Got a reply from Knoxnews.com

[QuietDan]

I'm thinking that we're all missing a MAJOR point here, and I would sure like one of the lawyers that post here to chime in:

Quote:

". . . the charges/arrests were expunged . . . "

Definition of expungement:

ex·punge

   [ik-spuhnj] Show IPA

verb (used with object), -punged, -pung·ing. 1. to strike or blot out; erase; obliterate.

2. to efface; wipe out or destroy.

Therefore:

The charges, under the law, didn't happen. They don't exist. They were struck out. They were blotted out. They were erased. They were obliterated. They were effaced. They were wiped out. They were destroyed.

And futhermore:

I'm thinking, in a finer point of law, that to argue otherwise is to disrespect and hold in contempt the ruling of a Judge. I'm thinking that, if the individual who has EARNED an expungement were to speak to the issue, it would exist again, and all the legal protections he has UNDER THE LAW, could be jeopardized. I'm thinking that this is an issue to accept, and to drop. The Lord only knows who among us might need the protection of a Court of Law and a Judge on a similar point at some time in the future.

[kb4ns]

If we're getting technical, I believe that only a conviction can be "expunged". I've seen a lot of people petition the courts for expungement - not one would I say has "earned" anything. They're merely begging the courts to take a screw-up off of their record.

[TMF]

Wow, I missed something apparently.

[Guest pfries]

Well for all I know his email was hacked, traced to him and he gets the heat. Very easy to do, I do not have all the facts nor do I wish for all the facts I am not a judge nor on a jury. I have and will continue to base my assessment of Wyatt on his posts and performance here. He has admitted he was young and foolish in his early years as was I. Many of the things I did and put myself through have made who and what I am today.

Am I proud of some of what I did? No.

Would I change these things? No.

I like who I am and who I have become, I enjoy not being thin skinned and being able to think for myself. I rather like being a strong individual that can form his own opinion of people based on who they are and what they do now, not on the road that led them to this point in their life.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I'm thinking, in a finer point of law, that to argue otherwise is to disrespect and hold in contempt the ruling of a Judge. I'm thinking that, if the individual who has EARNED an expungement were to speak to the issue, it would exist again, and all the legal protections he has UNDER THE LAW, could be jeopardized. I'm thinking that this is an issue to accept, and to drop. The Lord only knows who among us might need the protection of a Court of Law and a Judge on a similar point at some time in the future.

it's taken me a great deal of restraint not to respond to some of the comments on here. But for me this is one of the things that i need to find out about before I can make any form of statement regarding my side of the legal issue I was involved with.

So, I will hold my status quo of I'm not going to confirm nor deny anything for the time being. I want to ensure that saying anything won't have any far reaching, long term implications that could jeopardize my future criminally, civilly, or in terms of employment.

I know I signed quite a bit of paperwork in Nov 2010. I need to ensure I didn't sign anything that says I'm not allowed to discuss the proceedings. Out of all the paperwork, I only received a copy of the final status of the disposition of the charges. Then in May, I received copies of my expungements.

So I will discuss this with my attorney. That's the best i can offer at this point. If he says it's not a good idea and it's best to keep my mouth shut, I'm taking that advice, and that will be that. If I lose some respect of the members here because of it, so be it. I'll just have to work hard until I earn it back.

If we're getting technical, I believe that only a conviction can be "expunged". I've seen a lot of people petition the courts for expungement - not one would I say has "earned" anything. They're merely begging the courts to take a screw-up off of their record.

§ 40-32-101. Destruction or release of records.

Tennessee Statutes

Title 40. Criminal Procedure

Chapter 32. Destruction of Records Upon Dismissal or Acquittal

Current through 2010 Legislative Session

§ 40-32-101. Destruction or release of records

(a) (1) (A) All public records of a person who has been charged with a misdemeanor or a felony shall, upon petition by that person to the court having jurisdiction in the previous action, be removed and destroyed without cost to the person, if:

(i) The charge has been dismissed;

(ii) A no true bill was returned by a grand jury; or

(iii) [Deleted by 2010 amendment.]

