Justified shooting?

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by sbro712
Good for you....I thought you were referring to assistance as in being the prosecutor in a criminal case and that was what I meant in referring to the girl working at 7-11 being more help.

Keep up the pro bono work....whatever helps you sleep at night.

I sleep really well... except for waking to take a leak. And when I do, if I let myself think about my clients I start to worry. And if I start worry...forget about it. I might as well get up and hit SVTP. Maybe this is why I hit SVTP about 5 out of 7 mornings each week at about 4 or 5 am.

I worry about my clients because they put their faith and their lives in my hands. When people come to me, they often face the biggest problem in their lives they've ever faced, and they look to me as their only hope to see them through. I take their fears and their faith very serious. You say I need to walk a mile in your shoes to understand what it is like to deal with your job. Well friend, maybe you will never understand me until you walk a mile in my shoes.

Even criminal clients are just people. Often people live their lives right 99.99% of the time but just made a mistake. A heat of the moment thing. Never a criminal before or since. They were high, or drunk, or broken hearted. No its not an excuse. But it is something to consider. Look us in the eye and tell us you never broke the law. Now tell us everyone doesn't need a little consideration. Often, in criminal defense, someone messed up and my job is "damage control". Making sure that the case is resolved fairly. This is 75% of criminal practice.

Every coin has two sides. The finest LEO's know this, consider this, and take this into account. If you can take a step back, gain some wisdom, look at most of the people you are arresting as 'people', you will see that often the hard line serves a limited purpose. I know there are the really bad ones. Please, get them off the streets for us all and the system will do the right thing 95% of the time. But consider that 95% of the arrests you make are nothing more than simple people making stupid mistakes.

OK... I'm bored so let me give an example I cam across when I was prosecuting:

A guy is shooting pool and drinking at a pub on the courthouse square in a small town in Kansas in the county I was prosecuting at the time. Realizing he is drunk he stumbles out the back looking for a place to crash. He thinks the upstairs above the bar is vacant and goes up the metal stairs in the alley behind the bar looking for a place to sleep it off and finds the door unlocked. He lets himself in. Unknown to him, it's the residence of the bar owner and his wife! As the wife flips on the light and calls the Sheriff's Dept. located 200 yds. on the other side of the court house square, hubby is pulling up his pants with one hand and waving around a 44. mag with the other hand. The guy, stunned freezes in his trackes for about 5 seconds until his alcohol impaired brain cells registers: "UH OH!" He runs back out the door, pool stick in case in hand, down the stairs, and jumps on his motor cycle and tries to crank it. As the officer approaches and startles the guy still trying to crank his bike, the guy momentarilly rears back with the pool cue, then realizing its an officer, lowers it and falls to the ground with his cycle. The officer arrests him without resistence and finds a joint upon search.

Case comes to me. Charges: Burglary, Aggravated Assault on a LEO, DUI, Possession of Marij.

Now...what do you think is the right thing to do? Try and hammer this guy for everything possible? You tell me...then I'll tell you what I did.

 

[mswaim]

But consider that 95% of the arrests you make are nothing more than simple people making stupid mistakes.

I would have gone along with you until you made that statement. Nothing could be further from the truth, and for someone who works in the System I'm shocked you would make such a statement.

Most of the arrests I made (and I'm sure most here will agree) were subjects with previous arrests and convictions. Even "simple" DUI arrests are repetitive acts on the part of most offenders.

In fact, if we were to believe you statistics, within a short time 95% of the population would have a "jacket".

In regards to your scenario, the answer for a good prosecutor is simple (and there is only one). You should have charged him and prosecuted him with zealous on all the charges sought by the People. That is your job, not to play judge and jury. You could use some of the charges as bargaining chips to obtain a prosecution without the cost of a trial, but that should have been the extent of your prosecutorial discretion.

As I read your posts I am beginning to see a commonality that leads me to believe you are confusing the roles of prosecutor and defender as though your not sure which one you want to be.

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by mswaim
But consider that 95% of the arrests you make are nothing more than simple people making stupid mistakes.

I would have gone along with you until you made that statement. Nothing could be further from the truth, and for someone who works in the System I'm shocked you would make such a statement.

Most of the arrests I made (and I'm sure most here will agree) were subjects with previous arrests and convictions. Even "simple" DUI arrests are repetitive acts on the part of most offenders.

In fact, if we were to believe you statistics, within a short time 95% of the population would have a "jacket".

