Beaufort, South Carolina
Photos
Blog
NewslettersRecent blog posts
- Police K-9 Article
- $850 Million in Tax Cuts. Thank Catherine Ceips!
- Thank you to a stranger
- Who's the most lenient and strick police department? City, Port Royal, County
- Has the Exodus From the School District Begun!
- The Creek isn't all bad
- OBAMA'S MUSLIM PAST- DO YOU REALLY WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE?
- An important lesson learned
- Please share the road
- State Track Meet Day 1
It's just a matter of time in these situations. Texting is something which is something like standing up on the seat of a motorcycle going down the street. These extra diversions should be outlawed and the user given a stiff prison sentence with no phone. Luckily she didn't veer off the road and run some child or pedestrian over. This is comparable to Drunk Driving and shows a complete inane attitude for a MVO to begin with. Right Scotty-Beam me up!
Ok had I done that I would have been given a stiff sentence. Why was she not charged? The least she should have gotten was reckless driving and speeding but she did not even get a warning. No I do not beleive that she should have gotten a prison sentence (especially with the overcrowding of our prisons) but she was speeding and recklesly operating a motor vehicle she could have hit a child. Was she maybe a town or county official???? LOL.
To corect the above...she WAS charged with careless operation of a motor vehicle.
I know this person, she loves to go drinking. You can find her in the bars every night of the week. Refusing treatment at the scene was a good way to keep from possible DUI charges.
I know this person, she loves to go drinking. You can find her in the bars every night of the week. Refusing treatment at the scene was a good way to keep from possible DUI charges.
Forgiven One, Refusing medical treatment at the scene of a MVA has NOTHING to do with a police investigation into the cause of an accident. If an Officer suspects the driver to be under the influence of alcohol he will have that driver submit to field sobriety tests and if there is probable cause to believe the driver is in some way impaired they will be taken in and will have to submit to a Breathalizer test. Refusal to take that test can result in suspension of ones driving priviledges. Apparently the woman did not exhibit any signs of being intoxicated. On another note, had this been me and you had posted this, the next call you would have been getting would be from my attorney advising you of the lawsuit I had brought against you for slander.
Baldeagle- Thank you for so eloquently correcting the ridiculous slander written by Forgive_One. Anna is a wonderful person, a loving mother, and an amazing friend. My stomach turned when I read the words written by Forgiven.
"Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts" LOL.
I happen to teach one of her wonderful boys. While I don't know her personally, I do know she is a wonderful, caring, involved mother. What she did was careless, yes; however, we should all ask ourselves what we do when driving: talking on the cell, eating, drinking, fiddling with the radio, applying make-up, looking at the scenary, turning to talk to another person or young child in the back, looking in the rearview mirror, going through a purse---you get my point. To insinuate she was drinking is despicable. AND as someone else posted, to refuse medical treatment means nothing. Must everyone in an accident be further inconvenienced?
I know this person, she loves to go drinking. You can find her in the bars every night of the week.
??? what could this mean? Refusing treatment at the scene was a good way for forgiven's momma to keep from possible DUI charges. how does that sound?
Actually zoo, it sounds like one of gwg's elementary students wrote that statement, I mean are we really stooping to "your momma" posts on these forums. I thought you where much more intelligent than that.
Although I'm disappointed that you stooped to that level, I still got a good chuckle from it.
Forgiven- How would you know she is in the bars every night?? What exactly are you forgiven for?
I know her too and I know she has a dear friend fighting for her life. She has been keeping us all updated on her condition. Should she have been texting and driving?? Of course not, no one should nor should we play with the radio, talk on the phone, fix our hair, etc....it happens.
But to try and smear her name in a public forum is just nonsense.
Just as other members of our local law enforcement, Port Royal police officers are highly trained to detect suspicion of DUI and are bound by professional ethics to investigate such suspicions. It is clear that suspicion of DUI in this case was a non-issue. The issue at hand is a traffic incident handled by qualified police officers. The court of public opinion has no jurisdiction here. Further, it is in poor taste to make unrelated, unsubstantiated claims regarding the social activities of parties involved.
I hope she learns her lesson about texting, but it's an accident. She can get in one while looking down to turn her wipers on.
I am not surprised that blog came up about her. Just remember dear writer, it's most likely going to be your turn one day on this blog. (keep in mind this is a small town)
You'll be in the park eating a hotdog and the bg will take your picture, or someone will weck in to you and Anna might just come in here and say"you know, that feller is always at the bar" (you make it sound like you are there alot.) I don't think that's a bad thing, I am just saying.... remember we have posters, like yourself, that are going to call you a drunk one day too:)
Some of the things are nnot like the other some of these things just do not belong; See if you can guess which words from the above blog just do not go belong together..
