• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

I'm in trouble...

terraformer said:
Not really. Remember, they are told that the Continuance Without a Finding is a pre trial diversion program, etc and when you hear without a finding, you sorta take that at face value. That the state treats it as an admission of guilt is a fraud on par with Enron, Madoff and others. A lot of innocent people take that deal without knowing. So no, they aren't typically guilty. It may be 50/50 at best. ADAs don't dismiss anything outright as a matter of policy in most jurisdictions. They are happy to lose in court over dismissing
Click to expand...

I didn't say guilty. Guilty is a legal term. It has been my personal experience that almost every person with a CWOF I've come across actually did what they were accused of. Additionally, when you accept a CWOF you admit to the crime or sufficient facts were found.

Where do you come up with 50/50? Did you just make that up?
 
Martlet said:
I didn't say guilty. Guilty is a legal term. It has been my personal experience that almost every person with a CWOF I've come across actually did what they were accused of. Additionally, when you accept a CWOF you admit to the crime or sufficient facts were found.

Where do you come up with 50/50? Did you just make that up?
Click to expand...

Where'd you get your law degree? Out of a Cracker Jack box?
 
Martlet said:
I didn't say guilty. Guilty is a legal term. It has been my personal experience that almost every person with a CWOF I've come across actually did what they were accused of. Additionally, when you accept a CWOF you admit to the crime or sufficient facts were found.

Where do you come up with 50/50? Did you just make that up?
Click to expand...

This is true but there are a bunch of people who suck for CWOFs because the deal is better than dragging it out. It might not be the majority but the numbers are hardly insignificant.
 
drgrant said:
This is true but there are a bunch of people who suck for CWOFs because the deal is better than dragging it out. It might not be the majority but the numbers are hardly insignificant.
Click to expand...

I've got a client who pulled his gun because he felt threatened. He was charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Other guy was not charged. He had a valid self defense claim, but the fact remained that what he did constituted ADW. He ended up with a CWOF for simple assault. The option was to roll the dice on a trial.

When the charge was dismissed three months later, his chief gave him back his LTC and gun. (hint: this was outside 128)
 
Martlet said:
I didn't say guilty. Guilty is a legal term. It has been my personal experience that almost every person with a CWOF I've come across actually did what they were accused of. Additionally, when you accept a CWOF you admit to the crime or sufficient facts were found. Where do you come up with 50/50? Did you just make that up?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily that did anything only that you admit to sufficient facts because a CWOF is still better than a Guilty. Doesn't mean you did it, just like when the DA offers you a plea. Most people are not guilty of the offense they are initially charged with.

In some circumstances albeit rarer and rarer it is possible to get a CWOF without admitting to sufficient facts but they are becoming rarer and rarer in most jurisdictions.

Most people who are decent folk are scared witless and shitless by the CJ System and are easily intimidated. They want the experience over and the CWOF frequently is presented as a good, inexpensive (relatively) deal. Lots of time selective hearing on the part of the accused and frankly if you are not a gun owner or a shooter maybe not so much of a big deal. You will always be tainted in the eyes of some, however shooter or not, and if your name comes up in a future police investigation you will be placed at the top of the suspect list. Take that to the bank, that's experience not conjecture talking.
 
mark056 said:
Not necessarily that did anything only that you admit to sufficient facts because a CWOF is still better than a Guilty. Doesn't mean you did it, just like when the DA offers you a plea. Most people are not guilty of the offense they are initially charged with.

In some circumstances albeit rarer and rarer it is possible to get a CWOF without admitting to sufficient facts but they are becoming rarer and rarer in most jurisdictions.

Most people who are decent folk are scared witless and shitless by the CJ System and are easily intimidated. They want the experience over and the CWOF frequently is presented as a good, inexpensive (relatively) deal. Lots of time selective hearing on the part of the accused and frankly if you are not a gun owner or a shooter maybe not so much of a big deal. You will always be tainted in the eyes of some, however shooter or not, and if your name comes up in a future police investigation you will be placed at the top of the suspect list. Take that to the bank, that's experience not conjecture talking.
Click to expand...

I was pretty specific in my statement. In MY experience, reviewing thousands of court docs, the VAST majority of people with a CWOF actually did what they were accused of. YMMV.
 
Martlet said:
I was pretty specific in my statement. In MY experience, reviewing thousands of court docs, the VAST majority of people with a CWOF actually did what they were accused of. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I don't want to start a pissing contest and I know as a recruiter you have to review court docs to get those increasingly rare moral waivers, but remember that I was part of the system too and people will allocute to the states version to avoid further hardship. Did you look at the actual police reports when you say "court docs" I'm disinclined to take anything at face value on a CWOF these days because I'm now not part of the system and I know how easily people can be intimidated into admitting something that's basically the state's version of the events. In many instances a CWOF is IMO something that people are suckered into especially immature and/or first time offenders. Any event can be subjectively interpreted and depending on the circumstances can bring about an arrest or not depending on the subjective interpretation of the responder. Also too, whoever calls the police first frequently determines who will be the Vic and who will be the perp.

Perhaps you have greater faith in our system. I suppose when compared to all others it is truly better than the rest of the world, and certainly the best that money can buy, no denying that.
 
mark056 said:
I don't want to start a pissing contest and I know as a recruiter you have to review court docs to get those increasingly rare moral waivers, but remember that I was part of the system too and people will allocute to the states version to avoid further hardship. Did you look at the actual police reports when you say "court docs" I'm disinclined to take anything at face value on a CWOF these days because I'm now not part of the system and I know how easily people can be intimidated into admitting something that's basically the state's version of the events. In many instances a CWOF is IMO something that people are suckered into especially immature and/or first time offenders. Any event can be subjectively interpreted and depending on the circumstances can bring about an arrest or not depending on the subjective interpretation of the responder. Also too, whoever calls the police first frequently determines who will be the Vic and who will be the perp.

Perhaps you have greater faith in our system. I suppose when compared to all others it is truly better than the rest of the world, and certainly the best that money can buy, no denying that.
Click to expand...

Again, I said "my experience". YMMV. The vast majority of the time we looked at everything, not just the court docs. That doesn't even matter to me, though. My statement is mostly based off my interviews, not just the court docs or a police report. Why rely on a judge's decision or a cop's statement when I can get the details right from the source?
 
Martlet said:
Again, I said "my experience". YMMV. The vast majority of the time we looked at everything, not just the court docs. That doesn't even matter to me, though. My statement is mostly based off my interviews, not just the court docs or a police report. Why rely on a judge's decision or a cop's statement when I can get the details right from the source?
Click to expand...

I agree there. It frequently starts out: "Me and a friend was ... " [rofl]
 
Update: 31 May 2016

After 9 months, all charges were dismissed on 20 April 2016.

I immediately went to local PD to get permits back, but had to submit a letter requesting a face to face with the local chief.

A little more than 30 days has passed since submitting that letter. Made a phone call inquiry last week, still waiting.

Will keep you all posted.
 
Contact Comm2A as well.

The vast majority of the time we looked at everything, not just the court docs.
Click to expand...
Really? Did you visit the scene of the incident, interview all witnesses, the subject and involved police officers?
 

Similar threads

I'm woke....
2
Replies
44
Views
998
timbo
timbo
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
673
chris_1001
chris_1001
i'm a ruger redhawk fan and not ashamed to say it.
2
Replies
36
Views
752
EJFudd
EJFudd
Groton is next in line
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
208
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Back
Top Bottom