Another Guy Discharging a Firearm in Carmel

[LPMan59]

Hey guys, I honestly appreciate all the positive comments I've gotten from my story. I'm currently in Chicago, so I haven't been on in a few days. I'll be back to address any comments/questions when I get back home.

enjoy being able to carry there, ya jerk!

 

[Pocketman]

Not an exact analogy. but the Boston Massacre wasn't really a "massacre." It wasn't a popular duty for John Adams to defend the involved British Soldiers, but it was the right thing to do.

You'll never convince me that LS's situation was a good use of taxpayer resources but I don't believe that was T. Lex's decision. The prosecutor (city attorney) made a choice and T. Lex was given the task of carrying it out.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not an exact analogy. but the Boston Massacre wasn't really a "massacre." It wasn't a popular duty for John Adams to defend the involved British Soldiers, but it was the right thing to do.

You'll never convince me that LS's situation was a good use of taxpayer resources but I don't believe that was T. Lex's decision. The prosecutor (city attorney) made a choice and T. Lex was given the task of carrying it out.

^^This.

 

[critter592]

Admit it Kutnupe you've given us all a real story. What really happened was he came out the front door and kept repeating "am I free to go?"

 

[exelh]

If more cops handled situations with this attitude, there wouldn't be such a general dislike of cops. Well done.

 

[Fargo]

Not an exact analogy. but the Boston Massacre wasn't really a "massacre." It wasn't a popular duty for John Adams to defend the involved British Soldiers, but it was the right thing to do.

You'll never convince me that LS's situation was a good use of taxpayer resources but I don't believe that was T. Lex's decision. The prosecutor (city attorney) made a choice and T. Lex was given the task of carrying it out.

For the umpteenth time, it is NOT morally, legally, and ethically the same to prosecute an innocent person versus defending a guilty person...

Prosecutor's have higher duties as ministers of justice. The relationship between them and their "client" is not the same as that of a private attorney and client.

If more prosecutors kept that in mind, perhaps the public would have a different perception of them.

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yup, prosecutors can always take their ball and go home. In fact, it is mandatory that sometimes they do.

 

[Hotdoger]

I just didn't think you agreed with me on that.

Look folks, my personal honor and integrity is intact. .

A lawyer wants us to believe that? ROFLOL!!!!!!!!

Continue to pat yourself on the back for such a well done job for the citizens of Carmel.


It is so amusing.

 

[Pilot]

T. Lex, that is the problem here. You think the State was justified in charging him, most people here do not.

Many people, including people who violate the law, do not "agree" that there is any wrong when they are in front of a court. Many people have a mentality that if there is no victim there is no crime.

I personally do not agree with the seat belt law. It puts no one but me in danger. Do I purposely refrain from wearing my seat belt just to prove a point to the police? No! I don't want to pay fines! It really makes no difference if you agree with a law or ordinance. You are still subject to that law even if you disagree with it.

Just like I have a job to fly from point A to point B because it is my job, he had a job to prosecute a case that the state felt they had. He can't tell his boss NO anymore than the rest of us can. Is he such a bad guy for doing his job because certain people believe that lawyers are dishonest?

Several people on here talk high and mighty and are quick to damn someone based on his/her job title. That is just plain ignorant.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Many people, including people who violate the law, do not "agree" that there is any wrong when they are in front of a court. Many people have a mentality that if there is no victim there is no crime.

I personally do not agree with the seat belt law. It puts no one but me in danger. Do I purposely refrain from wearing my seat belt just to prove a point to the police? No! I don't want to pay fines! It really makes no difference if you agree with a law or ordinance. You are still subject to that law even if you disagree with it.

Just like I have a job to fly from point A to point B because it is my job, he had a job to prosecute a case that the state felt they had. He can't tell his boss NO anymore than the rest of us can. Is he such a bad guy for doing his job because certain people believe that lawyers are dishonest?

Several people on here talk high and mighty and are quick to damn someone based on his job title. That is just plain ignorant.

His job title had nothing to do with it. He felt the state was right in doing what they did, had nothing to do with what he had to do. If he had had the discretion left up to him, he gave the impression he would have gave the order to prosecute this person. That is where the issue occurs. His willingness to prosecute someone that violated an ordinance of the city/county even though it appears the person in violation was justified in his actions.

 

[Pilot]

His job title had nothing to do with it. He felt the state was right in doing what they did, had nothing to do with what he had to do. If he had had the discretion left up to him, he gave the impression he would have gave the order to prosecute this person. That is where the issue occurs. His willingness to prosecute someone that violated an ordinance of the city/county even though it appears the person in violation was justified in his actions.

But as a prosecutor, he gets to make that choice! That is his job! It doesn't matter who agrees and who doesn't! He gets to make the choice, not us!

And my job title comment was directed at those who make general statements about police officers and lawyers. They act like the majority are scum and out to take our rights from us. And those comments have been made in multiple threads.

If people don't like that, then they should go to law school and change the legal system.

 

[Bunnykid68]

But as a prosecutor, he gets to make that choice! That is his job! It doesn't matter who agrees and who doesn't! He gets to make the choice, not us!

If people don't like that, then they should go to law school and change the legal system.

Therein lies the problem. Would be nice if we could get a dozen or so other prosecutors to weigh in on the initial charge as written and see if they would have went forward with the case based on available information.

 

[Pilot]

Therein lies the problem. Would be nice if we could get a dozen or so other prosecutors to weigh in on the initial charge as written and see if they would have went forward with the case based on available information.

But that is not how the legal system works in the US. He prosecutes cases in the name of the state with the states permission.

The system, like most other systems, has flaws. If people want to change the flaws, then they should do so in the proper manor.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Prosecutors have the option of looking at a case based on its merits and making a determination of proceeding, that is why I said it would be nice to have some other prosecutors opinions. Also, do not forget juries have the ability to nullify law if they do not agree with it regardless of what the state wants or what the judge wants.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Another thought. Should the State really be prosecuting people that have injured nothing or no one just to keep the courts full and to make people feel better?

 

[Pilot]

Prosecutors have the option of looking at a case based on its merits and making a determination of proceeding, that is why I said it would be nice to have some other prosecutors opinions. Also, do not forget juries have the ability to nullify law if they do not agree with it regardless of what the state wants or what the judge wants.

Don't people get the option to have a jury trial? Is that not a right if you choose that option?

Why was there not a jury trial?

 

[Pilot]

Another thought. Should the State really be prosecuting people that have injured nothing or no one just to keep the courts full and to make people feel better?

Again, just because there isn't a victim doesn't mean there wasn't a crime; at least that is how the legal system sees it. Right back to the seat belt analogy.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Don't people get the option to have a jury trial? Is that not a right if you choose that option?

Why was there not a jury trial?

I believe the judge tossed it because he felt the guy did the right thing.

 

[Pilot]

I believe the judge tossed it because he felt the guy did the right thing.

Then the legal system worked!

 

[! twitty]

That is am awesome story. I love it when a cop actually takes the effort to understand both parties point of view and talk the situation over instead of jumping to conclusions immediately.