Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Congrats, Dan - very glad to hear it. I hope you're on a roll, and the rest of this stuff will go the same way.

[

@GT: Use your head.

You might want to take your own advice Dan...that in its self would have helped in MANY of your encounters.

According to you, a long-established judge is risking her career to spare me a record.

No. I never said that. You must be replying to someone elses post.

Think about it.

Again...good advice for yourself.

I think we are slpitting hairs here...sematics.

I posted a link from "law.com" that clearly indicates a judge will find a defendent guilty from a no contest plea, however, it would appear, that in Ohio "duty bound" is not a clear cut guarentee that he/she MUST follow that dictate (subjective), thus, as we have seen, in rare caes, a judge can enter a not guilty plea to a defendents no contest plea.

However, I think we will all agree, that it is very very rare.

Take care.

Hey GT a simple I was wrong would do.

I am surprised by the amount of bad info that gets passed around because people are willing to spend hours perusing and responding in a forum but will not spend 3 minutes with a search engine (I feel the same way about hoax e-mails all one needs to do is check http://www.snopes.com/ to avoid passing on bad info) .

Raph84 wrote:Hey GT a simple I was wrong would do.

What was I wrong about?

GasTurbine wrote:
What was I wrong about?

GasTurbine wrote:Under Ohio law, a plea of "No Contest" is an admission of guilt, and the court/judge is "duty bound" to enter a guilty verdict

I guess you missed it, I posted this a few posts back (just before jeff's post).

"Although rare, judges are permitted to find for the person entering the no contest plea."

citation

I guess you missed it, I posted this a few posts back (just before jeff's post).

And I guess Im still missing it.

You didnt post anything to indicate I was "wrong" about anything. Judges in Ohio are indeed "duty bound" to find a defendant guilty from a no contest plea...which is true, and thats what I posted.

I never said there wasnt any "gray area" in interpeting to what extent "duty bound" means. It is obvious that "duty bound" is a subjective term.

Take care.

Gasturbine said:

Judges in Ohio are indeed "duty bound" to find a defendant guilty from a no contest plea...which is true, and thats what I posted.

I, for one, and Dan, for another one, are glad that the judges that we faced did not read your interpretation of Ohio law. As was stated before, No Contendre, or No Contest, means you are admitting to the facts as presented. The judge essentially has a mini trial inside his or her head and passes judgement and, if necessary, punishment.

Hmmm, what happened to that Troll-B-Gone spray...?

GasTurbine wrote: And I guess Im still missing it.

You didnt post anything to indicate I was "wrong" about anything. Judges in Ohio are indeed "duty bound" to find a defendant guilty from a no contest plea...which is true, and thats what I posted.

I never said there wasnt any "gray area" in interpeting to what extent "duty bound" means. It is obvious that "duty bound" is a subjective term.

Take care.

Would you like to argue what the meaning of "is" is? Words mean certain things. Here is a definition of the word you chose to use.

duty-bound - Obliged: obliged, obligated - caused by law or conscience to follow a certain course

When dealing with a judge it is clear you are saying he is bound by law to give a particular ruling. You are wrong in that, just admitt it. You obviously take great pleasure showing others how wrong others are when they say something that isn't 100% on the mark, so live up to your standards for other people and admitt you were incorrect.

I've really gotten weary of this "no contest" banter. How's this:

ORC § 2937.07. Action on pleas of "guilty" and "no contest" in misdemeanor cases.

A plea to a misdemeanor offense of "no contest" or words of similar import shall constitute a stipulation that the judge or magistrate may make a finding of guilty or not guilty from the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.

...sounds to me like a judge is duty bound to . . . (*GASP!*) judge. Can we drop the freakin' subject now?

NavyChief wrote:

A plea to a misdemeanor offense of "no contest" or

Ah, ha! A loophole! It was a traffic offense, not a misdemeanor. Hence, the judge "Must" find the defendant guilty as sin!

Just funnin' you. Dropping the subject.

Congrats, Dan. It's refreshing to find judges that can judge, just like the one I had in Wooster 24 years ago.

WARNING THREAD HIJACK

Javelin Man

Nice car man...

GasTurbine wrote:

I guess you missed it, I posted this a few posts back (just before jeff's post).

And I guess Im still missing it.

You didnt post anything to indicate I was "wrong" about anything.

You chimed in with all your no contest inaccuracies after a judge in Ohio entered a not guilty finding in response to a no contest plea. I think the existence of something is proof that it can exist. Yet in the face of proof, you suggested it could not happen. Meanwhile, you refuse to comment on the subject without saying "duty bound", but when anybody disproves your theory (still after the fact of it existing to prove it can), you revert to THEY must be splitting hairs, semantics, etc.

Oh, and at the risk of a Mod "taking sides," there is that pesky ORC snippet I posted a little bit ago...