(iv) The person was arrested and released without being charged.

( A person applying for the expunction of records because the charge or warrant was dismissed in any court as a result of the successful completion of a pretrial diversion program pursuant to §§ 40-15-102 - 40-15-107 , shall be charged the appropriate court clerk's fee pursuant to § 8-21-401 for destroying such records.

© A person applying to a court after October 1, 1998, for the expunction of the persons records following the successful completion of a judicial diversion program authorized by § 40-35-313 shall be charged a fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). The fee shall be transmitted and used in the manner set out in § 40-35-313(d)(2) .

(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions (a)(1)( and ©, the records of a person who successfully completes a pretrial diversion program pursuant to §§ 40-15-102 - 40-15-107 , or a judicial diversion program pursuant to § 40-35-313 , shall not be expunged pursuant to this section, if the offense for which the person was diverted was a sexual offense as defined by § 40-39-202 , or a violent sexual offense as defined by § 40-39-202 .

(E) A person shall not be entitled to the expunction of such person's records in a particular case if the person is convicted of any offense or charge, including a lesser included offense or charge.

(F) Upon a verdict of not guilty being returned, whether by a judge following a bench trial or by a jury, on all charges for which the defendant was accused, the judge shall inquire of the person acquitted whether such person requests that all public records associated with the charges for which such person was acquitted be removed and destroyed without cost to the person and without the requirement that the person petition for destruction of such records. If the person requests that the public records related to such charges be removed and destroyed, the court shall so order. If the person acquitted does not request that such records be destroyed at the time the judge inquires pursuant to this subdivision (a)(1)(F), but subsequently requests that such records be destroyed, the person shall be required to follow the petition procedure set out in this section.

(2) All public records of a person required to post bond under § 38-3-109 or § 38-4-106 [repealed] shall be removed and destroyed as required by this chapter upon the expiration of any bond required, if no surety on the bond is required to fulfill the obligations of the bond.

(3) Upon petition by a defendant in the court that entered a nolle prosequi in the defendant's case, the court shall order all public records expunged.

(4) For purposes of this section, "court" includes any court exercising juvenile jurisdiction.

(5) All public records concerning an order of protection authorized by title 36, chapter 3, part 6, which was successfully defended and denied by the court following a hearing conducted pursuant to § 36-3-605 , shall, upon petition by that person to the court denying the order, be removed and destroyed without cost to the person.

( (1) "Public records," for the purpose of expunction only, does not include arrest histories, investigative reports, intelligence information of law enforcement agencies, or files of district attorneys general that are maintained as confidential records for law enforcement purposes and are not open for inspection by members of the public and shall also not include records of the department of children's services or department of human services that are confidential under state or federal law and that are required to be maintained by state or federal law for audit or other purposes. Whenever an order of expunction issues under this section directed to the department of children's services or department of human services, the department shall notify the defendant if there are records required to be maintained as directed above and the basis therefor. The department shall delete identifying information in these records whenever permitted by state or federal law. These records are to be expunged whenever their maintenance is no longer required by state or federal law.

(2) "Public records", for the purpose of expunction only, does not include appellate court records or appellate court opinions.

© (1) Release of confidential records or information contained therein other than to law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes shall be a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) This section shall not be construed to deny access to any record to the comptroller of the treasury or the comptroller of the treasury's agent for purposes of audit investigation; the comptroller of the treasury or the comptroller of the treasury's agent having this access shall protect the confidential nature of the records that are not otherwise public under other statutes.

(3) Release of arrest histories of a defendant or potential witness in a criminal proceeding to an attorney of record in the proceeding shall be made to the attorney upon request.

(d) (1) Any court ordering the expunction of a person's public records of a criminal offense, including orders issued as a result of the successful completion of a diversion program pursuant to §§ 40-15-105 and 40-15-106 or judicial diversion program, shall send or cause to be sent a copy of the expunction order to the Tennessee bureau of investigation for entry into its expunged offender and pretrial diversion database. The order shall contain the name of the person seeking expunction, the person's date of birth and social security number, the offense that was dismissed, the date and cause of the dismissal and the date the order of expunction is entered.

(2) After April 25, 2000, a defendant petitioning a court for expunction of records because the charge against the person was dismissed as a result of the successful completion of a diversion program pursuant to §§ 40-15-102 - 40-15-106 shall be assessed a fifty dollar ($50.00) fee. The fifty dollar ($50.00) fee shall not apply to any case where there has been an acquittal, nolle prosequi, or dismissal for failure to prosecute or where the law does not require a copy of the expunction order be sent to the Tennessee bureau of investigation. The fee shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the state treasurer for deposit in a special fund to be used by the Tennessee bureau of investigation for the exclusive purpose of establishing and maintaining the expunged criminal offender and pretrial diversion database. The moneys received in the fund shall be invested for the benefit of the fund by the state treasurer pursuant to § 9-4-603 . Amounts in the fund shall not revert to the general fund of the state but shall, together with interest income credited to the fund, remain available for expenditure in subsequent fiscal years.

(e) It is the intent of the general assembly that no fee ever be charged a person who is petitioning a court for expunction of records because:

(1) The charge against the person was dismissed for a reason other than the successful completion of a diversion program pursuant to §§ 40-15-102 - 40-15-106 or § 40-35-313 ;

(2) A no true bill was returned by a grand jury;

(3) A verdict of not guilty was returned, whether by the judge following a bench trial or by a jury; or

(4) The person was arrested and released without being charged.

(f) (1) All public records of a person who has been charged and convicted with a misdemeanor or felony while protesting or challenging a state law or municipal ordinance whose purpose was to maintain or enforce racial segregation or racial discrimination shall, upon petition by that person to the court having jurisdiction in the previous action, be removed and destroyed without cost to the person, if:

(A) The charge has been dismissed;

( A no true bill was returned by a grand jury;

© A verdict of not guilty was returned, whether by the judge following a bench trial or by a jury;

(D) The person was arrested and released, without being charged; or

(E) (i) Thirty-seven (37) years or more have elapsed since the date of conviction for the offense being expunged and the petitioner has not been convicted of any other offense, excluding minor traffic violations, during that period of time;

(ii) Any period of supervision due to conviction has been completed;

(iii) The offense was a misdemeanor, Class C, D or E felony not otherwise excluded pursuant to subdivision (f)(1)(E)(iv), or, if committed prior to November 1, 1989, would be an included Class C, D, or E felony if committed after November 1, 1989;

(iv) The offense was not a Class A or Class B felony or a Class C felony described in § 40-15-105(a)(1)((iii) , a sexual offense described in § 40-15-105(a)(1)((ii) , or an offense prohibited by title 55, chapter 10, part 4, vehicular assault as prohibited by § 39-13-106 , or if committed prior to November 1, 1989, would not be an excluded offense if committed after November 1, 1989; and

(v) The district attorney general is served a copy of the petition for expungement by certified mail, return receipt requested, and the district attorney general does not file an objection with the court within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of the petition.

(2) All public records of a person required to post bond under § 38-3-109 shall be removed and destroyed as required by this section upon the expiration of any bond required, if no surety on the bond is required to fulfill the obligations of the bond.

(3) Upon petition by a defendant in the court that entered a nolle prosequi in the defendant's case, the court shall order all public records expunged.

(4) For purposes of this subsection (f), "court" includes any court exercising juvenile jurisdiction.

(5) If the person charged or convicted is deceased, the petition may be filed by a person who is able to establish legal authority to act on the behalf of the deceased person.

(6) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, upon request of the petitioner, records or documents subject to the destruction requirement of this subsection (f) that are utilized exclusively for education purposes and are displayed in public museums, libraries, and buildings are exempt from the destruction requirement.

[DaveTN]

I'm thinking that we're all missing a MAJOR point here, and I would sure like one of the lawyers that post here to chime in:Quote:". . . the charges/arrests were expunged . . . "Definition of expungement:ex·punge   [ik-spuhnj] Show IPA verb (used with object), -punged, -pung·ing. 1. to strike or blot out; erase; obliterate. 2. to efface; wipe out or destroy.Therefore:The charges, under the law, didn't happen. They don't exist. They were struck out. They were blotted out. They were erased. They were obliterated. They were effaced. They were wiped out. They were destroyed. And futhermore:I'm thinking, in a finer point of law, that to argue otherwise is to disrespect and hold in contempt the ruling of a Judge. I'm thinking that, if the individual who has EARNED an expungement were to speak to the issue, it would exist again, and all the legal protections he has UNDER THE LAW, could be jeopardized. I'm thinking that this is an issue to accept, and to drop. The Lord only knows who among us might need the protection of a Court of Law and a Judge on a similar point at some time in the future.

Nonsense, there was no ruling by a Judge.Charges are never gone…. Never.

And if him or anyone else wants to think that a dismissal of charges is the same as “Not Guilty†or that an employer can never ask about, or take action because of the arrest; they are living in a dream world. Just like in his PM to me, he claims to not want to discuss this and then says he will call me a liar if I repeat anything he says, but yet he wants to quote law and try to get people to believe his BS.

I told him that if he was wrongly accused or he wants to discuss the legal garbage he would like you to believe; step out in the open and do it.

He shows no remorse for anything he did. He sent a racist hate filled email to a Pastor and then threatened him over something as silly as race track hours. That’s a crime.

Hey WayttEarp, have you apologized to the victim?

Edited January 23, 2012 by DaveTN

[TGO David]

Not sure if it would do any good, but id like to make a suggestion. Wyatt would you please PM TGO David and or one of the moderators and explain the full situation to them. The question alot of people are having is do you possess the type of characteristics we want representing us to the media.

No need. I am keenly aware of Drew's history and much like the councilman have also been the target of his words on at least one point over the past 10 years. I know him from the same place that I know Voldemort from, ironically. I'd like to think Drew has learned a thing or two about being discrete, especially given our conversation in person at Panera Bread about two years ago when I confronted him about the things he'd said about my deceased daughter.

The story as presented in the news article is exactly as I remember it being relayed on various local car forums back when it was all current news. I'm sure Drew is correct in that his record reflects that he was cleared of all charges, however I am aware of numerous unrelated cases where a deal was struck with the Court and crimes were struck from records. It's not exactly rocket surgery.

That being said, is Drew someone I want speaking for me as a gun owner? No. I am capable of speaking for myself and there are no ambiguities hanging out with the skeletons in my closet.

Hopefully Drew is making better choices these days.

[Guest NYCrulesU]

Well...

While I am not perfect...and have done and said some stupid things in my day...

This guy now ranks right up there with Voldemort and Gecko45 (I believe that's the correct user id) in my book. Zero credibility and zero respect from me.

[kb4ns]

§ 40-32-101. Destruction or release of records

(a) (1) (A) All public records of a person who has been charged with a misdemeanor or a felony shall, upon petition by that person to the court having jurisdiction in the previous action, be removed and destroyed without cost to the person, if:

(i) The charge has been dismissed;

I stand corrected and I apologize. The only time I've seen someone ask something be expunged, it's been after conviction.

Glad you were willing to explain something to us...

[Guest WyattEarp]

I had written a response earlier to DaveTN and TGO David's responses, but my browser crashed erasing everything I had typed and I'm on the way to a doctor's appointment so I don't have time to re-write it. I will have a response later this afternoon when I return home.

I stand corrected and I apologize. The only time I've seen someone ask something be expunged, it's been after conviction.

Glad you were willing to explain something to us...

no problem sir. It's not that I don't want to explain anything, I'm trying to ensure that if I do explain things, that it won't come back to bite me in the ass legally, or employment wise, that's why I've taken the stance I have for the time being.

