Plead guilty or fight the good fight?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends. On the client, on the "victim(s)", and the facts of what actually happened. How will the client present in court? A good witness, a bad witness, prior felonies, etc.? Same considerations pertain to the "victims." The facts could be infinitely variable, so I won't (can't) comment on those.

But if your guy will do fine on the stand, and he was truly defending himself, and you're lucky enough to have "victims" who have felony priors (or just look huge, lol), I'd be inclined to try it and make the State prove it up.
 
Kind of bogus a cop can road rage your family and you get the felony. ***.
It was bogus from moment one, and there's a lot more to the case. Change of venues after the prosecutor in the county of offense refused to charge the permit holder, lying by the officer as to what he was doing in that area to begin with (he claimed he was "on-duty" and his chief backed him up, nevermind that the officer's mistress lived just a short distance from the site of the incident), etc, etc. It stinks like a hog farm.

-Mark
 
If I am ever charged with something I did not do, I would have little choice but to fight the good fight. Having a criminal conviction appear on a background check would roll my career back 15 years.
 
What happens if the only witness to an unfortunate misunderstanding based on an off-duty officers extremely reckless driving not long after a pair of guys hacked up a man and his eight-year old daughter in the same town happens to decide she doesn't want to take her meds anymore, and doesn't like you anymore?

I am so trucked, does anyone know an attorney in Maine who specializes in firearms and is willing to help out a Guardsman?
 
Choice of an attorney is unbelievably critical.

Here in MN, we had a permit holder who drew the perfect storm of disaster in his DGU. He drew and fired (hitting, but non-lethally) on a road rager who was waving a gun at his wife and child from the next car.

Bad news: road rager was an off-duty undercover narc officer with severe anger issues.

Permit holder managed to plead it down to a single felony...but it didn't need to end that way. Why the cop is still a cop is a story for another day and forum, but it should tell you just how bogus the charges were if you can shoot a LEO and get it down to "unlawful discharge of firearm in city limits".



Since I read this story I just can't get something straight in my head.

When the crazy road-rage guy (LEO) started waving a gun (after I'm assuming some kind of traffic disagreement/issue), are they both in their cars? Why didn't the individual just leave, or hit the brakes, or turn on a different road, or heck...call the cops with a cell phone?

How did it get to gun vs. gun between cars with a shot fired?
 
Last edited:
It was bogus from moment one, and there's a lot more to the case. Change of venues after the prosecutor in the county of offense refused to charge the permit holder, lying by the officer as to what he was doing in that area to begin with (he claimed he was "on-duty" and his chief backed him up, nevermind that the officer's mistress lived just a short distance from the site of the incident), etc, etc. It stinks like a hog farm.

Funny around here, we think of Minnesota as being a relatively "clean" state as far as corruption goes. Couple this with the Al Franken/Norm Coleman thing and it makes me wonder how bad things must be elsewhere.

Would still like to know why the guy didn't just high tail it out of there. (Stuck in traffic?) In which case I would think that there would be plenty of witnesses...
 
jscott - Here is AL, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree assault" charges (13A-6-20 through 13A-6-22) require an actual physical injury to occur.

Only "menacing" or "reckless endangerment" (13A-6-23 and 13A-6-24) could be construed to apply to the situation you described, where no actual physical injury occurred.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/6/2

EDIT: also see my signature.
 
Funny around here, we think of Minnesota as being a relatively "clean" state as far as corruption goes. Couple this with the Al Franken/Norm Coleman thing and it makes me wonder how bad things must be elsewhere.

Would still like to know why the guy didn't just high tail it out of there. (Stuck in traffic?) In which case I would think that there would be plenty of witnesses...

cskny, this should answer your questions too.

This started as a standard somebody-cut-somebody-off incident. Words got shouted, middle fingers got exchanged. Bad decision making on the part of the permit holder, yes.

Permit holder was in his vehicle with wife in passenger seat, child in the back seat. Permit holder finally came to his senses and decided to disengage. Off-duty cop proceeded to follow him, honking and tailgating, yelling obscenities, etc. Permit holder got off the highway onto side roads, off duty cop followed and continued behavior. Mind you, off duty cop is an undercover narc, and looked the part.

They roll up to an intersection. I don't know the details of all this (including if escape was blocked), but permit holder looked over and saw the off duty cop pointing a gun alternating between his wife and child, yelling "I'm going to kill you, I don't care about jail!". Permit holder opened fire, leaning across his wife. He scored at least one hit that I know of (in the leg).

Permit holder drives to nearby business, calls 911 immediately.

At the same time, officer scumbag is calling in an "officer shot!" call. Officers arrest permit holder.

Upon investigation, DA started out charging both. Permit holder charges later got dropped.

Politicos get involved. Venue gets changed to a DIFFERENT county for reasons which still elude me, and permit holder is charged with multiple felonies (and charges against the cop are quietly dropped).

After a very long and drawn out process, permit holder agrees to plead guilty to discharge of firearm in city limits, a low class felony. That alone tells you how full of it this entire process was. He shot the guy, a COP, and that's all they insisted on for a plea? He got played for politics.

Cop is still a cop, and is filing a civil suit because this incident cost him a job as a fed. The feds took one look at this incident and told the cop, "you are NOT what we are looking for...".

There's a lot of extra detail out there, and be aware that anything you find about this on the net isn't necessarily correct. The media here isn't exactly pro-permit. The bloggers are much more straightforward.

-Mark
 
I would not accept a plea bargain offer unless I felt I was actually guilty of either the original charge or the lesser offense stipulated in the offer. If I were to accept the plea bargain offer, everyone would assume I was guilty of at least the lesser offense. No one should plead guilty to something they have not done. To do so, leads to an incorrect verdict, which is bad for society. For the innocent person, it means they are unjustly punished not just immediately but possibly later in life too when there may be unforeseen consequences that flow from having a conviction on one's record. I would fight to the hilt if I felt I was innocent and would take the risk that the case would go against me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top