Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: Burress takes plea and two year sentence

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I wonder how hard it is to get the "jury nullification" idea to work... I guess you never know but what you might get a jury full of brainwashed "antis" though...

    I wonder how Burress' reputation will fare compared to Michael Vick, a real criminal...

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-weapons-case/

    Burress Pleads Guilty in Weapons Case
    By John Eligon
    August 20, 2009, 9:30 am

    Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty on Thursday to one count of criminal possession of a weapon.

    Updated, 11:40 a.m. | Plaxico Burress, the former Giants receiver, pleaded guilty on Thursday morning to attempted criminal possession of a weapon, in a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that will send him to prison for two years.

    Justice Michael H. Melkonian of State Supreme Court accepted the guilty plea. Under the plea agreement, along with the two-year prison sentence, Mr. Burress, 31, is to be sentenced on Sept. 22 to two years of post-release supervision. With good behavior, he will be eligible for release after slightly more than 20 months.

    “This is a very sad day, because I think a very good man, who is a brilliant athlete, is unfortunately going to spend 20 months in prison,” Mr. Burress’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, told reporters after the court hearing. “After an agonizing period of discussion, Plaxico decided that he wanted to put this behind him as soon as possible.”

    Mr. Brafman said he hoped his client could rehabilitate his career with the National Football League.

    Mr. Burress was indicted this month on charges relating to an episode in November 2008, when he accidentally shot himself in the thigh in a Manhattan nightclub. The Giants released him in April without waiting for the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

    If the case were to go to trial and Mr. Burress were convicted of all charges — two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and one count of second-degree reckless endangerment — he could face 3½ to 15 years in prison. The plea agreement still needs the approval of a State Supreme Court justice.

    The shooting occurred shortly after 1:30 a.m. on Nov. 29 at the Latin Quarter Nightclub in Midtown. Mr. Burress entered the club past security guards with a .40-caliber Glock semiautomatic pistol tucked in the waistband of his jeans. The gun was loaded and not in a holster, according to prosecutors.

    Mr. Burress, who caught the winning touchdown pass in the Giants’ 2008 Super Bowl victory against the New England Patriots, had a license to carry the gun in Florida, but it had expired nearly seven months before the shooting. Even if it were still valid, prosecutors said, Mr. Burress would not have been allowed to carry the weapon in New York.

    Shortly after Mr. Burress reached the second-floor V.I.P. area, where there were 20 to 30 people, the gun slipped down his pant leg and accidentally fired as he tried to prevent it from falling to the floor. The bullet hit Mr. Burress’s leg and narrowly missed a club security guard.

    A grand jury decided not to indict Antonio Pierce, a Giants linebacker who was with Mr. Burress in the nightclub and drove him to a hospital.


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    As much as it pains me, my opinion is that Burress deserved whatever sentence was handed down. He (I must presume) knew the law and that he was breaking it. He took his chance and lost. Those that offered the suggestion that he felt the need for personal protection because of recent attacks on other athletes are forgetting that Burress has enough money to hire a personal protection detail and that there are legal providers of personal protection available even in NYC.

    Admittedly, Burress' position as an NFL player, thus "wealthy" by the standards of Joe Sixpack, makes him "special" in that he can buy legal protection whereas Joe Sixpack is left swinging in the wind with no protection but what he can provide by himself.

    Life has consequences. Burress will have to live with them. As for the NFL - it is a business and as such I never expected it to be an arbiter of morals. How I feel about Vick or Burress should not impact how the NFL deals with either of them, unless the NFL solicits my input about whether or not I will support the NFL or any of its member teams because they do or do not hire Vick or Burress after those guys get out of prison.

    As far as I can recall, neither Vick nor Burress were a visible supporter of 2A before they got into trouble. Given that they are now both convicted felons, I do not see what good their support of 2A, if they are going to go that route, will have. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, they are nulls in the equation.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Lessons to be learned:

    (1) Use a quality holster with adequate retention features at all times.

    (2) Do not carry a firearm and boogie down when said boogieing may cause your firearm to boogie down to the floor and AD.

    (3) God has supplied you with a brain. USE IT!!!

    "nuff said.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Yes, the charge is wrong, and the police acted immorally in arresting him and charging him.

    We're letting it happen, just as we've let it happen to so many others.





  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I wonder how hard it is to get the "jury nullification" idea to work...
    I think the answer to that question is already covered in the story:

    "Mr. Burress was indicted this month on charges..." (emphasis added)

    Jury nullification would have started with a grand jury refusing to return an indictment.