I can say this, in case any one is wondering why the charges were dismissed. This is one of the reasons. There were a couple others as well, but I can't get into that until I have the go ahead to discuss the rest of the details. I've highlighted the appropriate key words. With the number of highly intelligent people on this forum, I am a bit surprised no one else picked up on it. Mav was in the ball park, but didn't exactly hit it the nail on the head.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/14800142/councilman-threatened-in-racist-e-mail-6-28-2010

A Murfreesboro man was arrested after he was accused of sending a racist e-mail to a Clarksville councilman. Clarksville Councilman David Allen received the message via his city e-mail address.

Video: Arrest Follows Racist E-Mail To Councilman

“The whole thing was just full of the N-word and coon and f'in' this and f'in' that. It was just bad," said Allen.

At the end of the message was also a threat, so Allen took the message to police.

“It’s important not just for me but for all elected officials to know you just can't do those things. You can cross the line, and if you cross the line, there are consequences to pay,” said Allen.

The title of the e-mail was Clarksville Speedway. Allen had proposed a noise ordinance that would have put an end to late-night racing at the track.

Many racing fans didn’t like the proposal, and one person was so mad he sent the e-mail.

“It’s one thing to say, 'I disagree with you.' It’s one thing to say, 'You’re sorry, you’re pitiful, you’re no good, I’m going to vote you out.' That’s one thing, but then to attack a person and make threats, that’s taking it to another level,” said Allen.

Police arrested Murfreesboro resident Andrew Gardonia for the threats and charged him with two counts of harassment and one count of civil rights intimidation.

Allen said he isn't intimidated by the threat and is continuing to pursue the noise ordinance.

Gardonia's next court date is scheduled for July 8 in the Montgomery County Courthouse.

The prosecutor lost the foothold on her case when Mr. Allen went to the media with this story and made those comments. I'm assuming and I don't this for fact, (but this is the way I would look at it), if your key witness/victim is filing charges against someone for a crime of intimidation, and then he is going on the 6 pm news and telling everyone that he's not intimidated, if I were her, I would be of opinion that a defense attorney would use that against Mr. Allen and try to attack his credibility on the stand as to his real motives for filing charges and talking to the media about this. With this information, her case no doubt became more uncertain, and she had to start thinking about where this could lead, the taxpayers money, the resources involved of pursuing the charges and many other factors.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm not gloating, or saying anything disparaging about the councilman for going to the media, I'm just pointing it out for people to think about since no one else has picked up on it. Before any of this happened, I never realized there are so many factors that go into trying a case, and even one seemingly harmless thing, can damage a case in it's entirety. That is not an admission of guilt, it is just an observation from my experience in this.

Edited January 23, 2012 by WyattEarp

[Guest Lester Weevils]

A lesson that can be very difficult to learn, "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down."

Another lesson that is perhaps easier learned-- It is best to be polite, avoid insulting people, and treat all with respect whenever possible, even when it does not seem deserved.

Well, on second thought that lesson can be difficult to learn as well.

One can only keep trying to learn.

[TGO David]

I'm continually amazed by the grace and leniency shown by members of this forum. It frequently leads me to wonder if I'm wrong for being such a hard-case and profiling people out in the wild on the basis of behavior patterns. So far the process has worked reasonably well for me and keeps me from being perpetually disappointed when people revert back to their own internal common denominators. It's also kept me alive on one occasion, but I digress.

[Lumber_Jack]

I'm continually amazed by the grace and leniency shown by members of this forum. It frequently leads me to wonder if I'm wrong for being such a hard-case and profiling people out in the wild on the basis of behavior patterns. So far the process has worked reasonably well for me and keeps me from being perpetually disappointed when people revert back to their own internal common denominators. It's also kept me alive on one occasion, but I digress.

Grace is easy for me to extend over the Internet. In person is a much different case. I can overlook dispute and faults when we are discussing guns an such that interest me. Even if another member has wronged me or argued I tend to forgive. Now I have never been wronged like you eluded in your previous post. That may be unforgivable.

Sent from my Mom's basement

[strickj]

I'm continually amazed by the grace and leniency shown by members of this forum. It frequently leads me to wonder if I'm wrong for being such a hard-case and profiling people out in the wild on the basis of behavior patterns. So far the process has worked reasonably well for me and keeps me from being perpetually disappointed when people revert back to their own internal common denominators. It's also kept me alive on one occasion, but I digress.