In regards to your scenario, the answer for a good prosecutor is simple (and there is only one). You should have charged him and prosecuted him with zealous on all the charges sought by the People. That is your job, not to play judge and jury. You could use some of the charges as bargaining chips to obtain a prosecution without the cost of a trial, but that should have been the extent of your prosecutorial discretion.

As I read your posts I am beginning to see a commonality that leads me to believe you are confusing the roles of prosecutor and defender as though your not sure which one you want to be.

First, as used the number 95% loosely. I'm sure the number is lower. However, in my experience, the majority of arrests are of people that are not serious criminals.

As for your answer to the scenario. WRONG. I suggest you ask a prosecutor the next time you meet him. You are going to be surprised. The law specifically states that your idea of a prosecutor is precisely what he is NOT supposed to be. The prosecutor is tasked with seeking justice by prosecuting those crimes as and how he believes the ends of justice requires. Not by trying to get maximum convictions without regard to mitigating factors or the gray areas of life and law.

Apparently, you are not as knowledgable about the roles of the various players in the legal system as you think you are.

 

[mswaim]

Originally posted by esqeddy
First, as used the number 95% loosely. I'm sure the number is lower. However, in my experience, the majority of arrests are of people that are not serious criminals.

As for your answer to the scenario. WRONG. I suggest you ask a prosecutor the next time you meet him. You are going to be surprised. The law specifically states that your idea of a prosecutor is precisely what he is NOT supposed to be. The prosecutor is tasked with seeking justice by prosecuting those crimes as and how he believes the ends of justice requires. Not by trying to get maximum convictions without regard to mitigating factors or the gray areas of life and law.

Apparently, you are not as knowledgable about the roles of the various players in the legal system as you think you are.

We could argue this point all we want, but you are very quick to apply your limited knowledge of the law to those of us who have worked with it (in my case over 30 years) for half a life-time. Prosecutors in Georgia might throw the law around like so much candy, however where I come from top prosecutors (District Attorneys) are elected officials and are tasked by their constituents with upholding the Law, not just the ones they agree with.

You chose your scenario well, making sure that at each point where a law was being broken, there were mitigating circumstances. Unfortunately, five "grey areas of life and law" do not an innocent client make. In other words, this is a good case to let a jury of his peers decide and believe me the outcome will not be to his liking.

By the way, my brother is a deputy district attorney and has been for more than 20 years so I have a basic grasp of the legal system and its players.

 

[sbro712]

Having been enforcing laws for over a decade now, so I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the law.

Even criminal clients are just people. Often people live their lives right 99.99% of the time but just made a mistake. A heat of the moment thing. Never a criminal before or since. They were high, or drunk, or broken hearted. No its not an excuse. But it is something to consider. Look us in the eye and tell us you never broke the law. Now tell us everyone doesn't need a little consideration. Often, in criminal defense, someone messed up and my job is "damage control". Making sure that the case is resolved fairly. This is 75% of criminal practice.

You wanna play statistics and claim that 99.99% of people I arrest "just made a mistake"? Let's try this one on for size....for every ONE time a person has been arrested for DWI they have driven drunk, on average 10 times, prior to being arrested (statistic taken from a NHTSA SFST class...and I would suspect that they have just a wee bit more hard data on the subject then you do on your "99.99% of people arrested have only made a mistake line). So is that a person who has "just made a mistake"? No, that is a person who has made a decision and now needs to face the consequences for making a bad one.

I have made bad choices in my past and I faced up to the consequences and took my punishment...without some hired mouthpiece to do "damage control" (which when applied by a defense attorney means to do whatever you can to slander the officer and take the jury's attention away from the facts)

Every coin has two sides. The finest LEO's know this, consider this, and take this into account. If you can take a step back, gain some wisdom, look at most of the people you are arresting as 'people', you will see that often the hard line serves a limited purpose.

Do not mistake "wisdom" with bleeding heart liberalism...which is what you appear to be doing. According to your logic, the majority of people who are arrested should just be coddled and told "everything is ok, you just made a mistake".

Officers are more aware that people are people than those who have spent thier lives in a courtroom. We have to deal with the mother whose daughter is not coming home because some person made a "mistake" drove drunk and killer her. To a defense attorney that mother is just another obstacle he must get around to get his poor, innocent client off so he can do it again to another family.

