Simple assault on an officer

[Jcmcd81]

Thank you all very much for your assistance

 

[Just Blue]

I'm also not an attorney and didn't know that. Hence why I'm on here in the first place.

One doesn't need to be an attorney to know better than posting someone else's criminal issues on the net. Your buddy should only talk to his attorney.

 

[quincy]

Thank you all very much for your assistance

We appreciate the thanks, Jcmcd81.

Your friend's attorney will work with him to try to get the assault charge reduced or dismissed.

 

[Jcmcd81]

In a forum on legal matters no less. You're right. I should have known better. Silly me.

 

[Jcmcd81]

We appreciate the thanks, Jcmcd81.

Your friend's attorney will work with him to try to get the assault charge reduced or dismissed.

Thank you very much

 

[quincy]

In a forum on legal matters no less. You're right. I should have known better. Silly me.

There is nothing wrong with asking legal questions on a legal forum. That is the purpose of this forum.

We only warn against posting too much personal identifying information. We also don't want posters to compromise an active case.

I do not see that anything you wrote is a problem.

I suggest you pass on to the gentleman that he needs an attorney. What he has been charged with is not a minor offense.

 

[Just Blue]

There is nothing wrong with asking legal questions on a legal forum. That is the purpose of this forum.

We only warn against posting too much personal identifying information. We also don't want posters to compromise an active case.

I do not see that anything you wrote is a problem.

I suggest you pass on to the gentleman that he needs an attorney. What he has been charged with is not a minor offense.

If this was the defendant in the situation posting about his own case ...fine. Foolish but fine. This OP has LEGALLY nothing to do with the case. It's wrong for him to blap on the net. IMO.

 

[quincy]

If this was the defendant in the situation posting about his own case ...fine. Foolish but fine. This OP has LEGALLY nothing to do with the case. It's wrong for him to blap on the net. IMO.

I don't agree. I think people are naturally curious about what can happen or has happened to the people they know. I see nothing wrong with filling in some blanks in their knowledge.

Wanting to become more educated on the law is a positive.

As long as a question does not violate the written terms of service, and as long as no personal information is disclosed and no case is compromised in the asking of a question, I think any question on this forum can be answered.

With few exceptions, I think placing restrictions on who can ask legal questions and who cannot seems a little silly to me.

You, of course, are free to not answer any question whose posting you object to (for whatever reason).

 

[LdiJ]

I don't agree. I think people are naturally curious about what can happen or has happened to the people they know. I see nothing wrong with filling in some blanks in their knowledge.

Wanting to become more educated on the law is a positive.

As long as a question does not violate the written terms of service, and as long as no personal information is disclosed and no case is compromised in the asking of a question, I think any question on this forum can be answered.

With few exceptions, I think placing restrictions on who can ask legal questions and who cannot seems a little silly to me.

You, of course, are free to not answer any question whose posting you object to (for whatever reason).

I agree wholeheartedly with this entire post.

 

[CdwJava]

Since the OP was not present at the time of the incident, and is being held without bond, I suspect there is more to the tale that the OP either does not know or has not revealed here. A guy coming out of a drunken stupor and flailing his arms is NOT at all likely to be charged with a felonious assault on a peace officer and held without bond. There must be more to this tale (and, perhaps, the defendant's criminal history), or, it is a serious case of overcharging and a prosecutor and court that is going along with it.

 

[cbg]

I agree wholeheartedly with this entire post.

So do I.

And since the quote in the quote didn't post, here is what L and I are agreeing with -

I don't agree. I think people are naturally curious about what can happen or has happened to the people they know. I see nothing wrong with filling in some blanks in their knowledge.

Wanting to become more educated on the law is a positive.

As long as a question does not violate the written terms of service, and as long as no personal information is disclosed and no case is compromised in the asking of a question, I think any question on this forum can be answered.

With few exceptions, I think placing restrictions on who can ask legal questions and who cannot seems a little silly to me.

You, of course, are free to not answer any question whose posting you object to (for whatever reason).

 

[quincy]

Since the OP was not present at the time of the incident, and is being held without bond, I suspect there is more to the tale that the OP either does not know or has not revealed here. A guy coming out of a drunken stupor and flailing his arms is NOT at all likely to be charged with a felonious assault on a peace officer and held without bond. There must be more to this tale (and, perhaps, the defendant's criminal history), or, it is a serious case of overcharging and a prosecutor and court that is going along with it.

I agree that there appears to be far more to the story.

All that seems clear from the facts provided is that the one being held without bond needs a criminal defense attorney.