I though he would get flogged by members for his Amy service claim after he admitted he was only in training.

[Guest nysos]

I though he would get flogged by members for his Amy service claim after he admitted he was only in training.

There hasn't been 1 particular instance for me that has lead me to my stance, but a series of threads and just getting a "feel" for the type of person he is. I find him immature, but will continue to do as I have been and "consider the source" when reading a post or thread by him. In regards to a previous poster's comment that "he was young and dumb" and has learned by it. Looking at one of the links, he was born 1980, so that makes him in his early 30s. That only happened 2 years ago. I still consider 2 years in the fairly recent past. 2 years ago for him, still would make him a couple years my senior at my current age.

Respect is not always something obtained through age, someone either has it or they don't. 13 or 30, I would never write an email showing such racism, let alone insults of any manor to a complete stranger. If you don't agree with something, you voice it in a professional manor and do what you can to get it changed. Crying and throwing names only furthers the other person's cause.

I also don't know that whole backstory between David and Wyatt, but the fact that David referenced comments regarding his deceased daughter shows even more disprespect in my book. Maybe he has changed, for his own good I hope he has, but I guarantee you I won't be vouch on his behalf for a pack of gum.

I didn't mean for this response to come out as an attack against Wyatt either, and to Wyatt I apologize if it seems that way, but that is just my opinion. I have kept it to myself as I don't like to instigate things, and the only reason I respond is due to their comments of the board being more forgiving than they are. I prefer to not cause a mess and just go about my own business, and figured there are probably others that might feel somewhat the same and just don't like to get involved in the mud slinging that usually happens when threads have evolved to this point.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well I'm neither defending or criticising anyone on the thread. Ain't my biz.

Last night the thread was reminiscent of Encounter Therapy. Long ago when I would sit in on those kind of group sessions, Encounter Therapy looked spookily similar to Red Guard Re-education techniques. Neither of which seem either civilized or effective, but that is just personal opinion.

Attack therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Murgatroy]

I though he would get flogged by members for his Amy service claim after he admitted he was only in training.

Oh hell, I missed that one.

I am trying to stay out of it. I said my piece. I am not going to stand here and call him names, or attempt to shame him. I am appalled by his actions, but my feelings mean little of nothing. I am but a name on the internet. Just as he is to me.

The real question is "At what point does he just crawl into a hole and leave?"

Sadly I don't think he will.

A post above me said that they just consider the source, and the posters history of immaturity. I do the same.

I would ask if this forum had an ignore function, but then I would miss this train wreck, so I won't explore that opportunity.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Nonsense, there was no ruling by a Judge.Charges are never gone…. Never.

sorry Dave, but you are wrong. The charges are gone from public record. Anyone can call up to the Clarksville Circuit Court, give the case # and ask for the disposition. You'll be told that information has been expunged from their records. Are they totally gone? No. Prosecutors and investigators may still see this information. That's because if a future incident arises, they can look back, and see that the charges were dismissed, they gave the person the benefit of the doubt, the offender didn't learn, and they won't cut that person any slack with the new incident. In a sense it is a form of diversion, but at the same time it isn't.

These are true copies of the originals, the only thing that has been removed was the social security number for obvious reasons. The rest of the information has been left it's in original format and has not been altered in anyway to misconstrue any information or present a false pretense.

This is the retirement order from November 4th, 2010.

Dismissal Paperwork (1 of 3) These were processed May 10, 2011, and issued out a few weeks later.

Dismissal (2 of 3)

Dismissal (3 of 3)

No need. I am keenly aware of Drew's history and much like the councilman have also been the target of his words on at least one point over the past 10 years. I know him from the same place that I know Voldemort from, ironically. I'd like to think Drew has learned a thing or two about being discrete, especially given our conversation in person at Panera Bread about two years ago when I confronted him about the things he'd said about my deceased daughter.

The story as presented in the news article is exactly as I remember it being relayed on various local car forums back when it was all current news. I'm sure Drew is correct in that his record reflects that he was cleared of all charges, however I am aware of numerous unrelated cases where a deal was struck with the Court and crimes were struck from records. It's not exactly rocket surgery.