Until you have had to do a death notification like that, done CPR on a dying man whose only crime was not to hand over his wallet fast enough so the thugs who were too lazy to get a job shot him, had to guard a crime scene from the grieving family of a spouse who was killed by thier spouse on a "heat of the monent thing" in front of thier small children, do those things before you even THINK about lecturing me about gaining wisdom or how to look at people.

Please show me anywhere in my posts on this subject that I espoused a "hard line".

Yes, people do make "mistakes" but most of those "mistakes" are choices made willfully. No one forced you to buy that rock of crack, beat your spouse, break into the house/car, or any other crime listed in the books....you made a choice to commit these acts.

I guess, according to the world you live in, most people are not responsible for thier actions because everyone can find mitigating (or excuses as I like to call it) circumstances for thier bad choices.

As for your secenario, I would guess that you probably gave the guy a hug and told him "I'm ok and you're ok".

I don't know about your state, but in Texas, being drunk/high is not a defense to prosecution for any of the offenses you listed.

If I was the prosecutor, depending on his history (which you omitted) I would give him and his mouthpiece a choice: either plead to the DWI and Possesion or be prosecuted for everything.

In the plea, if he has no priors, he will pay a hefty fine, attend counseling for alcohol/drug use, be tested for both on a random basis for at least 5 years (and if he pops positive he will be spending time in jail) and an interlock will be placed on all of his vehicles.

If he has priors, he will do jail time (at least a year) and then be subject to all the conditions above for 10 years.

 

[esqeddy]

mswain...sorry, but you are wrong. There is more to prosecuting than just conviction hunting. I'm sure your brother will tell you this. The law is very very clear on this point.

sbro712...you need to read more carefully. I said that OFTEN people live their lives right 99.99% of the time but just make a mistake. I didn't say that 99.99% of the people you arrest just made a mistake. These are two entirely different statements with two entirely different meanings.

You obviously have a deem view of attorney's since you refer to them as mouth peices. Apparently, some lawyer must have picked you apart rather well and embarrassed you for some half ass case you tried to make. tsk tsk.... sucks to be you. Perhaps paying closer attention to detail (as you failed to do in reading what I wrote) will prevent future courtroom embarassments.

Yes, people intentionally commit crimes. Afterall, most serious crimes are specific intent crimes such that the act would not be a crime but for the intent. And you are correct that voluntary intoxication is not a defense in and of itself. However, intoxication can prevent criminal intent from forming. And just because someone makes a bad decision and commits a crime, doesn't mean they are beyond redemption. It doesn't mean they are just a hard core criminal. Sorry pal, but the world just isn't black and white like you would have it.

Nope, I didn't give the guy a hug. And he had little or no significant criminal history. OK....my analysis and what I did. No burglary since there was no intent to commit a crime inside and no forced entry. No DUI since he was never in control of a moving vehicle. I reduced the aggravated assault to misd assault and made him plea to the smoke. I insisted on 2 yrs. probation with drug and alcohol conditioins, community service and fines. Sorry, but that is the max for two misd. convictions. And sorry, interlock was not a sentencing option at the time and still isn't here until your 2nd DUI in 5 yrs.

I amazes me to see cops complain how no one can understand what its like to be a cop until they do it themselves, and then in the very next breath bad mouth attorneys. Afterall, I can say you have no idea what it is like to be an attorney until you are one.
I don't know numbers overall, but I can say that a significant number of the people in law school with me when I attended where LEOs. Probably more LEOs than any other single profession. There were people from all walks of life.

 

[sbro712]

You obviously have a deem view of attorney's since you refer to them as mouth peices. Apparently, some lawyer must have picked you apart rather well and embarrassed you for some half ass case you tried to make. tsk tsk.... sucks to be you. Perhaps paying closer attention to detail (as you failed to do in reading what I wrote) will prevent future courtroom embarassments.

Before you start throwing more stones about my reading comprehension skills, I would first invest in a good dictionary or a spellcheck program. I believe the word you are looking for is 'dim" not "deem" (they have very different meanings) and these are not your first spelling errors in your posts in just THIS thread.

As for my "deem" view of attorneys it comes, not from being "picked apart" as you assume (and we all know what happens when you assume, or do I have to spell that one out for you?...spelling obviously not being your strong suit) but from a dim view on those whose morals/ethics are for sale. Which as far as my experience has been, encompasses the vast majority of attorneys...whoever is paying the bills is the side they argue.

I do have respect for those attorneys who have always been defense attorneys (at least they argue from convictions, not their pocketbook) and even more respect for those few who remain as prosecutors for their careers.