    Yes, well. We've still got some work to do.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    I wonder how hard it is to get the "jury nullification" idea to work...
    I think the answer to that question is already covered in the story:

    "Mr. Burress was indicted this month on charges..." (emphasis added)

    Jury nullification would have started with a grand jury refusing to return an indictment.

    Yes, well. We've still got some work to do.
    Are Grand Jury indictments required to be unanimous? If not, jury nullification is much harder to apply. All you need is one in a trial jury.

    TFred

  8. #8
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    I wonder how hard it is to get the "jury nullification" idea to work...
    I think the answer to that question is already covered in the story:

    "Mr. Burress was indicted this month on charges..." (emphasis added)

    Jury nullification would have started with a grand jury refusing to return an indictment.

    Yes, well. We've still got some work to do.
    When "jury nullification" spared OJ Simpson the gas chamber, the Antis (Motto: "killing bad people is bad, killing innocent babies is good") applauded (but to be fair, the LAPD screwed up the evidence so badly that I would have had "reasonable doubt" based on what was permitted at trial.) "Jury Nullification" is likely also the reason Michael Jackson died in a mansion and not a cell.

    But most people who serve on juries grand or petit have no knowledge of the fact that they are judges of law as well as fact; and in most if not all cases defense attorneys are strictly forbidden to remind them of this important aspect of their service. Given the fact that most of the citizenry these days seeems to be made up of parvenue hammerheads, I am not so sure this is a bad thing......

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    SNIP...parvenue...
    Dammit, where's my dictionary.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Alexcabbie wrote:
    SNIP...parvenue...
    Dammit, where's my dictionary.
    Oooooo. Thanks Alex. Handy little word, that one is.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Alexcabbie wrote:
    SNIP But most people who serve on juries grand or petit have no knowledge of the fact that they are judges of law as well as fact; and in most if not all cases defense attorneys are strictly forbidden to remind them of this important aspect of their service.
    Yep. So, le's get busy educating. I'll go first.

    Fully Informed Jury Associaton: http://fija.org/

    An Essay on the Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852:

    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35 (The firstsection of this one is really good.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    A grand jury decided not to indict Antonio Pierce, a Giants linebacker who was with Mr. Burress in the nightclub and drove him to a hospital.
    As usual, I notice the periphery....

    They decided not to indict him.... For what? Driving a dumbass who shot himself, to the emergency room, is a crime?

    I'm not following...? Exactly what is it that he might have been charged with? Aiding and Abetting medical services for a moron? Did he speed on the way to the ER? Gosh, I hope so, his buddy just shot himself...

    WTF?

    I see this sentence being less about 'illegal gun' and more about 'hey, dumbass, you deserve to go to jail for being THAT dumb.'
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Saying "he deserved what he got because he broke the law" is a sad reflection on how far we stand from what our founders intended.

    What if New York said "banning blacks from riding public transit is legal because we allow people who are 1% black to ride, so we don't ban all blacks" or "blacks require a permit to be in public, and can be inspected for such permit at any time."

    Plaxico screwed up, but he immediately paid for it by making himself the victim. He should have had to pay for the repairs to the club. If he does it again it's reckless endangerment.

    He shot himself, which probably ruined his career. That should count for something.
    There is nothing wrong with suggesting that if you set out to break the law and get caught doing so you ought to suffer the consequences, especially when the morality of the aw itself is not discussed. You and I agree that the law should not exist - we seem to differ on what should happen if you get caught breaking it. As for ruining his career counting for something - sorry, it counts for naught.


    Work to change the law if you do not like it. Do not say everyone violating it ought to get a free pass.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Saying "he deserved what he got because he broke the law" is a sad reflection on how far we stand from what our founders intended.

    What if New York said "banning blacks from riding public transit is legal because we allow people who are 1% black to ride, so we don't ban all blacks" or "blacks require a permit to be in public, and can be inspected for such permit at any time."

    Plaxico screwed up, but he immediately paid for it by making himself the victim. He should have had to pay for the repairs to the club. If he does it again it's reckless endangerment.

    He shot himself, which probably ruined his career. That should count for something.
    +100

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    There is nothing wrong with suggesting that if you set out to break the law and get caught doing so you ought to suffer the consequences, especially when the morality of the aw itself is not discussed.* You and I agree that the law should not exist - we seem to differ on what should happen if you get caught breaking it.* As for ruining his career counting for something - sorry, it counts for naught.


    Work to change the law if you do not like it.* Do not say everyone violating it ought to get a free pass.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I seriously wonder how the morality of any given law should just magically be "not discussed".

