Crusader103
Member
It seems that whenever a legal case comes up in the news, personal experience, etc and gets posted on THR or elsewhere the canned response is somewhat along the lines of “I would fight that all the way to the supreme court,” “I would be rich after I got done with them,” “that cop (prosecutor, judge, you name it) would have picked the wrong person if it were me,” “My lawyer would eat that case up,” or something similar.
Is that realistic?
Currently, I am reviewing a couple of different cases and several more have come across my desk in the past (I review use of force cases professionally from attorneys, individual clients, etc) that may challenge these strictest ideals. I will not go into specifics or give the locale, but suffice it to say that I have seen a rash of these lately from more than one jurisdiction.
A client is confronted with an imminent threat and presents a firearm in defense of themselves or others. One case I am thinking of was a disparity of force situation where the defender was confronted by five aggressive individuals bent on doing him serious harm. They did not appear to be armed but five on one can arguably inflict grave bodily harm. Another case involved a perp with a pipe/crowbar type device. Neither case allowed for the client to exit the scene gracefully and the client did not appear to be an instigator. Who knows what story the others might create in court. In any event, the situation is thankfully resolved without a shot being fired, the lack of anyone being hurt attributable to the presence of the firearm.
The client is safe, the police respond, and statements are taken. Despite a person’s justification of self defense it is a fact that the police and/or prosecutor may see it different. That is regardless of how justified you actually were.
The prosecutor charges the client with felony assault or a similar crime. As is often the case, during pretrial litigation a plea bargain is offered to lower the charge to a misdemeanor assault charge.
So here’s the question…. Do you accept the plea to a misdemeanor which is accompanied by say 10 days in jail or do you maintain your innocence and fight the felony charge?
I understand that every one of you would want to say that you would fight the charge. Unfortunately, again no matter how justified you were in your actions it is not always as simple as that. You see, in the unlikely event that you lose your felony case you are facing a minimum of 1 year in jail. What’s worse, many jurisdictions have a 3-5 year firearm enhancement tacked on to any conviction. In the case of the 5 aggressors on 1 apparent defender, that is five charges. You do the math and realize that even if the judge sentences you to the minimum, you are looking at several years based on the firearm enhancement (it is per charge). The judge cannot reduce that in most jurisdictions.
Think it couldn’t happen? It happens more than you may realize. Yes, prosecutors will often plea a case down to a few days in jail that would otherwise carry several years if convicted. Why? Nobody knows for sure. Maybe their case is weak, maybe they have a large caseload, and maybe some conviction looks better than no conviction. They don’t want to roll the dice but they are willing if you don’t plea to something. The question is, do you roll the dice with several years of your life or do you plead guilty to a “small” charge you did not commit?
So now let’s think about it, having been fully justified in your actions and having had no alternative but to present your firearm, do you now bite the bullet (no pun intended) and spend a few days in jail for a crime you did not commit? Do you stand in front of the judge and the people who attacked you and shamefully say, “Guilty. I assaulted them.” Do you roll the dice and watch your family suffer, losing their sole source of support, in the arguably highly unlikely event you are found guilty?
This is all food for thought. I am not looking for advice on the cases I am reviewing. I am not an attorney and I do not offer advice nor opinions to my clients on how to proceed. I simply review cases, provide detailed reports based on the case files, develop the strong and weak points of the cases, explain to prosecutors/defense attorneys/clients what “should” have been done or would be “reasonable” to a trained/untrained person, detail force continuum procedures, indicate what an expert witness (such as myself) might testify to, etc.
Hopefully this will provide for some good discussion but even more so, get you to think about what you might do. Remember, it is your goal to survive physically, mentally, and legally.
Is that realistic?
Currently, I am reviewing a couple of different cases and several more have come across my desk in the past (I review use of force cases professionally from attorneys, individual clients, etc) that may challenge these strictest ideals. I will not go into specifics or give the locale, but suffice it to say that I have seen a rash of these lately from more than one jurisdiction.
A client is confronted with an imminent threat and presents a firearm in defense of themselves or others. One case I am thinking of was a disparity of force situation where the defender was confronted by five aggressive individuals bent on doing him serious harm. They did not appear to be armed but five on one can arguably inflict grave bodily harm. Another case involved a perp with a pipe/crowbar type device. Neither case allowed for the client to exit the scene gracefully and the client did not appear to be an instigator. Who knows what story the others might create in court. In any event, the situation is thankfully resolved without a shot being fired, the lack of anyone being hurt attributable to the presence of the firearm.
The client is safe, the police respond, and statements are taken. Despite a person’s justification of self defense it is a fact that the police and/or prosecutor may see it different. That is regardless of how justified you actually were.
The prosecutor charges the client with felony assault or a similar crime. As is often the case, during pretrial litigation a plea bargain is offered to lower the charge to a misdemeanor assault charge.
So here’s the question…. Do you accept the plea to a misdemeanor which is accompanied by say 10 days in jail or do you maintain your innocence and fight the felony charge?
I understand that every one of you would want to say that you would fight the charge. Unfortunately, again no matter how justified you were in your actions it is not always as simple as that. You see, in the unlikely event that you lose your felony case you are facing a minimum of 1 year in jail. What’s worse, many jurisdictions have a 3-5 year firearm enhancement tacked on to any conviction. In the case of the 5 aggressors on 1 apparent defender, that is five charges. You do the math and realize that even if the judge sentences you to the minimum, you are looking at several years based on the firearm enhancement (it is per charge). The judge cannot reduce that in most jurisdictions.
Think it couldn’t happen? It happens more than you may realize. Yes, prosecutors will often plea a case down to a few days in jail that would otherwise carry several years if convicted. Why? Nobody knows for sure. Maybe their case is weak, maybe they have a large caseload, and maybe some conviction looks better than no conviction. They don’t want to roll the dice but they are willing if you don’t plea to something. The question is, do you roll the dice with several years of your life or do you plead guilty to a “small” charge you did not commit?
So now let’s think about it, having been fully justified in your actions and having had no alternative but to present your firearm, do you now bite the bullet (no pun intended) and spend a few days in jail for a crime you did not commit? Do you stand in front of the judge and the people who attacked you and shamefully say, “Guilty. I assaulted them.” Do you roll the dice and watch your family suffer, losing their sole source of support, in the arguably highly unlikely event you are found guilty?
This is all food for thought. I am not looking for advice on the cases I am reviewing. I am not an attorney and I do not offer advice nor opinions to my clients on how to proceed. I simply review cases, provide detailed reports based on the case files, develop the strong and weak points of the cases, explain to prosecutors/defense attorneys/clients what “should” have been done or would be “reasonable” to a trained/untrained person, detail force continuum procedures, indicate what an expert witness (such as myself) might testify to, etc.
Hopefully this will provide for some good discussion but even more so, get you to think about what you might do. Remember, it is your goal to survive physically, mentally, and legally.
Last edited:
That's to keep you from getting charged if you are innocent. If it goes to trial, the sky is the limit.