I also have respect for those few remaining defense attorneys who actually know how to try to a case. By that, I mean those who know how to attack the FACTS of a case, not the OFFICER.

In my last trial, the defense attorney had no case, so he attempted to attack me personally. It got so bad that the judge actually had the jury leave the room so that he could warn the defense attorney to move on. Once that happened, the defense attorney tried to get a plea bargain going with the prosecutor, unfortunately for the defendant the prosecutor knew we had a strong case (and a great report) so he refused. The jury found the defendant guilty and then the judge maxed him. To me, these tactics typify the way defense attorneys work these days. If you are the exception, than good for you. However from seeing your post in a speeding ticket thread, I kinda doubt it.

My record in court is better than most. I have several letters of commendation from prosecutors for my ability to testify and demeanor on the stand. I have also received compliments from judges on the same abilities.

It has gone so far now, that most of my DWI's don't even go to trial anymore, the defense attorney's would rather plea then try to trip me up. I know HGN and the SFSTs better then most of them and can explain it all to a jury so that they understand what I did, why I did it, and what the results mean.

As for calling them mouthpieces (side note: please note the correct spelling of "pieces"), isn't that what they (you) are? They speak for the defendant because they know very well that the prosecutor will tear the defendant up if the person gets on the stand. Yes, I know that the defendant does not have to speak on his own behalf.....so you speak for them, hence the term "mouthpiece". If that term offends you, so be it.

 

[mswaim]

mswain...sorry, but you are wrong. There is more to prosecuting than just conviction hunting. I'm sure your brother will tell you this. The law is very very clear on this point.

No apology is necessary since after asking my brother to read your posts his response was, "bleeding heart who belongs on the other side of the table". His words, not mine. The truth is you empathise much more readily with the suspect than you do the victim. I asked my brother to analyze your scenario under our laws and his boss's policies.

The building entry is a criminal trespass and should have been charged as such. No specific intent required since he knew it was not his home.

The attempted assault on the officer should have been charged as such. Doesn't matter if he hit the officer, he raised the cue to strike whomever startled him, his job to convince the jury he did not know the person was a cop.

The attempt to start the bike is an attempted DUI (yes, we have that) and should have been charged.

The pot here is an infraction and is a waste of time.

My brother says he would have stuck with the violent misdemeanor and the trespass assuring jail time and a solid entry on crooks record.

Final outcome; he would demand a plea on the assault and the tresspass and settle for nothing less than 6 months in a county lockup. Otherwise let the idiot take it to a jury.

Intoxication in and of itself does not allow carte blanc when it comes to crime. As I said, you chose your scenario well, however your explanation was predictable.

BTW- Since my brother attended law school part time as he needed to hold down his regular job as a police sergeant. He finally resigned to take the job with the DA's office.

My brother told me he considers his job as a prosecutor to be the highest calling in our business. His job is to see to it that crooks do not prey on society through aggresive prosecution, not soul-searching and lamenting the impact his actions will have on the suspect.

Obviously you feel differently.

 

[bka0721]

No one deserves to be shot. To defend yourself and others gives you that opportunity. It does not appear that the officer was being threatened with serious injury or possibly death at the hands of this suspect.

I would have used other means to restrain the suspect and have.


Bryan
Trooper - Retired

 

[bskinner]

Originally posted by esqeddy
In all fairness to you Speedtrapz, I over looked this post by you. I think it shows that you recognized this was poor policing by this woman.

I personally believe, and I think you will agree, that shooting this kid was NOT necessary.

1) I really dont think shooting him was necessary but I think that given her level of incompetence she didnt have a lot of options.

2) The thing I dont understand is why she was so keyed up during the course of trying to get him pulled over.

3) Her level of incompetence is not the suspects fault its her fault and the department.

4) She strikes me as extremely unproffessional with the amount of cursing she was doing. I have learned in my years of experience that if someone pisses me off Ill put them in jail BUT under no circumstances do I curse them. I have been known to book someone in for not wearing their seatbelt because they cursed me out on a traffic stop but I didnt curse them back.

5) The next thing I see is that she is extremely out of shape and extremely quick to refer to her weapon as her first line of defense. Also extremley complacent. Notice in the video where she lets him close in on her reactionary gap, then realizes he is becoming a threat and hollers at him because of it... LEOs know what im talking about.

6) Bottom line........ She lost control of the situation before she exited her unit....... but whats worse than that, HE KNEW IT!! and clearly took advantage of it. The fact that she is a female to start with automatically causes her to be discounted as an officer by most of the public.

7) Im not gonna say that she was wrong for shooting him but I will say there were other options that she clearly ignored or forgot about a long time ago. BUT as I stated earlier on, WE are not trained to lose a confrontation and that includes you being shot if we are put into that situation, im just not sure this was that situation.

8) SHES A F!@KING IDIOT!!!!
just my .02cents

PS: Esqeddy, You would do better to watch your step in here, You dont know me. I police more professionally than most ive seen. to be quiet honest I SET THE STANDARD. I clearly admit I dont agree with what I saw in the video, but i dont see where you can take it upon yourself to judge me and the way I police on a single post. Make a long story short, I dont appreciate the attack. BUT, in an effort to try not to stoop to your level and start a war I will chalk your comments up to a poor decision on your part, kinda like that officer we are discussing.

 

[bskinner]

Originally posted by esqeddy
OK... I'm bored so let me give an example I cam across when I was prosecuting:

A guy is shooting pool and drinking at a pub on the courthouse square in a small town in Kansas in the county I was prosecuting at the time. Realizing he is drunk he stumbles out the back looking for a place to crash. He thinks the upstairs above the bar is vacant and goes up the metal stairs in the alley behind the bar looking for a place to sleep it off and finds the door unlocked. He lets himself in. Unknown to him, it's the residence of the bar owner and his wife! As the wife flips on the light and calls the Sheriff's Dept. located 200 yds. on the other side of the court house square, hubby is pulling up his pants with one hand and waving around a 44. mag with the other hand. The guy, stunned freezes in his trackes for about 5 seconds until his alcohol impaired brain cells registers: "UH OH!" He runs back out the door, pool stick in case in hand, down the stairs, and jumps on his motor cycle and tries to crank it. As the officer approaches and startles the guy still trying to crank his bike, the guy momentarilly rears back with the pool cue, then realizing its an officer, lowers it and falls to the ground with his cycle. The officer arrests him without resistence and finds a joint upon search.

Case comes to me. Charges: Burglary, Aggravated Assault on a LEO, DUI, Possession of Marij.

Now...what do you think is the right thing to do? Try and hammer this guy for everything possible? You tell me...then I'll tell you what I did.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, Id say that if the circumstances are like you say they were, id say unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling would be the proper charge... when you committ the crime of burglary you have to have unlawful entry with the intent to committ a felony to make it a burglary, at least in louisiana and possession of a CDS. I think that would do it I think after having the S@#T scared out of him he probably wasnt thinking clearly when he jumped on that motorcycle drunk, and he obviously didnt know a police officer was approaching. there, that sound fair

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by SPEEDTRAPZ
1) I really dont think shooting him was necessary but I think that given her level of incompetence she didnt have a lot of options.

2) The thing I dont understand is why she was so keyed up during the course of trying to get him pulled over.

3) Her level of incompetence is not the suspects fault its her fault and the department.

4) She strikes me as extremely unproffessional with the amount of cursing she was doing. I have learned in my years of experience that if someone pisses me off Ill put them in jail BUT under no circumstances do I curse them. I have been known to book someone in for not wearing their seatbelt because they cursed me out on a traffic stop but I didnt curse them back.

5) The next thing I see is that she is extremely out of shape and extremely quick to refer to her weapon as her first line of defense. Also extremley complacent. Notice in the video where she lets him close in on her reactionary gap, then realizes he is becoming a threat and hollers at him because of it... LEOs know what im talking about.

6) Bottom line........ She lost control of the situation before she exited her unit....... but whats worse than that, HE KNEW IT!! and clearly took advantage of it. The fact that she is a female to start with automatically causes her to be discounted as an officer by most of the public.

7) Im not gonna say that she was wrong for shooting him but I will say there were other options that she clearly ignored or forgot about a long time ago. BUT as I stated earlier on, WE are not trained to lose a confrontation and that includes you being shot if we are put into that situation, im just not sure this was that situation.

8) SHES A F!@KING IDIOT!!!!
just my .02cents

PS: Esqeddy, You would do better to watch your step in here, You dont know me. I police more professionally than most ive seen. to be quiet honest I SET THE STANDARD. I clearly admit I dont agree with what I saw in the video, but i dont see where you can take it upon yourself to judge me and the way I police on a single post. Make a long story short, I dont appreciate the attack. BUT, in an effort to try not to stoop to your level and start a war I will chalk your comments up to a poor decision on your part, kinda like that officer we are discussing.

Great post. Demonstrates a high level of professionalism, experience, and skill. Contrasting that with your original post, I have every confidence now that you are a fine officer. This country needs a lot more like you and far fewer like this lady.

As for judging, lets face it, you and I are in professions where we are always judged and judged harshly. For every client I represent, there is someone on the other side thats taking it personal. So there's 50% of the people, be it opposing parties in civil cases, or victims and officers in criminal cases, that don't like me. As to that if I don't prevail in a case, its always my fault. It never has anthing to do with the facts against them. I've actually had two criminal defendants blame me for their convictions desptie the overwhelming evidence against them that they commited the crimes. I'm sure you see the same problem. Danged if you do and danged if you don't. Oh well, its just an occupational hazard I've come to live with. Hating lawyers is nothing new. Wasn't is Shakespear who said "Shoot all lawyers."?

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by sbro712
Before you start throwing more stones about my reading comprehension skills, I would first invest in a good dictionary or a spellcheck program. I believe the word you are looking for is 'dim" not "deem" (they have very different meanings) and these are not your first spelling errors in your posts in just THIS thread.

As for my "deem" view of attorneys it comes, not from being "picked apart" as you assume (and we all know what happens when you assume, or do I have to spell that one out for you?...spelling obviously not being your strong suit) but from a dim view on those whose morals/ethics are for sale. Which as far as my experience has been, encompasses the vast majority of attorneys...whoever is paying the bills is the side they argue.

I do have respect for those attorneys who have always been defense attorneys (at least they argue from convictions, not their pocketbook) and even more respect for those few who remain as prosecutors for their careers.

I also have respect for those few remaining defense attorneys who actually know how to try to a case. By that, I mean those who know how to attack the FACTS of a case, not the OFFICER.

In my last trial, the defense attorney had no case, so he attempted to attack me personally. It got so bad that the judge actually had the jury leave the room so that he could warn the defense attorney to move on. Once that happened, the defense attorney tried to get a plea bargain going with the prosecutor, unfortunately for the defendant the prosecutor knew we had a strong case (and a great report) so he refused. The jury found the defendant guilty and then the judge maxed him. To me, these tactics typify the way defense attorneys work these days. If you are the exception, than good for you. However from seeing your post in a speeding ticket thread, I kinda doubt it.

My record in court is better than most. I have several letters of commendation from prosecutors for my ability to testify and demeanor on the stand. I have also received compliments from judges on the same abilities.

It has gone so far now, that most of my DWI's don't even go to trial anymore, the defense attorney's would rather plea then try to trip me up. I know HGN and the SFSTs better then most of them and can explain it all to a jury so that they understand what I did, why I did it, and what the results mean.

As for calling them mouthpieces (side note: please note the correct spelling of "pieces"), isn't that what they (you) are? They speak for the defendant because they know very well that the prosecutor will tear the defendant up if the person gets on the stand. Yes, I know that the defendant does not have to speak on his own behalf.....so you speak for them, hence the term "mouthpiece". If that term offends you, so be it.

As for my spelling. IT SUCKS. Always has and always will. I really wish this post reply box had a spell checker because I am in desperate need of one. Sorry, I'm not going to take my posts and cut and paste them to my word processor to spell check them and the cut and paste them back. That is simply too much work for something I do for R&R. In fact, I almost decided against law school for fear that my spelling would affect my grades. Dyslexic from a young age. Interestingly, it seldom impacted my numbers and I did exceptionally well in math all the way through my undergrad and grad work at Ga. Tech.

The term "mouth piece" doesn't particuarly bother me. Hell, I've been called much much worse. I only mention it because your use of the term reflects your overall negative opinion of attorneys.

It is unfortunate, but there are those attorney's that don't know how to try a case. Rule number one: "It you are going to shoot the king, you better kill him!" You never, and I mean never, attack an officer on the stand unless you can take him out. I have taken out many lame officers trying to make lame cases. But you better believe I pick those fights with great care. Instead, a good defense lawyer simply confronts the officers testimony from the stand point of "Maybe you are wrong, though well intentioned, so lets take a closer look at the evidence and your conclusions." Personal attacks on a good officer trying to do his job rarely yeilds positive results with either a jury or a judge.