    The whole purpose of a jury is to judge fact as well as the law itself; otherwise there is little point for a jury instead of just a judge.

    The morality of the law is of utmost importance, and should be discussed at all times, not least of all but especially when it results in criminal penalties.

    I'm sorry, there is no plausible rational standard by which the state is not the aggressor in this case.

    And it is of utmost importance for society to recognize -- and confront -- aggression wherever it finds it. Failing to do so under the cover of "but it's the law!" is a lame excuse (and that's reserving the true extent of my feelings on the matter).

    We will not achieve a peaceable, free society by championing the enforcement of immoral, unjust, or evil laws, or in fact by doing anything other than clamoring as loudly as possible for their immediate nullification by jury, nonenforcement, legislative repeal, and public censure.


    Edit: See Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner for discussion on the function and duty of a jury.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Here is a post I posted in the Texas section about my experience with jury nullification

    I was on a jury on a murder trial and when we were given our instructions by the judge he said that we were not to decide if the law was right or wrong but only if the defendant broke the law according to the guidelines we were given. after the trial was over but before we had come up with a verdict the defendant pleaded guilty because if we found her innocent the DA was going to charge her husband with it and keep going until he got someone convicted( seems very crooked the way I am explaining it but if you were there for the trial you could maybe see there point of view. although I disagree with it) But anyway when we were deciding I basically said that the whole trial was a bunch of BS and even if she did it (I think she did) I was voting not guilty no mater what . After everything was over the bailiff asked me to stay behind when the other jourers left and I got a lecture from the Judge about activism and and how it is not my job to judge the law and me arguing back how the whole trial was a bunch of BS and that if anyone should be on trial it should be the cops, DA, and judge for harassment under color of the law. Eventually it got around to him claming that he would have called it a miss trial if I would have voted that way instead of the defendant pleading guilty. although I don't know if that can be done after a verdict has been reached.

    Basically my point is you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who probably don't know what is allowed and what is not and the judge will specifically tell them they are here to judge whether you committed a crime and not to judge the fairness of the law. also the judge probably would call a miss trial if you or your lawyer brought up jury nullification. In short I think if you gow to court with that plan even though constitutionality just, you wouldget SCREWED.




  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Hillmann wrote:
    Here is a post I posted in the Texas section about my experience with jury nullification

    I was on a jury on a murder trial and when we were given our instructions by the judge he said that we were not to decide if the law was right or wrong but only if the defendant broke the law according to the guidelines we were given. after the trial was over but before we had come up with a verdict the defendant pleaded guilty because if we found her innocent the DA was going to charge her husband with it and keep going until he got someone convicted( seems very crooked the way I am explaining it but if you were there for the trial you could maybe see there point of view. although I disagree with it) But anyway when we were deciding I basically said that the whole trial was a bunch of BS and even if she did it (I think she did) I was voting not guilty no mater what . After everything was over the bailiff asked me to stay behind when the other jourers left and I got a lecture from the Judge about activism and and how it is not my job to judge the law and me arguing back how the whole trial was a bunch of BS and that if anyone should be on trial it should be the cops, DA, and judge for harassment under color of the law. Eventually it got around to him claming that he would have called it a miss trial if I would have voted that way instead of the defendant pleading guilty. although I don't know if that can be done after a verdict has been reached.

    Basically my point is you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who probably don't know what is allowed and what is not and the judge will specifically tell them they are here to judge whether you committed a crime and not to judge the fairness of the law. also the judge probably would call a miss trial if you or your lawyer brought up jury nullification. In short I think if you gow to court with that plan even though constitutionality just, you wouldget SCREWED.
    Are you not pursuing this Judge? I be all over him like stink on schidt. Well, unless he is from this neck of the woods; then he'd just have you killed.....
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    St Marys Georgia, ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    I am glad he got some jail timeout of this. This was a great test for NYC to enforce their crappy laws. The mayor is making an ass out of himself all over the country talking about gun control, how would it look if he does not enforce the laws in his own city. But another way to look at this, think about how many people got to plea bargain their way out of a gun charge. Fair? Probably not. If being stupid was a crime, he should have gotten life.



  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    SNIP Do not say everyone violating it ought to get a free pass.

    No offense, Skid. I enjoy your posts. But, saying someone should get a free pass is exactly what this is all about:

    Fully Informed Jury Associaton: http://fija.org/

    An Essay on the Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852:

    http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35 (The firstsection of this one is really good.)



    And(Jefferson's?) comment thatits a moral duty to ignore unjust laws?



