Things to Not Do

She is a convicted felon, and she lost her gun rights for her lifetime. Her guilty plea guaranteed a loss not eh civil side. Most people would not take that choice lightly.
All of which would have still been the case had she fought the case and lost. Pleading guilty saved her some money though.
 
That's the problem. You can't draw just because someone gets too close, but then they have the advantage if they want to attack.
The victim is always behind the power curve in an encounter with a criminal. They get to decide when and how it goes down. Your job is to limit your exposure by remaining vigilant and being prepared.
 
Interesting comment, but not relevant.
TN carry permits required classroom training and range evaluation. The training that I attended and that I observed had an outline of points that had to be covered, BUT the trainers added to those talking points and there was required Q&A. I saw on more than one occasion the question about how do you tell if you're being approached as a pretense for an assault point to distractions about phone, lighters, directions questions that seemed out of place (bar+lighter=OK, parking lot+lighter = not OK). If the woman was in one of those classes where that came up and only remembered the "parking lot + lighter=not OK" and her emotions overruled the admonition that vigilance and preparation should be increased, but personal control be maintained, she could have failed in the moment.

Let's also point out that when you feel threatened, everything can be perceived to be more immediate and occurring quicker than those around you "catching up" on what's occurring do. Your perception of threat can be very different from the other people around you because of that shifting of time others aren't experiencing. How many times have you been in an accident and said or heard "It happened so fast" or "it was like slow motion"? Part of that may be that accidents don't always happen in slow motion, but part of it may be the acceleration of perceived time so that the events seem to occur at a slower rate than an objective observer. The time between the warning and the perception that the possible threat wasn't reacting appropriately can lead to a reaction based on perceived non-compliance. Good incident/accident investigations I've participated in have to account for reaction times subjectively altered by individuals and their "It happened so fast" or "It seemed to take forever".
 
By pleading guilty, she avoided the risk of a prison sentence and a large fine.
I believe many people would prioritize not going to prison over maintaining firearm rights. One would have to have a serious conversation with their lawyer about their chances in a trial.
 
As opposed to an admission of guilt. A plea, to manage your risk, isn't by default an admission of guilt. It is an acknowledgement that the risk isn't acceptable to fight the charges.
I believe that a plea of nolo contendere, rather than one of guilty, provides more clarity on that point.
 
I believe that a plea of nolo contendere, rather than one of guilty, provides more clarity on that point.
Depending upon her attorney, she may not have been advised to no contest the charge or her attorney may have said she'd get something for a plea that she wouldn't get with the no contest. Since WE will never know, there's no way to determine what she was told or was thinking regardless of the pros and cons of imagined options.
 
As opposed to an admission of guilt. A plea, to manage your risk, isn't by default an admission of guilt. It is an acknowledgement that the risk isn't acceptable to fight the charges.
In the eyes of the law it's the same as a confession. A guilty plea is a court finding of guilt. In most states you forfeit your right to appeal by pleading guilty. Here in Illinois before the judge accepts the plea the judge warns the defendant about all of the repercussions of pleading guilty before accepting the plea.

We can tell ourselves all kinds of stories about how we aren't really guilty when pleading guilty in a plea deal to avoid trial but that's just talk. Legally you are as guilty of crime you plead to as if you stood up and admitted you did the crime in open court. A guilty plea to mitigate risk at trial is still a guilty plea.
 
I believe that a plea of nolo contendere, rather than one of guilty, provides more clarity on that point.
From my understanding a no contest plea is simply a deal that you're not going to contest the charges. You're not admitting guilt or denying the charges. So the court finds you guilty. You're still just as guilty either way. You'd probably have to show you were coerced or duped into submitting that plea to get an appeal- that's why the judge has to verify you're doing this of your own free will and understand what you're doing.

My understanding is it helps in civil court. A guilty plea could be introduced as evidence- you admitted guilt, you admitted responsibility. The no contest plea can't be used as evidence against you in civil court.
 
Back
Top