Self-Defense to an Assault and Battery Charge

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Arkansas

My question is in regards to a self-defense case that occurred in Arkansas. I have been a licensed concealed carry holder for 14 years, and recently plead "no contest" to one count of aggravated assault. I have no other criminal record. I am 35 years old with a BA in English Literature and a Minor in Philosophy. Facts of the case: I suffer from a neurovascular disease commonly referred to as "migraine." I needed to get a refill of medication of Crestor and a beta-blocker called Toprol XL (for migraine prophylaxis). I stopped at a local family practice clinic on my way home from work, and provided the clinic with my medical records.

At this time, my right arm was in a support brace due to a dislocated ECU tendon, and I had just had an embolization splint removed by a hand surgeon approximately 9 days before. I also have 3 herniated discs in my c-spine at C5, C6, and C7 with a “right side cord compression”, which means the spinal cord is being compressed by the vertebrae on the right side. I was scheduled to undergo spinal epidural injections in 72 on the day this took place, in order to reduce the pressure on my spinal cord and improve function of my right arm, as well as reduce pain. This procedure is performed under anesthesia, and the patient is placed in an MRI machine so that the doctor will not damage the spinal cord. Needless to say, I am not exactly in the shape to be fighting anyone.

When the doctor entered the exam room, he began to berate me for a prescription in my medical records that was written for 10 narcotic pain pills, which were prescribed to me by my migraine specialist. The doctor stated that the medication was not appropriate for migraines, and that I needed depression medication. I told him that I was not there to discuss my migraine disease with him, but only to discuss a prescription for Crestor (for high cholesterol), and the blood pressure medication Toprol XL. The doctor continued to ask degrading questions, and stated, “I am not about to write a bunch of narcotics for headaches.” I again told him that I was not seeking narcotics and that I would trust the specialist over his advice.

We continued in this fashion for a few minutes, with him making inappropriate comments about migraine disease, that migraines were over treated and that I was most likely a drug seeker. As my wife is a doctor as well, he then stated, “How long has your wife been prescribing you narcotics?” I, of course, took umbrage at his assertions, and told him that not only had my wife never written me a prescription for anything, but that if she was to prescribe me narcotics, not only would she immediately lose her license and job, but that the pharmacist would never even fill the prescription. I asserted that he knew this, and that his comments were out of line. He then stated, “Well the only people I know that die from migraines are the idiots that go home and kill themselves”, and before I could respond he walked out of the room. Migraines and cluster headaches are colloquially referred to as “suicide headaches.”

I waited for the nurse to return with my medical records, and then I left the exam room, as I did not want any type of treatment from this “doctor.” As left the exam room, he was standing at the end of the hallway leading to the exit. I yelled out his name, and walked down the hall to the exit. I then stated, “Before I leave here, I wanted to tell you that the reason those people you call idiots, who are actually called patients, go home and kill themselves is because they are treated like criminals by doctors like you.” He responded by grabbing my left arm and squeezing until I yanked my arm away, and then he began to bump his chest against mine. He would continue to push and shove, and call me a “little punk” as I walked towards the security door leading to the lobby. He followed me through the security door, and then he followed me outside the front door of the clinic, into the parking lot, and to my vehicle. When he came outside, he used his right hand to sweep his white coat back, and reached behind his back as if reaching for a weapon.
I know this movement to be consistent with someone carrying a firearm in the small of their back, in what is termed an “inside the waistband holster.” He then threw down his stethoscope on the pavement and told me, “You better get the Hell out of here you little punk.” As I thought he was reaching for a firearm, I took cover behind my vehicle. At this time 3 nurses came out of the front door and began to tell the doctor to come inside, they pulled as his arms and coat, and stated “Dr. X, please come inside, it is not worth it.” As he redirected his attention to the nurses, and stepped back up onto the sidewalk of his clinic, I came out from behind my vehicle to try and get inside and leave. As I moved to my car door, he immediately turned toward me and ran at me, causing one of the nurses to try and stop him by jumping in front of him (facing him). He reached over the nurse, and grabbed me by the back of the neck. I immediately responded by drawing my firearm as I spun around towards my attacker, and shoved him with my left hand, and pointed the pistol in his face as I screamed, “GET BACK! GET BACK!”

He immediately started back-peddling, but as he had stepped off of the sidewalk, he ended up tripping over the sidewalk and falling down. I used this as my opportunity to get into my vehicle and I immediately drove away, while calling 911. I was the first person to call 911, and refused the dispatch request to return to the scene, as I explained to her that it did not make sense to return to a location where I had just drawn my gun to protect myself. I explained that I thought he was armed, and that it was not safe to return to the scene. I told her I was going home to disarm, and provided all of my contact information as well as my concealed carry license number, and license plate, make and model of my vehicle, etc.

I called a family member on my way home, and my uncle came over to my house to wait with me for police to arrive. After 1 hour I called the police again, as no officer had responded to my 911 call. Dispatch then told me that they had given my information to the responding officer, and that she would have him call me back. During the next four hours, I would call the police 2 more times, as I had no idea why no officer had responded. Finally, the responding officer called me, and explained that if either one of us wanted to file a criminal complaint, that we would need to come down to the station and file a report. I then contacted a criminal attorney, and he advised me to shut up and make no further statements to police.

