But can you show me that this conviction doesn't prevent him from exercising his rights? I see that you don't have the info though. This is also why I put the asterisk. Likewise I could have had my statement be a conditional "no" with the asterisk stating that I'm assuming his crime isn't precluding him from exercising any rights since the time in jail was so short.
So again, I have no issue with him being pardoned if it is affecting his ability to exercise his rights. Likewise I see no reason to pardon him if it doesn't affect his ability to exercise his rights. I don't think it should take a pardon for him to be able to exercise his rights (if it is affecting them), but that is a different subject.
OK, I may need to apologize for not doing my research and shooting off at the lip.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=10699
And yet there is this bit of conflicting info:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/05/Mark-Wahlberg-Seeking-Pardon-For-1988-Assaults
At 16 years-old, while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, Wahlberg attempted to steal two cases of alcohol from a Vietnamese man outside of a Boston-area convenience store.
A Suffolk Superior Court sentencing memorandum states that Wahlberg shouted racial slurs at the man, and another man he encountered during the incident.
He reportedly hit both men in the head with a wooden stick during his escape, reports Boston.com.
Wahlberg was eventually arrested with a small amount of marijuana in his pocket, convicted, and spent 45 days in jail.
He acknowledged the facts of the case in his application and stated, “the trial judge found me guilty of these two criminal contempt counts.”
So which is it?
Then there is the actual petition for a pardon:
http://www.necn.com/news/new-englan...ks-Pardon-in-1988-Assault-Case-284795961.html
In his petition, he outlines the incidents that led to his arrest, saying that he attempted to steal two cases of alcohol from a man who was standing outside of a convenience store near his home around 9 p.m. He said he hit the man on the head with a wooden stick, and then ran down the block to evade police. While attempting to avoid police, he said he punched another man in the face.
A single episode? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
As for the guy he blinded?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tly-blind-one-eye-claiming-better-person.html
He then fled the scene and approached a second man, Hoa Trinh, put his arm around his shoulder and asked him to help him hide.
But once police passed, Wahlberg hit him, leaving him blind in one eye.
So apparently he
may be a prohibited person. And as an actor he has made a lot of films that involved touching "guns". But knowing a few folks that are in the prop business I've been assured that at least ever since Bruce Lee's kid blew his brains out with a blank they have not been using "real" guns. Also I've been told that "real" guns do not provide the visual effect desired for films and that CGI does.
Being a prohibitted person does not seem to have interferred with his ability to secure and carry out acting roles that involve the "use" of guns. That brings us back to "a specific, verified, and compelling need for a pardon" and I do not see one there. Additionally, if such a compelling need had existed I have the feeling his agent would have hired lawyers a long time ago to initiate the executive clemency process.
I know that for the most part it's a crappy source of accurate info but I give you
http://www.people.com/article/mark-wahlberg-pardon-1988-assaults
Mark Wahlberg is asking Massachusetts for a pardon for assaults he committed in 1988 when he was a troubled teenager in Boston, saying he has dedicated himself to becoming a better person in his adult years so he can be a role model to his children and others.
That's nice and all (as the kids say) but I don't see it as compelling.
I have not engaged in philanthropic efforts in order to make people forget about my past," Wahlberg says in the application. "To the contrary, I want people to remember my past so that I can serve as an example of how lives can be turned around and how people can be redeemed."
"Rather than ignore or deny my troubled past, I have used the public spotlight to speak openly about the mistakes I made as a teenager so that others do not make those same mistakes," he says.
Making his crimes go away will help people remember his past just how?
"Curiouser and curiouser" say Alice and I.
stay safe.
