is "the law of the land," which says we HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Now why would we have that right if it were not intended for us to be able to protect ourselves from invaders?
That is why Mr. English did not get charged with anything. Call me overly-simplistic, but I still believe that people don't go to jail if they don't break the law. Look it up, it'll give you something to do.
I didn't go to law school either, but I do have some education.....