Four days later, I was arrested at my home by half-a-dozen officers, who arrested me at gunpoint. I refused to answer any questions, and was remanded to the county jail where I was released by a bail bondsman in less than 1 hour. I was offered at total of 4 for plea deals, and I rejected all of them because I refused to plead guilty. Each time I rejected a plea deal, the prosecutor would respond by adding an additional charge. On the day of court, I was facing 1 count of aggravated assault against the doctor, another aggravated assault against the nurse who tried to intervene, and 1 count of terroristic threatening. All of these charges were a class D felony, with a maximum sentence of 6 years in jail, for a total possible exposure of 18 years in jail. I have a 16 month old daughter, and I am a dedicated father and husband. It was the most difficult decision I have ever had to make, but I again refused to plead guilty. The prosecutor responded by adding a firearm enhancement statute to my charges, which doubled my time for a possible exposure to 36 years in jail. We were a week out from trial when the Treyvon Martin case hit and every media outlet in existence was bleating and baying about the dangers of concealed carry. The night before court, I decided to plead guilty, as it was more important to me to be a father and husband than it was to have my civil rights. I spent several nights before court just standing in the corner of my daughter’s bedroom and watched her sleep in her crib.

However, on the morning of court, about 10 minutes before I was to appear before the judge, I could not sign the plea agreement in which I stated I was guilty. When I got to that question on the plea agreement that stated I was guilty, I froze, and refused to sign. I left my attorney and the prosecutor sitting at the table about 10 feet from the judge, and went and sat with my family in the gallery to await my fate. Neither my attorney nor the prosecutor was sure how to proceed, as neither one of them was prepared to argue the case at that time. However, it had been 12 months to the day since I was arrested, and they were a few hours away from violating my right to a speedy trial. They both walked into the hallway, and began a discussion. A few minutes later, my attorney called me into the hallway, and explained that the prosecutor would agree to a plea of no contest. Reluctantly I accepted the plea agreement as it was a small psychological satisfaction that I did not have to admit guilt. To this day, I have never admitted guilt, and I will go to my grave maintaining my innocence The judge, after asking the prosecutor to state the facts of the case, agreed to my plea, and I was sentenced to a 30 day curfew which was monitored via electronic bracelet, $1000 fine, and 5 years of probation.

After the trauma of the trial was over, I finally had my mind back, and I asked my attorney for the evidence file provided to him in discovery. I was astonished to find that when the investigating detective interviewed the witnesses (whom were all employees of the clinic), they were all sitting in a conference room, and could all hear each other’s account of the events. I also was shocked to find that the doctor’s wife, who was not even present on the day of the event and who was also the clinic manager, was allowed to sit in on all the interviews as an “observer.” At the end of each interview, the detective would turn to the doctor’s wife and state, “Mrs. X do you have anything to add?” To which she would respond with a curt, “No.”

I also discovered from reading the court reporter transcripts that several of the witnesses would contradict themselves during the interview. One of the nurses who was interviewed was asked by the detective, “Did you see the gun?” to which she responded, “No, I was looking through a crack in the front door.” He then asked her, “What color was the gun?” She responded by saying, “Well…I thought it was silver, but everyone else is saying it was black…so it was black.” The detective responded by saying, “OK”, and made no attempt to point out her contradictory statements, nor did he question why she would change her statement based on the testimony of other people. There are several other instances with all witnesses involved where similar statements were made, and then altered a few questions later, as their testimony changed as they discussed amongst themselves what happened. I have counted 14 times in the transcripts, where the court reporter wrote, “Unintelligible-many people speaking at once.”

The prosecutor never interviewed one witness or victim, nor was any effort made by the detective or prosecutor to find any exculpatory evidence that would mitigate my supposed guilt or reveal their testimony as false or contradictory. I asked my attorney if it was legal for the detective to allow the doctor’s wife to sit in on the interviews as this would obviously affect their statements, and whether it was legal for the detective to interview all the witnesses at the same time, in the same room, with all witnesses hearing the other’s version of events.

My attorney responded by saying, “Well, it is probably a violation of criminal procedure, but not technically illegal.” My attorney filed no motion to consolidate the charge of “terroristic threatening” even though to my understanding the terroristic threatening charge (which was added weeks after my initial charge) should be encompassed in the aggravated assault charge. He made no motion to dismiss the aggravated assault charge against the nurse who was responding to the same threat cue as me, and put herself in the middle of the conflict in the same instant I reacted to his attack. He filed no motion to have witnesses statements excluded as evidence due to blatantly obvious contradictions and changes in testimony based on the statements of others. He filed no pretrial motions of any sort that would exclude biased or untruthful testimony, and he told me that the fact the doctor’s wife was present during the interviews was of no merit.

My questions are the following: 1. Should the charges have been consolidated? 2. Should my attorney have filed a motion to dismiss the charge involving the nurse, as she was the one responsible for jumping in between the doctor and me, and since I was not facing the doctor, had no idea she was even behind me? 3. Should he have filed a motion to exclude the witness testimony based upon blatant contradictions, and the fact that the statements changed during the course of the interviews as people discussed what actually happened? 4. Is there any recourse my attorney should have pursued regarding the violation of criminal procedure during the interviews and the fact that they sought no exculpatory evidence in my defense.

I apologize for the long post, but this is the best way I know how to convey what happened. I humbly plead for any advice or counsel that could be provided in regards to this matter. I was a commercial real estate broker with a great career, a volunteer for BigBrothersBigSisters, and a decent citizen with no criminal record. Now I am a felon, with no credibility, no ability to hold a professional license, and no future prospects for a career. I had intended to go to law school next fall, but now I will never be able to be an attorney, as I will never be admitted to the bar with a violent felony. Who would hire a violent felon? I wouldn’t even hire me if I went by how this looks on paper.

I never, ever, threatened anyone. I did not lord over him with the weapon or attack him while he was on the ground, nor did I cop an attitude like I was 10 feet tall and bullet proof. As soon as I could get into my vehicle I got away from him as fast as I could. I was scared for my life, I was scared that he was going to make my spinal injuries worse, and I followed my training exactly as I have been trained in my required concealed carry class, in advanced concealed carry classes, shooting in competitions for International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA), and the experience I have acquired over the last 14 years carrying a firearm without incident.

I don’t understand why this happened or what else I could have done to prevent the altercation. I retreated as far as possible, was not the original aggressor, waited until the last second to draw my firearm, and was the first person to call 911 for help. I was in no condition to defend myself, and I had a reasonable belief that this person was armed as well. He either had a gun or wanted to scare me and make me think he had a gun. The problem is he succeeded in making me think he had a weapon, and that escalated my response in turn. To this day, I have no idea whether he had a weapon or not, although his wife did write on her blog about this the next day, and stated he did have a concealed carry license as well. She also wrote my full name, disclosed my private health information by asserting that I came to the clinic, and that I came specifically to get narcotics (she was not even there), she told people that I had a child, where I lived, that she “prayed that I don’t hurt my child or wife”, that I was a drug addict, etc. That post was viewed by over 4800 different people.

I keep having nightmares about this incident, and I go several days without sleep because I can’t sleep or I am afraid to go to sleep because of the horrible dreams. In my dream I am faster than him, just like in real life, and he pulls out his gun, but I land my shot first. He goes down, and I rush over the help him. I used to work as an EMT, and in my dream for some reason I have my EMT uniform on, and I have my scissors attached to my chest just like when I was working. I cut his shirt off, and apply pressure to the wound. I roll him on his side and check for an exit wound. I am screaming at the nurses to come and help me. I keep yelling over and over, “Help me! Please help me! I am not going to hurt you! He is going to die! PLEASE HELP HIM! You know what to do!”

But in my dream they do not come and help him. They stay hidden behind the corner of the building and watch. They won’t come and help him because they are afraid; they are afraid of me. And that is how I wake up; with my body and sheets soaked in sweat, in a panic, and heart racing. The dreams are so vivid I can smell the gun powder, and I can feel the warm blood on my hands as I try to help him. This last year has been the worst of my life, and I don’t know how to move on. I don’t know how to be a criminal, and when I go to my probation officer, I can barely talk without falling apart in tears.

I feel like I have lost everything, and I don’t know what to do, and as horrible as the dreams are, the real nightmare beings when I wake up.

hindsight is 20/20

You plead no contest. You chose to not fight the charges. It's over. Time to move on. You had the opportunity to review all of the documents your read after court before you plead. You didn't.


Honestly, it sounds like you are writing a book and looking for input. If your account is true, seek counseling. I suggest some EMDR sessions. Odd treatment and not accepted by all but it seems to work for some folks.

and since the wife is a doctor, I don't see you being destitute regardless what it has done to your career.

You created the escalation by acting belligerent. After you caused the situation to get out of control, you kept running your mouth, then drew a gun and try to claim self defense. Good luck with that.

I was only given the opportunity to review the evidence 4 days before trial, but I am not an attorney who knows the rules of evidence, criminal and police procedure, etc. I had to finally plea, as the chances of going to a jury trial were just too great and I didn't want to risk losing my family. You would have done the exact same thing if you were potentially facing 36 years in prison, and your fate was going to be decided by 12 people that have no understanding of self-defense, nor are they experienced in the legal profession in general. I don't believe for a second that you would have chanced a jury trial, knowing the ambiguity of juries and the potential biases involved. It is very easy for people to sit behind their keyboard and make statements like, "I would have never plead guilty if I was innocent", because in their detached reflection they have no stress and nothing to lose, and their armchair is very comfortable.

Unless you have actually been in this situation, you have no idea of the power a prosecuting attorney has to apply pressure and legally extort a plea of guilty. It is weighty beyond all measure, immovable, and infinite. I trusted my attorney to inform me, and repeatedly called him to schedule meetings to talk, and to try and understand what the evidence was against me. We had 3 meetings over the course of a year, and each lasted between 20 and 45 minutes. I was the one that asked him to make me aware of the evidence, he made no mention of it, and had I not asked him, I would have never received one piece of evidence.

He finally sent me an email with the statements attached, but he gave no insight as to whether the testimony was credible and made no mention of the contradictory statements of witnesses, until I kept calling him and questioning him if this was legal. And I posted his reply in my original thread, which was "It is probably a violation of police procedure, but not technically illegal." What does that even mean? Does that mean it is perfectly OK to violate police procedure? Does that mean that having a pow-wow to organize their testimony was ethical and just?

I was lead to believe that these statements were not admissible, and would have to go on what they said on the stand. He did not indicate that there was anything wrong with the investigation, but I believe there was a violation of police procedure. Do you really think his wife being present had no affect on their statements, especially since she was treated as an investigator or law enforcement herself? She was the clinic manager, and could have fired everyone of them, and they knew it. Do you think someone would risk their lively-hood, health insurance, income, retirement benefits, etc. by speaking ill of her husband while she glared at them?

Do you really think that the witnesses being interviewed together in the same room, at the same time, and changing their stories to match each other (which I would be glad to post with personal information redacted so that you all can see for yourselves what they say) was a proper and objective investigation?

It is only because of the research I have done after receiving the statements that I have come to believe there were serious errors made, and that there was no attempt by anyone involved to further pursue the exculpatory evidence that clearly existed. As I said, the prosecution did not even interview any of the witnesses or the supposed victim. This is exactly why Mike Nifong was disbarred in the Duke Lacrosse team case, among other violations he committed.

Writing a book? I don't understand where this comment is coming from, as I am only trying to learn whether or not what happened was indeed ethical and legal in regards to the way the investigation was handled. As not one person made any attempt to objectively investigate exculpatory evidence on my behalf, as it is their duty to do, all I had to go on was my word against the doctor and his staff. If you don't believe me, that is fine, but please do not impugn my integrity by making assumptions about me that are unfounded. You don't know me at all, and the least you could do if you are actually going to take the time to respond is give me the benefit of the doubt.