    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Citizen & Marshaul - and the rest of you still reading this --

    I thought my remarks made it clear that I was not only not addressing the marality/rightness of the law in question, but specifically reserving discussion of those issues for another time and place. I also had thought that the total of my body of postings would have suggested that I find the morality/rightness of the law in question unjust and disgusting.

    But nooooo! Folks had to verge away from the issue of Burress' fully accepting the consequences of his actions and the sidebar of what if anything the NFL does as being immaterial to the discussion. It's apparently more fun to whinge over the (yes, I admit it and agree with the argument) unjustness of the law in question, the baseness of those who imposed the law, and the need to change the law. And let us not forget, the means of changing the law when it is being applied some victim of their own actions (yes, I'm calling out jury nullification),

    My personal take is that if a law needs to be changed it is better to start trying to do so when there is nobody standing at the bar accused or convicted of violating the law. That way the unjustness of the law stands out cleanly and clearly, without being blurred by the goodness or badness of the violator.

    Others seem to want to wait until there is a victim to focus on.

    I'm now going to ask one of my patented, copyrighted, trademarked impertinent questions: Do you see what happens when you cloud the issue?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I wonder how hard it is to get the "jury nullification" idea to work... I guess you never know but what you might get a jury full of brainwashed "antis" though...

    I wonder how Burress' reputation will fare compared to Michael Vick, a real criminal...


    Burress Pleads Guilty in Weapons Case
    By John Eligon
    August 20, 2009, 9:30 am

    Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty on Thursday to one count of criminal possession of a weapon...


    Mr. Burress:

    • No carry permit for NY
    • No carry permit for anywhere (Florida CWP expired)
    • Carrying while drinking (and other substances?)
    • Carries GLOCK in belt, no holster
    • Carries GLOCK without holster but with one in the pipe
    • Shoots himself

    Clear case of agoof with a gun.

    This chap is a menace to himself, those in his immediate vicinity and to my rights as a gun owner/carrier.

    Gawd, it's a great example for us and our children...

    Here is Plaxico Burress. Do NOT be a goof with a gun like him!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Actually Vick's rep will probably be much less damaged because Vick shows great remorse...... (wait for it)

    You can tell by that hang-dog look on his face! :celebrate

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Citizen & Marshaul - and the rest of you still reading this --

    I thought my remarks made it clear that I was not only not addressing the marality/rightness of the law in question, but specifically reserving discussion of those issues for another time and place. I also had thought that the total of my body of postings would have suggested that I find the morality/rightness of the law in question unjust and disgusting.

    But nooooo! Folks had to verge away from the issue of Burress' fully accepting the consequences of his actions and the sidebar of what if anything the NFL does as being immaterial to the discussion. It's apparently more fun to whinge over the (yes, I admit it and agree with the argument) unjustness of the law in question, the baseness of those who imposed the law, and the need to change the law. And let us not forget, the means of changing the law when it is being applied some victim of their own actions (yes, I'm calling out jury nullification),

    My personal take is that if a law needs to be changed it is better to start trying to do so when there is nobody standing at the bar accused or convicted of violating the law. That way the unjustness of the law stands out cleanly and clearly, without being blurred by the goodness or badness of the violator.

    Others seem to want to wait until there is a victim to focus on.

    I'm now going to ask one of my patented, copyrighted, trademarked impertinent questions: Do you see what happens when you cloud the issue?

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I see both perspectives as valid. One who seeks to limit discussion from the whole matter can easily be seen as one trying to frame the argument.

    Let us not forget that, he was PROSECUTED, therefor, the morality/correctness of the law MUST be questioned and is certainly in play. Beyond this, there are even more consequences being fabricated and levied against him. All due to a prejudiced public perception of firearms.

    I'm not a fan of jocks, wannabe thugs, etc. but from a merely human standpoint; the dumbass shot himself in the friggin' leg! That, and the embarrassment of being THAT stupid in the public eye, is plenty more than enough. What if Obama shot himself in the leg during a televised speech? Yeah. You wouldn't be able to limit that discussion strictly to 'should he be prosecuted' either. Certainly not without being accused of framing the matter.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  24. #24
    Regular Member tcmech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    368

    Post imported post

    I think he deserved to be convicted of something. Accidentally discharging a firearm in a crowded public area should be a crime. I don't believe it should have been a crime for him to have a gun, but I don't get to make the laws in New York.


    If Obama is the answer; how stupid was the question?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    50

    Post imported post

    tcmech wrote:
    I think he deserved to be convicted of something. Accidentally discharging a firearm in a crowded public area should be a crime.

    :X

    victimless crimes... a guaranteed path to tyranny

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •