Are there any lawyers that can help me?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Deebo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I did not commit a crime, It is my word against 2 officers + a supervisor. Do you think a serf like me would win that, without being able to afford a lawyer at the time? Honestly man, I know my rights, but in my situation.. "get outa jail free vs 6 years in a state prison" come on.

Deebo

With all due respect, you come on! You have plead guilty to a crime. You are convicted of a crime. You can spend all your energy and efforts defending your decision to plead guilty and become a convicted criminal or you can fight for your freedom. That choice is yours. I am not telling you what to do. Read the title of your thread. I am not a lawyer, but you have made it appear that you want help, now you make it appear that you want sympathy.

Sympathy is not help, it is betrayal. Help as betrayal is not help. In the end, only you can help your self, or not and you can just feel sorry for your self. That choice is yours.

I do not want sympathy at all, I want advice as to what normally happens if you can't pay off your debt. before the time is up. If this were 10 years ago I would have just toughed it out, but the risk of 6 years in prison, when the world is going to # and we are witnessing all these great changes? I am sorry but I wanna be free when TSHTF.. And it is near.


Deebo

reply to post by defcon5

It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.

A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence. They did not witness any crime, nor was any victim pressing any charges of a crime.

That said, this is not an issue of whether the police acted correctly or not, they acted, according to the O.P. as their watch commander order them to act. The issue here is that the O.P. plead guilty to a crime. Either the O.P. accepts the responsibility of that crime and the consequences of pleading guilty, or he doesn't. If the only issue with him is how does he pay the bill, then this is a simple matter of logistics, but it requires accepting responsibility for the consequences of his plea.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by defcon5

 

It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.

A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence. They did not witness any crime, nor was any victim pressing any charges of a crime.

That said, this is not an issue of whether the police acted correctly or not, they acted, according to the O.P. as their watch commander order them to act. The issue here is that the O.P. plead guilty to a crime. Either the O.P. accepts the responsibility of that crime and the consequences of pleading guilty, or he doesn't. If the only issue with him is how does he pay the bill, then this is a simple matter of logistics, but it requires accepting responsibility for the consequences of his plea.

Your a jerk dude.. Sure if I was a repeat criminal I would know the system, but this was out of the blue. If you care to do some research and watch a few documentaries, you will see that 95%+ cases do not go to trial, for this very reason. You can talk # all you want. I just had a simple question and already got my asnwer way before you had to open your trash mouth.


Deebo

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence.

Jean, the problem is that they have made special state laws in most places to deal with domestic violence. Whether they are technically Constitutional really does not matter as they do exist, and have the support of the Supreme Court. there are many laws that violate the Constitution, but exist out of necessity as the world has changed since the 1700’s.

In this case, it really doesn’t matter, in the eyes of the officers they had Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause as valid reasons to effect an arrest:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The standards of probable cause differ for an arrest and a search. The government has a probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime.[40] Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made. Evidence obtained after the arrest may not apply retroactively to justify the arrest.[41]

These things alone are enough to grant an officer a reason to arrest someone.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The thing that kills me is both officers were on my side, and said no crime was commited. The stupid supervisor, who was NOT there, to make an intelligent judgment call, like these 2 officers did, is what got me.

Deebo

reply to post by defcon5

Jean, the problem is that they have made special state laws in most places to deal with domestic violence. Whether they are technically Constitutional really does not matter as they do exist, and have the support of the Supreme Court. there are many laws that violate the Constitution, but exist out of necessity as the world has changed since the 1700’s.

My friend, you are most assuredly mistaken about Constitutionality. First of all, the 4th Amendment is a moot point since this is a state issue. Not knowing the state in which this event took place, neither one of us can speak intelligently to what prohibitions have been placed on government in this regard. However, to suggest that subsequent legislation takes supremacy over the state Constitution that gave the legislature authority to legislate to begin with is legally and factually incorrect. The Constitution certainly does matter, and law does not change with time. Gravity hasn't become obsolete since Newton "legislated" it in 1675. It is erroneous to assume that domestic violence was a kinder gentler kind of domestic violence in the 1700's than it is today, and so whatever prohibitions a state Constitution places on law enforcement and the courts regarding due process is obsolete today.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

reply to post by defcon5

Sure it does. For example, is it Constitutional for the city to be able to tell me that I cannot remove a 50 thousand foot tall oak tree, on my property, that is half dead, and causing severe damage, without paying them for permits to remove it? Would I have had to pay out that tax 200 years ago? 100? 50?

No, most likely not. Again, not knowing which state Constitution you speak of, I cannot speak intelligently to it, but having a fairly good idea what most state Constitutions enumerate in terms of unalienable and inviolate rights, what you have just described is not Constitutional. Does that mean your local government isn't legislating some kind of silly ordinance in spite of that Constitution. Nope, of course not. I would not be surprised at all to hear that this ordinance exists, and given the general ignorance people have of the law and the inexcusable apathy towards that law, I wouldn't be surprised this ordinance has been on the books for some time.

I will tell you what I do know. I live in Los Angeles and was a few years ago arrested for selling my private store bought DVD collection on a public sidewalk which apparently was in violation of 42(b) of the LAMC, which prohibits street vending. I challenged the jurisdiction, with the police, who at first were threatening to take me to jail, but after understanding how serious I was about my challenges of jurisdiction and my insistence they call the Sheriff's on this matter, they insisted they were not arresting me and practically begged me to sign the ticket they wanted to write me up for.

What I mean by practically begged me is that both police officers insisted that I would more than likely beat this in court based upon what they heard me say. I asked them why even bother to write the ticket up then, and they looked around the area sheepishly. It was clear that they merely wanted to create a sense of legality on the matter, and continued to argue that I wanted my day in court on this. I finally agreed to sign the ticket and take the matter to the courts.

In court I again challenged the jurisdiction, and asked the judge to strike the ordinance down. I relied on the State Constitution, and its Declaration of Rights. The judge refused to strike the ordinance down but had no problems in dismissing the charges against me. It took me less than 20 minutes to accomplish this. It was unfortunate that I could not convince the judge to use his authority to strike the ordinance down, and either he refused for fear of being overturned by a higher court, or worse because while he understood that I understood the law and had properly challenged jurisdiction and so the only legal recourse he had was to dismiss, he might of also understood that most people view the law much like you do, and it was in the best interest of city revenue to keep this unconstitutional ordinance on the book. Either way, the unconstitutional ordinance remains on the books, but I walked away unscathed, un-fined, and treated with the utmost of respect by the judge and the two officers who first began as jerks. The law set me free.

It is quite possible under the scenario that you presented that there are people, just like myself that have managed to get the city to back the hell off and leave them alone while poor hapless souls such as yourself acquiesce and ask the city for permission to do what is a right to do.

There are many such intrusions by the government that go well beyond the scope of what is allowed under the Constitution. What can you do about it though? Spend a few hundred to get the permit, or spend a thousand times that fighting courts up to the Supreme Court and all the environmental lobbyists along the way?

I just told you what you can do about it. What I told you doesn't require spending a thousand times a few hundred dollars and fighting up all the way up to the Supreme Court, all it takes is knowing the law you are all ready presumed to know. This, my friend, is your choice to make. Acquiesce and pay a few hundred dollars in support of tyranny, or do not acquiesce and spend a few hours of your time in court challenging jurisdiction to a bogus legislation. The choice is yours.

However, both the view and the understanding of things such domestic violence has certainly changed since then.

I doubt it, and I suspect that in the 1700's women were just as unwilling to press charges as you claim they are today. Of course, you are the one making the assertion, but merely offering an opinion to support this assertion, instead of offering any facts. Your opinion is appreciated, but you'll understand, I trust, if I give more credence to the facts.

Originally posted by Deebo

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by defcon5

 

It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.

A genuine crime requires a genuine victim. The police officers hands are not the genuine victim in this case, and all they can testify to is circumstantial evidence. They did not witness any crime, nor was any victim pressing any charges of a crime.

That said, this is not an issue of whether the police acted correctly or not, they acted, according to the O.P. as their watch commander order them to act. The issue here is that the O.P. plead guilty to a crime. Either the O.P. accepts the responsibility of that crime and the consequences of pleading guilty, or he doesn't. If the only issue with him is how does he pay the bill, then this is a simple matter of logistics, but it requires accepting responsibility for the consequences of his plea.

Your a jerk dude.. Sure if I was a repeat criminal I would know the system, but this was out of the blue. If you care to do some research and watch a few documentaries, you will see that 95%+ cases do not go to trial, for this very reason. You can talk # all you want. I just had a simple question and already got my asnwer way before you had to open your trash mouth.


Deebo

edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)

So let me get this straight, just because a poster tells you the truth you call him a jerk. Sorry but it seems that you are looking for someone to reaffirm a preconceived you had concerning this matter; doing this is not what a person who is looking for advice does.

Now to your situation. The officers should have made you leave the residence for a "cool-down" period. However, the fact that they did not opened them up to lawsuits had something happened to either one of you after they left; which more than likely is the reason for their (police) return. Now to probable cause. Having a gun is not a crime unless you picked it up an pointed at the officers (which is doubtful as you are still alive and typing), and why it was made into one; like was stated before we are not sure if this is the whole story and also I am not sure how domestic violence laws work where you are from. Back to probable cause. The officers, due to the fact they where coming in to arrest you presents probable cause not only for the collection of evidence but for the safety of all party involved to.

Why did you plead guilty, this only in the courts eyes affirms you committed the crimes you where accused of. However it is never to late to challenge the ruling. Better get a attorney who is experience in this area, and never stop fighting if you are truly innocent. Goo luck.

read this. it may help. Link

You got bi^ched slapped by the DA. Remember dude it is all about $ and convictions. The more they get the better they look. For some reason god knows why cops are called when a verbal altercation has taken place is beyond me. I have so many friends in the same boat you are in I am glad you posted your EX btw.

Originally posted by Deebo
I will Never do anything crazy,

and so it goes..........