I have sought counseling, and I was diagnosed with PTSD. My doctor told me that this was very common for people who were involved in traumatic events. She told me that the dreams were very common to people and law enforcement that had been through a traumatic event such as this, and I am working very hard to put this behind me. I don't talk to my wife about it because she is already worried about me, and she knows what type of person I am, and has never doubted my story, especially after reading the statements. I don't sit around the house pining and feeling sorry for myself but I have continued to keep myself busy and try and provide some benefit to my community and family. Please understand that I have never been through anything like this before, and it is very difficult to be a felon at the age of 35, when I have had no criminal charges against me in my life, and I truly am innocent.

I don't see how my wife being a doctor has any bearing on this issue, nor do I understand why having money should make me any less likely to feel like an embarrassment, a criminal, and a worthless citizen. Are you suggesting that because my wife earns a decent income that I should be able to just swallow the fact that I was charged and convicted of a crime I did not commit? If someone offered you a million dollars to confess to a crime you did not commit would you take them up on that offer?

Whether or not I am destitute has no bearing on how I feel about my loss of credibility, my loss of civil rights, or whether people are going to consider me a lousy person for the rest of my life when they look at me on paper. Not one person I know has ever suggested I did anything wrong, and every member of my family and friends have stood behind me through this entire event. I have been trained by State Troopers, Federal Marshalls, former SWAT members, and I followed my training perfectly. I trained very hard because I wanted to be able to protect my family and fellow citizens should something tragic occur. I didn't want to make a mistake and shoot someone when it could have been avoided, nor did I want to make a mistake and have a stray bullet hurt an innocent civilian. It is because of my training that the doctor is alive. Had I been the person the prosecution was trying to portray I would have shot him or attacked him when he was down. I did nothing of the sort; I used the minimal amount of force I had available to me in order to stop the attack. I did not hurt anyone, nor would I ever hurt anyone if it could be avoided.


I don't think it is over, as even if I have no chance to have the case thrown out and get a new trial, I can always try for an expungement or a pardon. I have already had a year of probation removed from my record, and I only have to report once a year do to my low intake score. In Arkansas all people that are on parole or probation are given an extensive intake interview. They asked me questions about everything in my life, looked at my nonexistent criminal history, education, associates, volunteer work, etc. and out of a scale of 1-49, with 1 being the least likely to re-offend and 49 being the worst, I scored a 0. A score of 0 must be approved by the Director of Community Corrections as it has always meant that the intake officer left out some information on the computer. However, the director interviewed me as well, and he approved my score of 0. According to the director, I am the only person to ever have a legitimate score of 0 in the entire county in the 16 years he has been there.

Could you please, just for a minute assume the best of me, instead of automatically assuming the worst? I am only trying to understand and make sense of what to me seems nonsensical. I am asking for help, and I am a good person who does not deserve to be a criminal, nor do I deserve to have derogatory assertions thrust upon my integrity by someone who is sitting behind a keyboard and looking at this situation with a detached and indifferent reflection.

Quote:

---

You would have done the exact same thing if you were potentially facing 36 years in prison,

---

based on your explanation? I really don't think so. I would have done some things very differently but I do not see myself allowing another to see guilt where I know there is none.

Quote:

---

Could you please, just for a minute assume the best of me, instead of automatically assuming the worst?

---

I'm not doing either. The issue is moot so it does no good to lament of the "what ifs" and "should have, could have, would have's"

Quote:

---

I have sought counseling, and I was diagnosed with PTSD.

---

exactly what emdr is intended to treat.

Quote:

---

I don't see how my wife being a doctor has any bearing on this issue, nor do I understand why having money should make me any less likely to feel like an embarrassment, a criminal, and a worthless citizen.

---

It shouldn't but that is not why I mentioned it. Many people in your position do not have the benefit of being married to a person that is likely to have a very good income. That financial security allows you time to escape your situation and heal. Many people have to live with situations such as yours and still try to find jobs just so their family can eat. It is easier to heal if one is not reminded daily of their situation with things like "sorry but due to your criminal record..." You can actually drop out of life for a time without fear of starving. Take advantage of that.

Quote:

---

Unless you have actually been in this situation, you have no idea of the power a prosecuting attorney has to apply pressure and legally extort a plea of guilty.

---

not that situation but close enough to understand the situation. As well, I am not ignorant to the ways of our courts.

Quote:

---

"It is probably a violation of police procedure, but not technically illegal."

---

it means their boss might slap their hands but it doesn't change the impact in court.

Quote:

---

Please understand that I have never been through anything like this before,

---

I would expect not and I doubt you will ever go through anything like that again. I am sure once is enough.

Quote:

---

Do you really think that the witnesses being interviewed together in the same room, at the same time, and changing their stories to match each other (which I would be glad to post with personal information redacted so that you all can see for yourselves what they say) was a proper and objective investigation?

---

proper and objective? Proper and objective doesn't really matter. What matters is what was discovered and what and how a jury would see it and if it was legally admissible. As long as it was not illegal, the best your attorney could have done is suggest their renditions may be a collaboration of all of the witnesses stories and not individual observations. While the lawyer could have attacked that point if they were used as witnesses, it is not going to change the underlying facts. Realize, since the jury would probably have realized it anyway, that especially since all those witnesses work together, they quite likely discussed it at work anyway. It still doesn't change their testimony.

Quote:

---

I don't think it is over, as even if I have no chance to have the case thrown out and get a new trial, I can always try for an expungement or a pardon.

---

those are different issues and issues not asked about in your original post.

Quote:

---

As I said, the prosecution did not even interview any of the witnesses or the supposed victim.

---

and they felt they had enough evidence to prosecute you? WOW!! I just wonder what they were intending on presenting in court since the entire issue was based on victim and witness testimony.

how about you looking into ineffective counsel. That is more likely than anything presented so far, im my opinion. . It is very difficult to prove but I surely don't see you winning on attempting to overturn your plea on what you are asking about.

Quote:

---

Do you think someone would risk their lively-hood, health insurance, income, retirement benefits, etc. by speaking ill of her husband while she glared at them?

---

um, realizing that lying could eventually lead to them going to jail or being severely punished financially; yes, yes I do.

besides, if your lawyer believe it colored their testimony, he could have brought that up in trial and let the jury decide.

Quote:

---

Not one person I know has ever suggested I did anything wrong, and every member of my family and friends have stood behind me through this entire event. I have been trained by State Troopers, Federal Marshalls, former SWAT members, and I followed my training perfectly.

---

well, I disagree with every one of them and believe your training to be faulty.

Quote:

---

He reached over the nurse, and grabbed me by the back of the neck. I immediately responded by drawing my firearm as I spun around towards my attacker, and shoved him with my left hand, and pointed the pistol in his face as I screamed, “GET BACK! GET BACK!”

---

he had already not pulled a gun when you claim he started the motions to do so. How he escaped the nurses holding him back is a bit of a mystery but here you are with a nurse between you and the doctor with him grabbing you (both hands?) and you pull your gun, push the doc back (what happened to the nurse between the two of you), point your gun at a man that, at this point, is grabbing for you and tell him to back off. (again, what happened to the nurse between the two of you?)

Of course when the nurses were holding him back, for some reason you did not get into your car and attempt to leave. Maybe the anger you were expressing back in the office when you decided to yell at the doctor and confront him rather than just leave as you started to, kept you from getting into your car when you had the chance. At that point, remember, you believed he may have a weapon, one he had not unholstered, yet.

Quote:

---

As soon as I could get into my vehicle I got away from him as fast as I could.

---

So, how did you get from "I had the gun in his face with the other hand pushing him back", to; I got into my vehicle as soon as I could?

If you pulled your gun in the belief he had a weapon, I really would like to see how you holstered your weapon and got into the car with that belief still in your head. or did you hold him at bay with your weapon drawn as you got into your car, all the while pointing your weapon at him in case he pulled that gun you thought he might have, and drove away, most likely in reverse so you could continue to keep him in view and in a position you could fire on him if he drew that weapon you thought he had.

The huge problem I see is that, as a defensive device, you waited way too long to pull your gun. You claim you believed he was going to pull a weapon when he reached behind his back. That is when you pull your weapon to defend. You do not wait until he gets close enough to touch you. That is a great way to get your weapon taken away from you and used against you. Again, poor training.

I got to say, after reading this tale, written in your own words, I believe you are a substance abuser who in the pursuit of obtaining the substances you abuse while armed exercised extraordinary bad judgement resulting in felonious criminal behavior.

Get yourself some help for your addiction problems and move on.

Quote:

---

Quoting Insons Insontis

---

I had to finally plea

---

Didn't HAVE to. CHOSE to.

Quote:

---

as the chances of going to a jury trial were just too great

---

And you successfully avoided the jury trial. So that part of the choice worked out exactly as you wanted it to. The downside is that such avoidance also means that the trial process stopped dead in its tracks. No motions to suppress (no need to suppress anything if there isn't going to be a jury trial . No examination and cross of witnesses who might have supported your version (no jurors involved to hear it). None of that. Pleading "no contest" moves the case right to sentencing.

Quote:

---

and I didn't want to risk losing my family.

---

Which appears to have also been successful. Doesn't appear that you've lost your family. Doesn't mean there aren't tradeoffs, however.

Quote:

---

You would have done the exact same thing if you were potentially facing 36 years in prison, and your fate was going to be decided by 12 people that have no understanding of self-defense, nor are they experienced in the legal profession in general.

---

Maybe. Maybe not. But I would understand that making a plea isn't the equivalent of making everything go away. Pleading is a form of admission of guilt, whether you want to recognize it as such or not, or play with the technicality of your plea having the word "guilty" in it or not. You accepted the plea to the agreed charges.

Quote:

---

I don't believe for a second that you would have chanced a jury trial, knowing the ambiguity of juries and the potential biases involved. It is very easy for people to sit behind their keyboard and make statements like, "I would have never plead guilty if I was innocent", because in their detached reflection they have no stress and nothing to lose, and their armchair is very comfortable.

---

Neither you nor we are in a position to guess about that. That what you have an attorney for - to have an objective third party, who knows the local climate, the sentencing propencities of the judge, and a working relationship with the prosecutor. A good portion of what you're paying for isn't just the attorney's black and white knowledge of statutory law, but also for the experience - which can be just as valuable.

Quote:

---

I am only trying to learn whether or not what happened was ndeed ethical and legal in regards to the way the investigation was handled.

---

The reality being that it doesn't MATTER - it ceased to matter the moment you accepted the plea, instead of challenging all of the things above in court. That's what the trial is FOR. Waiving trial in favor of a plea means "I'm not going to fight it". It doesn't mean "I'm not going to fight it because they are right". But it does mean that you don't get to challenge it later if things were wrong. Had you gone to trial and gotten an unfavorable outcome, you may have had grounds to appeal. But that's not the choice that was made. Circumstances under which you might be able to appeal after entering a plea are very slim, and the clock ticks fast. If you're to have any chance at appeal, get off the internet, stop arguing with strangers who aren't going to tell you what you want to hear, and retain a highly experienced appellate attorney IMMEDIATELY. If you miss the window for appeal, then even if you are 100% correct in your assessment of the situation (which you're not, but just for the sake of argument), it's over forever.

Quote:

---

As not one person made any attempt to objectively investigate exculpatory evidence on my behalf, as it is their duty to do, all I had to go on was my word against the doctor and his staff. If you don't believe me, that is fine, but please do not impugn my integrity by making assumptions about me that are unfounded. You don't know me at all, and the least you could do if you are actually going to take the time to respond is give me the benefit of the doubt.

---

Benefit of the doubt isn't an issue. Doesn't need to be. YOU PLED TO THE CHARGES.

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting that because my wife earns a decent income that I should be able to just swallow the fact that I was charged and convicted of a crime I did not commit?

---

Not at all. But you PLED to the charge. You're not understanding what that means. You TOLD the court that you committed whatever charges were included in the plea agreement. Your words are on the public record as essentially saying "I did it."

Quote:

---

If someone offered you a million dollars to confess to a crime you did not commit would you take them up on that offer?

---

What I would do, or anyone else would do would depend on their own personal circumstances. Today, no I wouldn't make that choice. At times in the past, I might have. At some time in the future, my evaluation might differ and the million might be worth it. Your circumstances only apply to you, and the circumstances you were facing at the time. Similarly, you may have made a different decision had you not been married, had been close to retirement, had more or less to loose, etc. (There was a study done several years ago which hinted that persons involved in long term relationships tended to plead more often than single people - which might suggest that single people are more "aggressive" about pursuing their cases, as they don't have the "baggage" of a family to suffer if they loose. Just interesting.)

Quote:

---

It is because of my training that the doctor is alive. Had I been the person the prosecution was trying to portray I would have shot him or attacked him when he was down. I did nothing of the sort; I used the minimal amount of force I had available to me in order to stop the attack. I did not hurt anyone, nor would I ever hurt anyone if it could be avoided.

---

All good. That means that all the state could go after you for was the assault (the threat), and not for something much more serious like agg battery (had there actually been shots), or God forbid, attempted or actual homicide. Keeping those bullets in the firearm served you well. As hard as things are now, the PTSD would be much worse if you had to play the visual of your bullet striking the doc in slow motion over and over. Even seasoned military and law enforcement officers, when fully justified to do so, suffer when they are forced to kill.

Quote:

---

I don't think it is over, as even if I have no chance to have the case thrown out and get a new trial,

---

No NEW trial, because there never WAS a trial. That's the whole problem.

Quote:

---

I can always try for an expungement or a pardon.

---

Yes. After a pardon, it can be expunged, such that you can say it never happened.

Quote:

---

I have already had a year of probation removed from my record, and I only have to report once a year do to my low intake score.

---

That's not too surprising. You've got no criminal history, are stable within the community, and don't appear to have a single one of the common criminal risk factors.

Quote:

---

Could you please, just for a minute assume the best of me, instead of automatically assuming the worst?

---

While it may feel that way to you, no one's assuming the worst. We can only work with what we have, and what we have is a plea. That says nothing about you as a person, a man, a husband or father or son, or employee, or homeowner, or basketball coach, or any other aspect of your life. All it says something about is your criminal history, so what we have to work with is a criminal history that came to be not because you were found guilty by a jury of your peers, or even by a judge in a bench trial, but because you stood before the court, heard the charges read, and chose not to contest them - the legal reality of which is equivalent to accepting guilt. We can opine for you on what to expect from or how to interpret actions of the court - because even with the highest degree of empathy one or more of us may have, and even if we agreed with you 100% on every point, what matters is the LEGAL, not the emotional, reality of your case. That reality is that with a plea, your options are now extremely limited, to either getting an experienced attorney to evaluate if any chance for appeal is possible, or waiting out the time until you can apply for pardon, and ultimately expungement (obviously a much longer process).

Quote:

---

I am only trying to understand and make sense of what to me seems nonsensical. I am asking for help, and I am a good person who does not deserve to be a criminal, nor do I deserve to have derogatory assertions thrust upon my integrity by someone who is sitting behind a keyboard and looking at this situation with a detached and indifferent reflection.

---

No one's disputing your character. But neither does our, or anyone else's, opinion of that character alter that a plea was entered - any more than me being a night person makes the night last longer or the sun come up in the west. It's all simply irrelevent to the matter at hand, which is the entering of the plea. Focus your energy on what you can CHANGE, which is the future, via appeal or addressing the criminal record as you already outlined. You only have finite emotional energy. Spend it wisely, and "forward".

Quote:

---

It is because of my training that the doctor is alive. Had I been the person the prosecution was trying to portray I would have shot him or attacked him when he was down. I did nothing of the sort; I used the minimal amount of force I had available to me in order to stop the attack. I did not hurt anyone, nor would I ever hurt anyone if it could be avoided.

---

wow, due to the verbosity of the OP I missed this.

No, it had nothing to do with your training. In fact, one could suggest that because of your training you were carrying a gun where without the training, you would not have and this would not be an issue.

The reason the doctor is alive is because you did not pull the trigger. That and that alone is the only reason the doctor is alive.

As I stated before, I believe your training was faulty and as a result, you got a lot closer to a dead doctor than it should have. A person that is angry and finally pulls their weapon to actually demand a person let loose of them and move away really is not trained properly. It should have never gotten to that point either because your were calm enough to diffuse the situation without pulling your weapon or used your weapon appropriately and stopped the attack before it got to the point that you were in a position where the doctor could have attempted to disarm you.

Quote:

---

It shouldn't but that is not why I mentioned it. Many people in your position do not have the benefit of being married to a person that is likely to have a very good income. That financial security allows you time to escape your situation and heal. Many people have to live with situations such as yours and still try to find jobs just so their family can eat. It is easier to heal if one is not reminded daily of their situation with things like "sorry but due to your criminal record..." You can actually drop out of life for a time without fear of starving. Take advantage of that.

---

I understand that I have advantages of many people in that regard due to income, but at the moment I am trying to fix what is broken, not what is already working properly. I have dropped out of life for the last year, and while I can certainly continue to do so, as my wife does not care if I work or not, I do not want to "drop out of life", I would very much like to live it. I have had a job since I was 14 years old, and I like to work. I don't feel right sitting at home and letting her work her butt off while I mow the grass 3 times a week. I want to be able to go to law school as I originally intended, but I put that on hold because it got to the point my wife was walking in the door as I was walking out, which doesn't make for a fun time or happy marriage.

Quote:

---

it means their boss might slap their hands but it doesn't change the impact in court.

---

Thank you. That is about what I thought it meant, but I didn't know if the police would face any sanctions or if that would exclude blatantly false and contradictory statements.

Quote:

---

and they felt they had enough evidence to prosecute you? WOW!! I just wonder what they were intending on presenting in court since the entire issue was based on victim and witness testimony.

---

The prosecution relied on the "investigation" conducted by the detective, who made no effort to challenge the contradictions in the witnesses testimony or the fact that they change their story as other people in the room try and correct each person's statements. I thought it was the duty of the prosecutor as well as the detective to explore any exculpatory evidence that would mitigate my supposed guilt.

Quote:

---

how about you looking into ineffective counsel. That is more likely than anything presented so far, im my opinion. . It is very difficult to prove but I surely don't see you winning on attempting to overturn your plea on what you are asking about.

---

Thank you. I am already in the process of doing this now. To my understanding, I cannot appeal a plea agreement, nor did I ever think that was the case.

Quote:

---

um, realizing that lying could eventually lead to them going to jail or being severely punished financially; yes, yes I do.

---

I don't think they had any fear of this because they had a very long time to collaborate and exchange stories about what they saw before the detective even arrived for the interviews. This is my point about interviewing the witness together in the same room. Had the detective interviewed them individually, I think this would have been a more pressing factor in their given statements, as they would have no idea what the other witnesses would say. As they were all in the same room, they were very confident that their statements would be consistent with all other parties.

Quote:

---

well, I disagree with every one of them and believe your training to be faulty.

---

That's fine, and I have no doubt in your detached reflection you imagine yourself doing everything perfectly. Unfortunately, I did not get to sip on a latte and think for 30 minutes about how to react. I reacted to the threat in the way I was trained, and because of that I did not respond out of anger, nor did I draw my weapon until it was absolutely necessary. I didn't accidentally shoot him, nor did I draw the weapon prematurely. I also know of a few firearms instructors a Front Sight Firearm Training Institute that would disagree with your assertions. Everyone has an opinion on what the person involved in a self-defense encounter should have done, as they are certain they will never find themselves in that situation or if it does happen to them, they will rise to the occasion and perform like they are in a Steven Seagal movie. I had seconds to decide what to do, and those decisions were changing as quickly as the events progressed. There is no black and white response to being attacked, no matter how many times you say it.

Quote:

---

he had already not pulled a gun when you claim he started the motions to do so. How he escaped the nurses holding him back is a bit of a mystery but here you are with a nurse between you and the doctor with him grabbing you (both hands?) and you pull your gun, push the doc back (what happened to the nurse between the two of you), point your gun at a man that, at this point, is grabbing for you and tell him to back off. (again, what happened to the nurse between the two of you?)

---

He stopped the motion of the draw as I took cover, and as the nurses began to yell out his name to stop and come inside. The nurses never "held him back", but made a couple of ineffective tugs on his coat and mainly just yelled at him "to come inside, it is not worth it." The nurse that tried to step in between him and me never got completely in front of him, as my car was parked next to another vehicle and she could not get in front of him completely, but did have her right arm around his waste at the same instant I turned to defend myself. As I spun around with the gun she hit the deck in front of the car that was beside my vehicle.

Quote:

---

Of course when the nurses were holding him back, for some reason you did not get into your car and attempt to leave. Maybe the anger you were expressing back in the office when you decided to yell at the doctor and confront him rather than just leave as you started to, kept you from getting into your car when you had the chance. At that point, remember, you believed he may have a weapon, one he had not unholstered, yet.

---

The nurses were not holding him back, they were trying to get him to come inside. However, since he is a half-foot taller than me, and outweighed me by 30 pounds or more, I don't think the 3 of them would have had any effect of stopping him even if they had a harness attached to his crotch. When he started for the draw, the proper action is NOT to stand in the line of fire and try and outdraw him. The proper action is to get off the X and take cover. The objective is not to shoot the other person as much as it is to not get shot. Taking cover was the best option, and while I was behind my vehicle I worked my hand into my pocket for my Ruger LCP .380 and had it ready to draw within a second. I was watching him through the back glass of my suburban, and he never cleared leather. Had he done so, I would have been in a better position to fire at him from cover while he was out in the open.

Quote:

---

So, how did you get from "I had the gun in his face with the other hand pushing him back", to; I got into my vehicle as soon as I could?

If you pulled your gun in the belief he had a weapon, I really would like to see how you holstered your weapon and got into the car with that belief still in your head. or did you hold him at bay with your weapon drawn as you got into your car, all the while pointing your weapon at him in case he pulled that gun you thought he might have, and drove away, most likely in reverse so you could continue to keep him in view and in a position you could fire on him if he drew that weapon you thought he had.

The huge problem I see is that, as a defensive device, you waited way too long to pull your gun. You claim you believed he was going to pull a weapon when he reached behind his back. That is when you pull your weapon to defend. You do not wait until he gets close enough to touch you. That is a great way to get your weapon taken away from you and used against you. Again, poor training.