That being said, is Drew someone I want speaking for me as a gun owner? No. I am capable of speaking for myself and there are no ambiguities hanging out with the skeletons in my closet.

Hopefully Drew is making better choices these days.

David, I don't have any reason to lie about my charges being cleared.

And what you said in regards to the comments I made regarding your daughter were true in the fact that I said them. You showed a lot of grace that day, and you have showed me tremendous grace by allowing me to remain on your forum despite knowing who I am, and what I said in 2007. I think the look in your eyes spoke more to me than anything as you gripped my arm from across the table, and told me what would happen if I ever again spoke such nonsense. It wasn't anger I saw, it was just a sadness at what you were looking at, and that will be something I never forget. When I made those comments, I was a piece of ****, and there's probably no amount of apologizing that will ever make that right, but I am glad we were able to discuss it, and have an understanding about it. If you never truly can forgive me, I can't say that I blame you. But I still feel terrible for it, and I am truly sorry for making those comments. I had no right and there was no excuse for it. I will never understand the impact of what I said, until i have children of my own some day, and someone says something like that to me, and I'll deserve to know what it feels like.

While there have not been any other criminal cases previously, there were some violations related to traffic tickets that went to court as David mentioned. I fought them and got dismissed on my own, but in the 2 I did, I copped attitudes with the LEO's when I didn't really need to do that. It solved nothing, it proved nothing, except that I was an ass.

Thank you, I am making better choices, and I am thinking before I act and make decisions, and exercising more patience. I am also still continuing my counseling and working through things from my past that have gone neglected for many years because I didn't want to acknowledge them or had suppressed them deep inside. I've been going about every 2 to 3 weeks for the last 2 years. I was going from 2008 to 2010, but the sessions were every 4 to 6 weeks, and that wasn't enough. I have come a long ways, and yet, there is still work left to do. For the first time in my life, I actually believe in myself, and that's something that I haven't had throughout my life. But just because things are going well, and im out of the legal hot water, doesn't mean I'm kicking back and letting my guard down. Can't afford to do that, because there's not too many chances left people will be willing to give me and I'm actually trying to make something good of myself.

I'm continually amazed by the grace and leniency shown by members of this forum. It frequently leads me to wonder if I'm wrong for being such a hard-case and profiling people out in the wild on the basis of behavior patterns. So far the process has worked reasonably well for me and keeps me from being perpetually disappointed when people revert back to their own internal common denominators. It's also kept me alive on one occasion, but I digress.

You showed it to me when you became aware of who I was when I joined up on here, by allowing me to remain on your forum. You even knew about the Clarksville thing from the news, and you graciously still allowed me to remain, and you didn't say anything to anyone else. If that's not grace, I don't know what is and I can't say I deserved it either. But thank you.

And I've honestly tried to show you my appreciation for allowing me to do so by participating, by being respectful and getting along with everyone and contributing productively. I hope I have shown you that appreciation, and that you've seen it, although I'm not looking to be patted on the back or have it recognized, just letting you know I'm grateful and doing my best to make it productive.

[DaveTN]

The prosecutor lost the foothold on her case when Mr. Allen went to the media with this story and made those comments. I'm assuming and I don't this for fact, (but this is the way I would look at it), if your key witness/victim is filing charges against someone for a crime of intimidation, and then he is going on the 6 pm news and telling everyone that he's not intimidated, if I were her, I would be of opinion that a defense attorney would use that against Mr. Allen and try to attack his credibility on the stand as to his real motives for filing charges and talking to the media about this.

That shows you haven’t changed a bit.

Because the victim stood up to your racist ramblings and threats; no crime was committed? That’s rich.

Now you have the audacity to suggest that your attorney would attack the credibility of the victim, and that the victim somehow had an agenda. How in the world could the victim have possibly known that some little man trying to hide behind a keyboard would commit such a criminal act over the hours of a race track?