As for doing the job I'm paid to do. After prosecuting my thrid year of law school, I tried to get a job with the KBI. They have attorney special agents to assist in big wire tap and search and seizure cases, amoung other things, to make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. A highly desired job and there were no openings at the time. I have considered a job with the DA's office here in Ga. In fact, everyone in that office I consider a personal friend. However, the pay is just too low. What is funny, is that for the last 2 years, I am, by appointment of the Superior Court, the District Attorney Pro Tem of Laurens County, Georgia.

No, I don't defend criminal defendants out of some conviction to them. I do so out of a conviction for the design of the legal system and a desire to provide for my family.

Its kinda funny how some people, especially criminal defendants, think hiring a top defense lawyer provides some kind of magic. There's no magic to it. If an officer makes a solid case, it will stand up and a conviction will result in the vast majority of the cases. On the other hand, if the case is weak, usually a jury will acquit despite the inability of a lousy defense attorney.

In the year I prosecuted I won every case but one: A step father charged with molestation. The eight year old girl claimed he had come into her bed room, reached under the covers and patted her on her panty covered crotch. He claims he was reaching for the little pet dog that was under the covers. She admitted the dog was in the bed but on top of the covers. No other conduct before or after, and the allegation didn't come up until momma and step dad were divorcing. Recognizing how bad a case this was, I was given instructions by my boss to try the case, and if the jury cut him loose, fine. The bosses policy is you never drop sex cases absent clear evidence that its a fraud.

I never presented a more polished solid case with what I had. I was as smooth as aged whiskey. The defense attorney was absolutely the worst I've ever seen to this very day. I think this was his first trial and he clearly had no clue what he was doing or was even supposed to do. The jury acquited, and despite the loss, I found great faith in how our legal system works. I have seen times when it has not, and we all hear about those times, but all-in-all I have great faith in the system and am proud to participate in it..... No matter what job within that system I perform.

 

[esqeddy]

Originally posted by mswaim
mswain...sorry, but you are wrong. There is more to prosecuting than just conviction hunting. I'm sure your brother will tell you this. The law is very very clear on this point.

No apology is necessary since after asking my brother to read your posts his response was, "bleeding heart who belongs on the other side of the table". His words, not mine. The truth is you empathise much more readily with the suspect than you do the victim. I asked my brother to analyze your scenario under our laws and his boss's policies.

The building entry is a criminal trespass and should have been charged as such. No specific intent required since he knew it was not his home.

The attempted assault on the officer should have been charged as such. Doesn't matter if he hit the officer, he raised the cue to strike whomever startled him, his job to convince the jury he did not know the person was a cop.

The attempt to start the bike is an attempted DUI (yes, we have that) and should have been charged.

The pot here is an infraction and is a waste of time.

My brother says he would have stuck with the violent misdemeanor and the trespass assuring jail time and a solid entry on crooks record.

Final outcome; he would demand a plea on the assault and the tresspass and settle for nothing less than 6 months in a county lockup. Otherwise let the idiot take it to a jury.

Intoxication in and of itself does not allow carte blanc when it comes to crime. As I said, you chose your scenario well, however your explanation was predictable.

BTW- Since my brother attended law school part time as he needed to hold down his regular job as a police sergeant. He finally resigned to take the job with the DA's office.

My brother told me he considers his job as a prosecutor to be the highest calling in our business. His job is to see to it that crooks do not prey on society through aggresive prosecution, not soul-searching and lamenting the impact his actions will have on the suspect.

Obviously you feel differently.

LOL.... I'm sure I do appear to be a bleeding heart to officers and prosecutors who have never defended or judged. I guess that goes back to perspective and the inability to understand the others position without having experienced it first hand.

As for the scenario. The upstairs he entered, didn't appear to be a residence. In fact, most of the upstairs along the old town square store front were unused and just empty. He happed to pick the wrong one. As for trespass, it isn't trespass unless you are first on notice that you are not allowed on the property. Posting signs and telling someone is usually all that is required to give such notice.

As for the assualt on the officer, it was my belief that the guy acted in self defense when the officer startled him and merely assumed a defensive posture, which he abandoned when he realized who it was and what was happening. Had he persisted or taken a swing with the pool cue, that would have been a different matter all together.

As for picking the scenario. This was a real life case that I handled. I had to decide what I thought was justice and go from there. I did not then, while I was prosecuting, think it was just to pursue the original charges. I think no different today.

 

[FordSVTFan]

As for this pissing match it is over.

Thanks for your participation!