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.
 
Statistically, the violent crime rates have gone down since the 90s.

Everybody is on edge nowadays and I think because violence is being caught on camera more often and shown in the news more often.
I think the decrease in published violent crime rates is because given the types of prosecutors in the major crime centers most are never prosecuted, so the crimes disappear. Not to mention the police making fewer arrests because why bother when they know nothing will happen to the BG.
 
Yeah, the decrease in reported rates is illusory and misleading, and a lot of that has resulted from relaxed enforcement.
 
I think the decrease in published violent crime rates is because given the types of prosecutors in the major crime centers most are never prosecuted, so the crimes disappear. Not to mention the police making fewer arrests because why bother when they know nothing will happen to the BG.

It's very difficult to say what the real numbers are. In my area alot of the violent crime has gone down because for my demographic it was generational. The guys who fought all the time are old men now and the kids smoke alot of weed and get into mischief but not alot of real violence. Mental health calls are what is skyrocketing but there generally isn't violence towards anyone but themselves with those calls.

It may be different in your area
 
A Tennessee schoolteacher friend says vandalism on “Senior Prank Day“ was much greater than in the news, possibly millions in damage and loss, But proud pictures have identified many of the vandals and those over 18 are facing felony charges.
The students… and non students are typical trash, but Tennessee seems less complacent.
 
Yeah, the decrease in reported rates is illusory and misleading, and a lot of that has resulted from relaxed enforcement.
So you think people stopped reporting violent crimes? Or police stopped taking reports? What exactly is the basis for saying you think the statistics are wrong other than your gut tells you that?
 
So you think people stopped reporting violent crimes? Or police stopped taking reports? What exactly is the basis for saying you think the statistics are wrong other than your gut tells you that?
I think the police response time is so long that by the time they get there to the criminals gone and there's no arrest.

This happened right before I retired and I've talked about it before but I was on my way to work one night and there was a guy standing in the middle of the road swinging whatever later found out was a trailer hitch at my car.

I called 911. I reported the incident. I proceeded on my way to work. Once I got to work I started doing my rounds and the third place I got to the same guy was sitting on the steps outside the business.

I call the police immediately and they heard him I'm sure on my phone daring me to shoot him.

The police showed up while I was on the phone and the guy took off. They found him a half hour later sitting at a bus stop a mile or two south of where I had called them the second time. The cop that called me to let me know did everything he possibly could to get me not to press charges.

They made it clear enough to me that they were not going to arrest the guy that I went ahead and told them to give him an official trespass notice and went on with my night.

There's a violent offender arrest that never made it into the statistics or if it did it made it into the statistics as misdemeanor trespass
 
What exactly is the basis for saying you think the statistics are wrong other than your gut tells you that?
I will tell you why the statistics are wrong and have always been wrong:

1. There is no legal requirement for an agency to send input to the FBI UCR.

2. There is no audit or other verification that the data reported is correct. It’s an honor system.

3. Politicians have been caught altering data submitted to make their city or county look better.

Crime statistics are like any other statistic the government collects.

Then there is the fact that the media doesn’t report every incident and most CAD (computer assisted dispatch) programs have a Not for News field that can be checked and that incident won’t be released on the blotter report to the media. Yes, there are valid reasons to mark incidents Not for News but it can also be used to create the impression that things are better than they really are.

One of the first things I discovered when I started in LE was how much went on even in a small town that the public wasn’t aware of.
 
I think the police response time is so long that by the time they get there to the criminals gone and there's no arrest.

This happened right before I retired and I've talked about it before but I was on my way to work one night and there was a guy standing in the middle of the road swinging whatever later found out was a trailer hitch at my car.

I called 911. I reported the incident. I proceeded on my way to work. Once I got to work I started doing my rounds and the third place I got to the same guy was sitting on the steps outside the business.

I call the police immediately and they heard him I'm sure on my phone daring me to shoot him.

The police showed up while I was on the phone and the guy took off. They found him a half hour later sitting at a bus stop a mile or two south of where I had called them the second time. The cop that called me to let me know did everything he possibly could to get me not to press charges.

They made it clear enough to me that they were not going to arrest the guy that I went ahead and told them to give him an official trespass notice and went on with my night.

There's a violent offender arrest that never made it into the statistics or if it did it made it into the statistics as misdemeanor trespass

So this just started happening today? I know of two unreported violent felonies in New Orleans 10 years ago. The first of which I reported and the second I had seen enough of New Orleans I didn't even bother.
 
I will tell you why the statistics are wrong and have always been wrong:

1. There is no legal requirement for an agency to send input to the FBI UCR.

2. There is no audit or other verification that the data reported is correct. It’s an honor system.

3. Politicians have been caught altering data submitted to make their city or county look better.

Crime statistics are like any other statistic the government collects.

Then there is the fact that the media doesn’t report every incident and most CAD (computer assisted dispatch) programs have a Not for News field that can be checked and that incident won’t be released on the blotter report to the media. Yes, there are valid reasons to mark incidents Not for News but it can also be used to create the impression that things are better than they really are.

One of the first things I discovered when I started in LE was how much went on even in a small town that the public wasn’t aware of.
I know there's a certain percentage of crime that goes unreported. Has the percentage of unreported crime increased that much? If violent crime has increased since the 90s despite the overwhelming statistics that it has declined, the NRA has some explaining to do. They've been telling everyone that crime has gone down despite relaxing carry laws over the country.
 
Has the percentage of unreported crime increased that much?
I suspect that in many large urban areas the percentage of unreported crime has greatly increased in the last couple of years because crime since 2020 has become a hotbed political issue.
If violent crime has increased since the 90s despite the overwhelming statistics that it has declined, the NRA has some explaining to do. They've been telling everyone that crime has gone down despite relaxing carry laws over the country.
The NRA and other 2d Amendment lobbying organizations are political organizations and have just as much of a motive to fudge the statistics as the other side does. We just accept them because of confirmation bias. They reinforce what we believe to be true, so it must be.

That’s not always the case. If you look at the details of John Lott’s original research you will find instances where the person reporting a successful defensive gun use didn’t even see an assailant, they heard something they though might have been an attempted break in, armed themselves and didn’t hear the noise again.

I’ve always questioned the statistics around how concealed and open carry laws reduced crime because not that many people actually carry. We didn’t have concealed carry here when I was working so I can’t say how the local criminal element reacted to it. I can say that we had very few burglaries of occupied dwellings because the burglars didn’t want to get shot.
 
I will tell you why the statistics are wrong and have always been wrong:

1. There is no legal requirement for an agency to send input to the FBI UCR.

2. There is no audit or other verification that the data reported is correct. It’s an honor system.

3. Politicians have been caught altering data submitted to make their city or county look better.

Crime statistics are like any other statistic the government collects.

Then there is the fact that the media doesn’t report every incident and most CAD (computer assisted dispatch) programs have a Not for News field that can be checked and that incident won’t be released on the blotter report to the media. Yes, there are valid reasons to mark incidents Not for News but it can also be used to create the impression that things are better than they really are.

One of the first things I discovered when I started in LE was how much went on even in a small town that the public wasn’t aware of.
Yep.

Also, anyone believe the official inflation and unemployment statistics?

Trust, but verify. Verify an awful lot.
 
In 2014 I watched a man kill another man with a baseball bat. It was self defense, and was instigated by the dead man's girlfriend. It wasn't reported by the press, it was just another hot night in the hood. The dead guy was dumped in a field 300 miles away. Lots of things happen that normal citizens don't know about. If you know you know.
 
In 2014 I watched a man kill another man with a baseball bat. It was self defense, and was instigated by the dead man's girlfriend. It wasn't reported by the press, it was just another hot night in the hood. The dead guy was dumped in a field 300 miles away. Lots of things happen that normal citizens don't know about. If you know you know.
So, are you telling us that you watched somebody commit a murderer and didn't bother to report it?
 
Back
Top