Well, I guess since you are blaming the victim that answers my question about whether or not you have apologized to him.

As far as your record not being available to anyone, you are clueless; but you will find that out on your own.

[Mike.357]

Wow, wish i could unread it all

[Lumber_Jack]

Wow, wish i could unread it all

You can't poke out your minds eye

[Mike.357]

This thread is a frigging slow motion train wreck.

No win. No entertainment value.

Nada.

[Garufa]

Wyatt, are you sorry for what you did and feel remorse? I personally could give a **** about what you think about other people but you're in the spotlight now.

Do you accept your actions and understand they were wrong? Have you made amends where necessary?

The simple fact that you were so easy to find on the internet means you better come up with some explanations when a future employer Googles your name.

[Guest WyattEarp]

That shows you haven’t changed a bit.

Because the victim stood up to your racist ramblings and threats; no crime was committed? That’s rich.

Now you have the audacity to suggest that your attorney would attack the credibility of the victim, and that the victim somehow had an agenda. How in the world could the victim have possibly known that some little man trying to hide behind a keyboard would commit such a criminal act over the hours of a race track?

Well, I guess since you are blaming the victim that answers my question about whether or not you have apologized to him.

As far as your record not being available to anyone, you are clueless; but you will find that out on your own.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I was speaking from the point of view of the prosecutor, as if I were her and I were prosecuting this case. You're taking that statement out of the context in which it was said.

He is a politician. Politicians like to talk to the cameras. I don't know his motives for doing so, only he knows that. But the fact of the matter is that he didn't allow the prosecutor to do her job first, which was to prosecute the case. He could have waited until after everything was over and then gone to the media. When you speak publicly about court case before they go to trial, these are the risks you take. I can certainly bet he didn't tell the prosecutor he was going to talk to the media, and I bet she was not very happy when she found out.

You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it's the truth sir. Things like this happen all of the time in legal cases. If I had spoken about the case on my end, it's possible I could have said something to ruin my defense attorney's efforts to defend me.

Did he not contradict himself in that article? Did he not have me charged with civil rights intimidation, and then say on the record "he's not intimidated"? So if he's not intimidated, then why is he filing charges? why is he going to the media?

Any good defense lawyer would have used that as a point of defense. That's the defense lawyers job to represent his client and cause reasonable doubt as to the validity to the charges. That's called legal strategy Dave. Defense Law and Tactics. The first thing my attorney said to me when I hired him, do not talk to ANYONE about this case until I tell you to.

The day this story was aired, my cell phone rang all day long. Voicemail after voicemail, after voicemail, after voicemail requesting me to do an interview. I did not return those calls, and instead I notified my attorney, he said to remain silent and the press came to my house or to school I was to say I have no comment. I did exactly as he said.

I'm not blaming Mr. Allen for anything. What do I have to blame him for? He's a free man. He makes choices for himself. If he wants to go talk to the media about what happened, that's his right, and he exercised it. I can no more blame him for going to the media, than I can blame the sun for rising in the east and setting in the West.

As I've told you before, and I'll continue to tell you, there's things that went on with this case YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT, and the PUBLIC doesn't know about. and the MEDIA doesn't know about and things that aren't understood.

[robin48]

No need. I am keenly aware of Drew's history and much like the councilman have also been the target of his words on at least one point over the past 10 years. I know him from the same place that I know Voldemort from, ironically. I'd like to think Drew has learned a thing or two about being discrete, especially given our conversation in person at Panera Bread about two years ago when I confronted him about the things he'd said about my deceased daughter.

The story as presented in the news article is exactly as I remember it being relayed on various local car forums back when it was all current news. I'm sure Drew is correct in that his record reflects that he was cleared of all charges, however I am aware of numerous unrelated cases where a deal was struck with the Court and crimes were struck from records. It's not exactly rocket surgery.

That being said, is Drew someone I want speaking for me as a gun owner? No. I am capable of speaking for myself and there are no ambiguities hanging out with the skeletons in my closet.

Hopefully Drew is making better choices these days.

This tells me you are a stronger man than I David. I would probably still be in prison.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk