Careful, there are some nuts out there ...
 

Man pleads guilty to shooting at cyclist

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ASHEVILLE
A former North Carolina firefighter pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill after shooting at a man riding a bicycle with his wife and 4-year-old son because he was concerned for the child's safety.

The Asheville Citizen-Times reports that 42-year-old Charles Alexander Diez was sentenced Thursday to 120 days in jail. Diez shot at cyclist Alan Ray Simons after stopping his car to confront Simons about the safety of riding his bike on a busy road with his child on the back.

Police say that when Simons turned to walk away, Diez fired at his bike helmet, narrowly missing his skull.

Diez served with the Asheville Fire Department for 17 years.

Let me get this straight....he shot the guy in the back of the head and was sentenced to a mere 120 DAYS?

Will there ever be real justice?

I agree. That's just plain nuts!

The guy sounds like a nutcase to me. He shoots a dad riding with his kid because he thinks it unsafe for them to ride on the streets. That makes zero sense. Maybe that's why he is a "former" firefighter.

Forget Diez.....the real crime was committed by the judge. "Assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill" involving a CHILD and he gets 4 MONTHS!!!!???? There are guys serving longer time for falling behind in their support payments!!!

"Diez shot at cyclist Alan Ray Simons after stopping his car to confront Simons about the safety of riding his bike on a busy road with his child on the back."

Yes, it's much safer to do this with someone SHOOTING at you!

Plea bargain. Prosecutor must have had a lot of trouble making that case... the facts are never as simple as they seem.

Unfortunately, while this is still on the light side of the sentencing guidelines, it's well within those outlined for this crime. He was given 15-27 months, with all but four suspended. The guidelines are 20-39 months. As pointed out in a column in the Asheville Citizen-Times today, some other guy in Asheville was just sentenced to a minimum of 175 months for selling LSD. The sentencing guidelines for crimes these days are just way out of whack.

Prosecutor should have held out for more time. Otherwise take him to trial. Even if you lose, you don't have the sorry spectacle of a guy GUILTY of assault with a deadly weapon WITH THE INTENT TO KILL serving misdemenor time.

Not that simple at all... If the prosecutor holds out and loses, say hello to public outcry and people like you posting on the internet about how idiot prosecutors should be fired because they're bad at their jobs, etc.

As you'll see above, the court saw fit to suspend part of the guy's sentence. I imagine there were real proof problems with the state's case.

That's mind bogglingly craptacular.

You have no basis for assuming that I would second guess the prosecutor and condemn him for losing. By YOUR logic, every bad decision to accept a plea is because their were "proof problems with the case." Haven't you ever heard of prosecutors with political ambitions accepting pleas on winnable cases because they want a "perfect conviction record" to tout when they run for office. If you haven't, I suggest you read more. In any case, given the lack of evidence afforded to we posters, my assumption is just as valid as yours. Unless you have court documents on this case not available to the rest of us.

You second-guessed him already for winning, so I actually have plenty of basis.

And in fact, decisions to plead down to less strict sentences are in fact because the prosecutor has a problem proving her case. If she had an airtight case, she'd go to trial.

Prosecutors accept pleas on winnable cases so they can run for office? What are you smoking? If the case is winnable, the prosecutor goes and wins it. If the case has problems, she settles it. Would you care to point me to what I should "read more" of? Or is this more unsubstantiated speculation?

Just to clarify, your "assumption," which is supposedly just as valid as mine, is that the prosecutor gave the guy a light sentence instead of trying a slam-dunk case because he wanted to "win" and run for office?

I'd like to see those types to lose their 2nd amendment rights and their driver's license for an extended period.

Doubt he'd lose his license as it wasn't actually a driving offense, but the gun ownership part is taken care of: the offender is now a convicted felon and so can't possess a firearm or ammunition. He could have his rights restored eventually, however.

This is "winning" in much the same sense as scraping by in school with a D is "passing."

Just saying.

A D is passing, and putting a violent and dangerous man in jail for some amount of time as opposed to wasting time and money to have him acquitted at trial is winning. Law and Order is a fictional TV show, and "sure things" never are sure, especially as diagnosed on the internet.

If there are problems with a case, only a fool would think he's making some sort of principled stand by taking it to trial and getting creamed. Make a deal and get it over with.

"If she had an airtight case, she'd go to trial."

NO case is airtight. ALL trials are risks because juries are unpredictable. This is a basic fact of the system which apparently you don't consider.



"If the case is winnable, the prosecutor goes and wins it."

Right. No prosecutor has EVER lost a "winnable" case. Tell that to the OJ Prosecutors!BTW Almost ALL cases are "winnable," provided the legal talent is good enough.


"You second-guessed him already for winning, so I actually have plenty of basis."

No I CRITICIZED him for taking a tiny plea for a serious crime. That is not 2nd guessing. It would be 2nd guessing if I criticized him for losing. Which I have stated I WOULDN'T do.

Prosecutors accept pleas on winnable cases so they can run for office? What are you smoking? If the case is winnable, the prosecutor goes and wins it. If the case has problems, she settles it. Would you care to point me to what I should "read more" of?

You are deliberately distorting what I said. I said it's POSSIBLE the prosecutor did this, as in " haven't you ever heard of this?" Where did I say they always do this? You are resorting to trying to twist what I said because you can't counter it. And what you should READ is your local paper. There ARE prosecutors who soft pedal pleas and DO get called to account. Now in this particular case you may have a DA's office that is too ready to "make a deal." Unless you have concrete EVIDENCE this is not the case I can state this is POSSIBLE, just like you ASSUME the prosecutor had an unwinnable case. And BTW using personal attacks ("What are you smoking") are the invariable earmark of someone who fears he is losing. Do you think calling a debating opponent "ugly" is a valid argument?

Which is exactly why I said a smart prosecutor would offer a deal in the first place. What are you even arguing about?

Criticizing for taking a plea is not second-guessing, criticizing for losing a case is second-guessing. I'll admit, I can't follow your logic. I'd disagree with you, but I haven't a clue how to actually do that at this point. You said the prosecutor should have pushed for more time. That seems an awful lot like second-guessing to me. That said, if you really want to dither about whether "second-guessing" and "criticizing" mean the same thing, you can have a semantics debate with someone else.

Prove it. Post a link where a prosecutor gave out light sentences because of political ambitions. Any link.

"Prove it. Post a link where a prosecutor gave out light sentences because of political ambitions. Any link."

So you think that no prosecutor anywhere, anytime, realized that he was not good enough to win a case, or would not take a chance on messing up a perfect record for political reasons. NEVER??? I am sure that it has happened at least a FEW times and I could look up and find such a case. I have read of a few times this has been alleged over the years. But I'm NOT going to do it! Why should I bother when you didn't bother to answer most of MY points. Besides you would then say its "just one case". And then insist I find others. First, "PROVE", the DA had an
"unwinnable case"! I asked FIRST!

You told me to read more when you first started arguing at me. Please show me things to read. Otherwise how am I to believe the rest of your argument? I appreciate your attempt to attack my level of reading, but I'd really like you to back up your claim, which I'll quote here:

So, I'd like you to point me to a case of a prosecutor pleading down "winnable" cases because of "political ambitions." You imply this is so common that I can find it in my local paper, but I don't see it there.

As far as "proving" the DA had an "unwinnable" case... the prosecutor made a deal and plead the case down. There you go. Why else would that happen? And why do you insist on being so angry? It's entirely unnecessary.

I said in a general way to be aware of things in your local community. I'm not going to waste my time finding this stuff for you to read. Answer this. DO you honestly think that at NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD did a prosecutor offer a deal because he was lazy, ambitious, or incompetant? ...... And here I thought that they were human beings just like us. Nope, they are ALL perfect! Now argue that you know of ONE lawyer that is perfect. Just ONE!

So you can't back up your point. Works for me.

Keep deflecting all you want; if you don't care to support your claims I don't see why I would owe you the same courtesy.

"You told me to read more when you first started arguing at me."

See you can't get ANY facts straight. I didn't argue at you, YOU criticized my post first. If you DOUBT that, scroll BACK!Plea bargain.

" Prosecutor must have had a lot of trouble making that case... the facts are never as simple as they seem." Remember THIS?

Will you allow me to prove my points by claiming they're true and providing no evidence? If so, I'd love to continue this "debate." Otherwise I have no interest in further engaging with someone who refuses to focus or even discuss things rationally. "Nuh uh!" and "Yuh huh!" as a debate discourse isn't really that interesting to me.