---

As he walked back up on the sidewalk, approximately 15 feet away from my car door, he turned his attention to the nurses. This is when I made my attempt to get into my car. However, as soon as I made it to my car door his attention returned to me and he closed the distance very quickly. You are correct that when I spun around and pushed him back I kept my weapon trained on him as I entered my vehicle, and I kept it on him as I was prepared to shoot through my windshield should he decide to draw his gun. I backed out of the parking lot, into the street, and into the parking lot across the street. This is when I put my vehicle in drive and drove down the length of the parking lot across the street to the furthest exit, and floored it out of the danger zone.

No. You don't stand there and pull your gun when someone goes for theirs, you take cover. As he did not finish the draw, I did not want to escalate it further by drawing my firearm thus guaranteeing a gun fight. My weapon was secured in my hand inside my pocket, and should he have decided to attack, I had the weapon readily available to use in my defense. Yes, I am very familiar with weapon retention and the ability to take a weapon away from someone if needed. He never had a chance to take the weapon as I created as much distance as possible with the shove and drawing of the firearm simultaneously. In one movement that took less than a second he was on his back and I had enough time to enter my vehicle. My response was perfect. I waited until it was absolutely necessary to draw my firearm, and I did not have to fire a shot. I was able to get away without getting shot or having to shoot. Perfect. Yes, he was close to me, but if I had followed your logic and drawn my weapon while I was behind my vehicle, as soon as he saw it he would have responded by going for his weapon, which would have resulted in a dead doctor. My training did not fail me, the justice system did.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

No, it had nothing to do with your training. In fact, one could suggest that because of your training you were carrying a gun where without the training, you would not have and this would not be an issue.

---

Wrong, as had it not been for my gun he would have pummeled me, as I was in no shape to use any real effective hand-to-hand combat techniques. Remember, I had limited use of my right arm, and had I tried to defend myself against a bigger assailant who was not injured, and I had only one hand to strike with, I very likely could have lost and had my spinal cord compressed even further or he would have been losing the fight and drawn his gun and shot me.

Quote:

---

The reason the doctor is alive is because you did not pull the trigger. That and that alone is the only reason the doctor is alive.

---

Correct, and thank you for making my point.

Quote:

---

As I stated before, I believe your training was faulty and as a result, you got a lot closer to a dead doctor than it should have. A person that is angry and finally pulls their weapon to actually demand a person let loose of them and move away really is not trained properly. It should have never gotten to that point either because your were calm enough to diffuse the situation without pulling your weapon or used your weapon appropriately and stopped the attack before it got to the point that you were in a position where the doctor could have attempted to disarm you.

---

There was no diffusing the situation, as he was irate, and often at times unintelligible as he screamed at me. I did my best to diffuse the situation by retreating as far as possible, not drawing the firearm prematurely, and leaving as soon as I was capable of doing so safely. I did not pull the gun and demand he let go, I made him let go by delivering a swift and effective shove to his face with my palm just under his chin. It was the gun that kept him away after the shove, and after he got up off the ground. Again, you can try and pick this apart for eternity, but circumstances are not ever like they are portrayed in the textbook. In my opinion, my response was the best I could do with the circumstance I was given. It would have been great if he was 30 feet way, I agree, but he wasn't, and I can't just draw a gun on the man because he is walking towards me. He never had a chance to disarm me as the fight was over before he knew what happened.

argue what you want. You made a lot of mistakes and your idea of what one should do is erroneous.

Quote:

---

My response was perfect

---

Not even close.

You do realize that if he actually had a weapon and intended on using it, he had a lot of chances to do so where you were not in a position to escape or defend yourself. He didn't pull a weapon because he probably didn't have one.

Quote:

---

You are correct that when I spun around and pushed him back I kept my weapon trained on him as I entered my vehicle, and I kept it on him as I was prepared to shoot through my windshield should he decide to draw his gun.

---

Ah, the old "don't move while I am getting into my car or I'll shoot routine". Sounds like an old James Bond movie playing out. Did you roll down your window and hold it outside the car when you closed the door too?

and shooting through your windshield with a .380?? You got me chuckling on that one. Have you ever shot a windshield with a .380, especially a pocket gun? Try it sometime. Just watch out for the ricochet.

Quote:

---

My weapon was secured in my hand inside my pocket, and should he have decided to attack,

---

Yep, I've seen a guy trying to get his hand with his weapon out of his pocket. Kind of humorous. You want to think you were going to quickdraw out of your pocket? sure.

Quote:

---

He never had a chance to take the weapon as I created as much distance as possible with the shove and drawing of the firearm simultaneously

---

Really? If you could reach him, he could reach you plus remember, he is a half foot taller. If he had any self defense training, your movement was perfect to allow him to take the weapon from you especially since you had it one handed.

Quote:

---

No. You don't stand there and pull your gun when someone goes for theirs, you take cover.

---

Um, no. You go for cover WHILE you are withdrawing your weapon. Ya see, if you believed he had a weapon, your biggest failure was failing to draw yours in that exchange. Once you determine a person has a weapon that you believe they are going to use, you NEVER allow them the situation to draw it without you already having your weapon drawn. That mistake WOULD have cost you your life if he actually had a weapon and intended on using it.

Quote:

---

Correct, and thank you for making my point.

---

that wasn't a pat on the back. It was a simple statement refuting your claim that the reason the doctor is alive is because of your training. Not pulling the trigger is the only thing you did right that day.

Quote:

---

I agree, but he wasn't, and I can't just draw a gun on the man because he is walking towards me.

---

and drawing a weapon. Remember, you believed he was attempting to draw a weapon.