Port Royal Police Highly Trained Professional Ethics Qualified
Police Officers Court Jurisdiction
Law Enforcement
Just a few hints,Drive through Port Royal and do nothing wrong, go to Port Royals Court and just watch the circus, call PR and ask to talk to the Chief and ask him a question the Beaufort Officer that empties the parking meters would know and you'll have your answer.
I have to wonder what type of person would post a blog in a small town newspaper absolutely slandering a person who the police felt was not under intoxication at all. I actually don't have to wonder. It's the type of person who experiences jealousy or hatred toward that individual. In fact, I am willing to wager that the person doing the slandering has something to gain personally from the blog. It is bad enough that Ms. Edwards will be dealing with the ramifications of the accident, but now she has to shield herself and her family from slanderous allegations made by an individual who in the light of day would not have the gumption to accuse her of driving while under the influence. By the way, how would YOU know what she was doing unless you are there too? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Tell me again what exactly are you forgiven of? I am guessing you must have to ask for forgiveness often......
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Can you quote book, chapter and verse without looking it up on the web? Also if you are going to quote a verse, please dont use it out of context, anyone can pick a verse out of context and make it fit any situation.
I am guessing you must have to ask for forgiveness often......
Daily, I'm only human. How about you, is the view from your glass house any better?
I see that your nerve has gotten struck. Is it bothering you what people are posting about your comment? As we can all see....it certainly is. Perhaps, you will think twice before you make hurtful public comments about another, and yes; I can quote all three without looking it up! If you could do the same, you would know that I am not "picking a verse out and making it fit any situation". The verse fits your comments and THIS situation. Instead of getting all uptight "O' Forgiven One", perhaps you should be asking for just that.
~Not an ACCUSATION just some insight~
PS~The view is beautiful from my house........
Wow, what a stretch to say I am getting uptight from a simple post. The written word can never accurately portray ones feelings only thoughts. I don't take to heart anything written in these or any other forums. I do however find lots of humor in most open forums which is one of the reasons I read most of the posts, its quite funny to see people get bent out of shape over silly things like this.
Thanks for the laughs TMH
Forgiven_One, if you consider what you originally posted as silly and you think the responses are a laughing matter, you have a twisted sense of humor. You all but accused the woman in a public forum of being DUI when you had NO FACTS to back up your statement.
baldeagle14
Read the original post again, no where in that post did I state the she was DUI. Read what you want into the post put the fact still remains.
baldeagle14
Read the original post again, no where in that post did I state the she was DUI. Read what you want into the post put the fact still remains.
Don't play with words. I teach reading skills; you were *clearly* inferring she had been to a bar and was drunk. In fact, you said she goes every night.
Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows.
What you already know is what I have stated, no where did I state that she was DUI. You are making assumptions based on what you want the post to mean. Since I was the one to make the post and am the only one to know what was truly meant, your drawing conclusions means you are *clearly* misusing the word inference.
Teaching elementary grade reading skills does not really qualify you to make factual statements about what you think a post meant.
Inference is the act or process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what one already knows.
What you already know is what I have stated, no where did I state that she was DUI. You are making assumptions based on what you want the post to mean. Since I was the one to make the post and am the only one to know what was truly meant, your drawing conclusions means you are *clearly* misusing the word inference.
Teaching elementary grade reading skills does not really qualify you to make factual statements about what you think a post meant.
What an imbecile! Pray tell, then, WHY did you post it? In simple terms to you--what was your purpose or aim? You can lie and twist all you want, but we see through you!
Here is a great example for our children, lets stoop to name calling when someone makes us look foolish. Just goes to prove again why I find these forums to be so humorous.
Please keep the name calling for the playground with the kiddies, when your ready for an adult conversation I'll be waiting.
Hopefully you will stop all the assumptions and have something worth talking about when you do return.
...pot. Let me introduce you to kettle.
...pot. Let me introduce you to kettle.
Great one liner, thanks for the laugh.
Although I have often been at odds with gwg, this time gwg has you cornered to the point of posting nothing but jibberish. The more you post on this matter the more of a defenseless fool you are making yourself out to be. With reference to your "humorous" thoughts on these blogs, I am truly LMAO about the bottomless pit you insist on digging.
Although I have often been at odds with gwg, this time gwg has you cornered to the point of posting nothing but jibberish. The more you post on this matter the more of a defenseless fool you are making yourself out to be. With reference to your "humorous" thoughts on these blogs, I am truly LMAO about the bottomless pit you insist on digging.
Every once in a while the planets align and even those who usually are at odds can find a common topic of agreement.
Sadly, it appears you are just another poster whom stoops to name calling when something more intelligent does not come to mind. Talk about jibberish.
So the digging continues.....
forgiven_one~ as you were told u curently reside in a small town and just as u proclaim to know Ms. Edwards activities; you and your activities are known also. Does your employer, who holds a public office, know that you are spouting off on the gazette's blog? Is it going to be silly and funny when your business is put on front street for all to see? You see, it doesn't take a whole lot of work to find out things in this little burg. You definately need to sweep around the porch of your very breakable glass house before you jump on Ms. Edwards bandwagon. The digging needs to stop. If this is your futile effort to seek revenge on someone besides Ms. Edwards because of your own wrongdoing in the past, then you are certainly more pathetic than I originally thought. Let it go! Cheatedbysystem is right on point!
Yet again you provide me with more evidence of just how humorous these forums can be but alas you are totally incorrect. So super sleuth pray tell who is my employer?
How is it you came to the conclusion I am seeking revenge on anyone? No other names have been included in any other posts that I can see.
Keep up the good work though, I need the amusement.
Did u have a good time at Saltus this past Friday night, or did it cause you a bit of discomfort when you were pushed to the side for someone blonder and classier? Just throwing that out there....you can receive or not. Glad I am able to help out with the amusement........
Incorrect but good try. Time to turn in the hat and magnifying glass, investigation 101 is a bust.
It's not a bust, and you know it. Now ur entertaining me......ironic!!
you have a sense of humor TMH. What is really ironic is now you claim to know so much about me but have no proof, keep digging though, your super sleuth skills are amazing! Have you ever thought about joining up with Scoopy Doo and the gang, they could really use a keen investigator such as yourself.
ENOUGH SAID.
Here is a great example for our children, lets stoop to name calling when someone makes us look foolish. Just goes to prove again why I find these forums to be so humorous.
Please keep the name calling for the playground with the kiddies, when your ready for an adult conversation I'll be waiting.
Hopefully you will stop all the assumptions and have something worth talking about when you do return.
Are you Ms. Edwards' ex or one of the banned bloggers back under an assumed name for more rubbish? You still haven't given the *REASON* for your insipid remarks......................
Here is a great example for our children, lets stoop to name calling when someone makes us look foolish. Just goes to prove again why I find these forums to be so humorous.
Please keep the name calling for the playground with the kiddies, when your ready for an adult conversation I'll be waiting.
Hopefully you will stop all the assumptions and have something worth talking about when you do return.
Are you Ms. Edwards' ex or one of the banned bloggers back under an assumed name for more rubbish? You still haven't given the *REASON* for your insipid remarks......................
I am not a banned blogger, nor thank goodness, am I one of her ex's.
I haven't given a reason because I dont think your important enough to me to give one.
How was school today, make any of the kiddies cry?
Slander is an untruthful oral(spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
What you really mean is Libel: An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community.
Both are considered defamation : A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation.
Key words in all of the above are untruthful or false. If the statment can be proven accurate through pictures or witnesses, then none apply.
Also since I said possible and not because or was under the influence; that infers more of a question and not a factual statement although I will have to say I could have worded the sentence differently.
I guess a positive note would be that at least no one else was in the vehicle that could have been injured during the "texting" incident.
1) the statement must harm their reputation - a plaintiff must establish their reputation in order to show that might be damaged. E.G. it is doubtful that Bill Clinton can sue someone for calling him a philandering adulterer. Next,
2) If the person is a public figure, then all bets are off. Essentially, in my community where I am elected official I could be called a lying pig fornicator and that is just part of being a 'public figure.' Defamation is context and community sensitive - and depends on where and to whom a falsehood is peddled. If I am defamed in a London weekly arts newspaper and I do not live in London, don't know anyone there, and have no reputation there - it can't be defamation.
3) Further, there must be publication. A web log is a publication - a private text between 2 people will not likely be such, and, finally;
4) The statement must not be opinion, it must be a fact. If I claim that drkchoco is a fool with delusions of competence, such is opinion, but if I make a statement of fact that I saw them stealing money from a church poor box [which I did NOT] then such is a potentially actionable statement of fact.
Most defamation actions are brought the result of insult and emotional anger, and are NEVER taken on a contingency basis by any intelligent litigator. Which, to those familiar with human nature, can see the validity of most claims. . . .
It appears the Forgiven_One just may be second guessing the thought process (or obvious lack thereof) that led to his/her initial post. An apology as public as his/her accusation would be fitting for such a username....Don't you think.
Appearances can be deceiving but good play on words with your title, now you see why I find so much humor in public forums.
You bloggers need to quit picking on FO. No where in her/his original comment did she/he state that the girl was drunk! Also I deny all rumors that say FO beats her/his pets!
someone who actually did not read anything into the post.
Be carefull though TW, some people here would say that you are inferring that I have pets by denying the rumors that I beat them. You may be crucified in these forums for such a statment.
as someone who has not entered into this fiasco and will not. anyone would read into your statement that you were implying she was drinking. as is evident by all the people posting that was what they got from it. i can see no other meaning behind it. if there is, instead of being aloof and evasive just explain exactly what it is you were implying by the statement. simple enough. you are right, only you know exactly what you meant. just be honest and tell everyone else, unless you did mean that and are hesitant to say so. which is what it appears to be.
Texting, I doubt it.
I know this person, she loves to go drinking. You can find her in the bars every night of the week. Refusing treatment at the scene was a good way to keep from possible DUI charges.
The only reason to make the above post, with the subject line, is to suggest the person WAS under the influence.
your assumption is incorrect MeeToo. I think we have covered this already so I wont elaborate any further.
BTW you should really use he/she or a posters username to make sure to cover all the bases.
You sir (unisex sir), take me and other readers of your post for idiots. You blatantly IMPLY the driver was under the influence, expecting the readers to INFER the same.
If that is NOT what you meant, please explain your comments. You have, so far, refused to.
You sir (unisex sir), take me and other readers of your post for idiots. You blatantly IMPLY the driver was under the influence, expecting the readers to INFER the same.
If that is NOT what you meant, please explain your comments. You have, so far, refused to.
Wow MeeToo, you sure are full of assumptions. I have yet to say anyone in this forum is an idiot or was DUI, implied or other, but there are plenty of people here that can find anything to get excited about or twist things around then turn to childish name calling instead of intelligent conversation when things dont go their way.
Have a nice day miss.
Steve, is there a reson for letting this thread stay online? Seems no different than the school one.
Thank you. I agree.
I am so confused why you delete some of the post that you do. The ones with cursing I get... But there was a couple throughout my time here that have been deleted, and I can't see why. The school one, I read, but was not there for all of before it got deleted. Unless a name came up I don't get why THAT one was chosen over so many others to take down?
When I have trouble with the cops or courts in this area, I have come on here, to vent and seek advice... Whatever, I just say if you are going to censor... we could eleminate some of the stupidness in here too
Whatever, I just say if you are going to censor... we could eleminate some of the stupidness in here too
Ditto. I didn't get a chance to read the one about the school situation that so many people responded to - guess one would have to stay with these pages 24/7. Also, seems like a lot of private talk going back and forth with initials being used for identification. So be it. I understand why commentating has shrunk in subject matter in the last couple months.
Whatever, I just say if you are going to censor... we could eleminate some of the stupidness in here too
Ditto. I didn't get a chance to read the one about the school situation that so many people responded to - guess one would have to stay with these pages 24/7. Also, seems like a lot of private talk going back and forth with initials being used for identification. So be it. I understand why commentating has shrunk in subject matter in the last couple months.
hey you know... I did use initials to out a child molester... Someone even figured it out from what I understand, but I didn't see the post... It got deleted, but you know later that day there was this strange story in the paper about that very same guy.... molesting a different child.... similar circumstances to the case I was helping out with... hmmmm...
Oh yes he/she did, or at least alluded to that possible fact!!! Read it again!
You seem to be confused about my reply and some of your comments seem pretty incoherent but that's understandable since you confess to knowing alot about the bar scene around town
If you read the entire thread you would understand the statment I posted or was the above post your attempt at sarcasm, just asking.
I don't even know how to spell the word!(See above)
there were others in this forum with a sense of humor, thanks TW!
These guys are a bunch of VULTURES!
They have the vulture's dilema: nothing will die and they can't kill anything!
BTW, this woman was speeding at 40 mph and crashed into a tree. Forty miles an hour head on into a tree, causes a total of $4,500 worth of damage and she refuses treatment? How bizarre! Further, she was not ticketed? What?
..."she veered off the road and struck the tree, causing more than $2,000 in property damage and an estimated $2,500 in damage to her vehicle ...traveling 40 mph in a 25-mph zone. Texting? Really?
"Edward refused treatment from Beaufort Fire Department personnel at the scene and was not charged or cited by Port Royal police"...
Refused treatment and not ticketed? Does anyone know what it's like to hit a tree at (40)Forty miles an hour. Around here that's sure death. And BTW, I'm sure as heck not going to refuse treatment after hitting a tree at 40mph. If she wasn't impaired by the drinking she absolutely had to impaired from hitting the tree. Refused treatment? Give me a break!
Given the circumstances I wouldn't rule out drinking.
All you vultures out there need to back off.
- but that's ok - because she didn't happen to be drunk. Or at least we'll never know the answer to that, even though some of the bloggers seem to know Anna Edwards so well, they can guarantee that she would NEVER drink and drive.
This whole episode will probably be swept under Beaufort's Carpet because after all, trees can't talk. But then (normally) neither can children or adults that get hit at 40mph, regardless of WHY someone runs into them with a 2 ton speeding giant SUV. What difference does it make WHAT careless act Anna chose to do that endangered trees and humans alike? Isn't texting while driving bad enough without the added alcohol?
And how did this thread wander of topic so badly? Isn't this about a woman's total lack of responsibility while driving over the speed limit? What if she'd hit Your Child? Or Children? Or Mother?
Or YOU - in a deadly, metal twisting, fiery head-on collision in your gas-saving riceburner - ?
Fortunately, Anna Edwards just whacked a tree and only trashed her own Dodge Durango. The huge, heavy vehicle probably saved her life, even if it didn't do the tree any good.
I'm curious. What was so important that Anna Edwards had to write a message to someone while speeding her car over the limit on a public road, anyway? Why are all her friends defending her?
Oh yeah. They're her friends. I wonder how friendly they'd all be if she ran down one of her friends' family members or loved ones - ?
Unforgiven, it was unfair of you to point out that this woman may have been drunk with no proof. Just because there's a regular group of women in downtown Bft. that hit the bars EVERY single weekend, (and most weekdays) drinking till they embarrass themselves, climbing all over the guys, yelling and kissing everything that moves - doesn't mean that Anna Edwards is one of them - even though you may have frequently witnessed her among them at the bars with your own eyes. Shame on you, UnForgiven! It could've been someone else who just LOOKED like Anna Edwards! She has been treated abominably by some of you bloggers,
why --- you'd think she'd broken the law or something!
what are you accomplishing? Will it make them go back and charge her? No. Will it cost her a job? No. Will it cost her friends? No. So, if it makes you feel so superior, go ahead, but *KNOW* that she will be fine. Your rantings amount to nothing.
what are you accomplishing? Will it make them go back and charge her? No. Will it cost her a job? No. Will it cost her friends? No. So, if it makes you feel so superior, go ahead, but *KNOW* that she will be fine. Your rantings amount to nothing.
- And don't you forget it! :)
Gwg, I think we all *KNOW* that she will be fine. That's the problem, her collision with the tree at 40mph probably didn't even change Anna Edward's plans for the evening - except which vehicle she'd be driving, of course.
Let's just pray she learned something from her rendezvous with Mr. Tree, or we all might be in danger of meeting Ms. Edwards unexpectedly while she's texting again.
This is old news dude!
Refused treatment and not ticketed? Does anyone know what it's like to hit a tree at (40)Forty miles an hour. Around here that's sure death.
You mean...she's dead?!
Why would one need treatment if one is dead?
And cops usually don't issue tickets to dead people.
"All you vultures out there need to back off."
Anyone who posts to this blog is fair game when they write something stupid, including you! Who appointed you guardian of blogdom anyway? Given the observations of your posts I wouldn't rule out your drinking also
TW,
We must be related, maybe cousins or something....it's the "Top" thing. Chill brother, UCB is under control for the first time in months! We have deemed him certifiable, so he's OK. Now, calm down and let's go have a drink!!!!!!!
...do you remember the movie airplane. There was one passenger on the plane that was freaking out and everyone on the plane lined-up to try to hit this person to try to make him/her shut-up. That's what this thread reminded me of.
I really don't mind if you disagree with me and I'm not interested in being the guardian of the blogdom. However, it gets real annoying when I see a gang style lynching of an individual that expresses his or her opinion. Please keep in mind that "Forgiven_One" is entitled to his/her opinion.
If you want to disagree...disagree all day long to your hearts content. I really don't mind if you disagree with "Forgiven_One" or anyone else. Again, it was the blow after blow and punch after punch by so many different bloggers that was a bit much.
Going back to the article it raised more questions than it gave answers.
Forgiven_One has a tendency to be a bit irritating, but I agree wth UCB. Everyone here is entitled to an opinion, and they should not be maligned for having one! Post what you wish, express yourself, but don't belittle someone else for doing the same.
That poor tree!!Lol j/p but I do think that this should go as a lesson to all of us that texting should not be done while driving.