Burress takes plea and two year sentence

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...

Click to expand...

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!

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

:X

victimless crimes... a guaranteed path to tyranny

imported post

o->i wrote:

tcmech wrote:

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

Click to expand...

:X

victimless crimes... a guaranteed path to tyranny

Click to expand...

I would say that there was definitely a victim in this. Plaxico was a victim having shot himself. Then there was his employer who was depending on him. The fans who bought tickets to the games. etc. I do think that two years is excessive and if stupidity were a crime then who would we get to build all the jails needed and guards to close the doors.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

o->i wrote:

tcmech wrote:

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

Click to expand...

:X

victimless crimes... a guaranteed path to tyranny

Click to expand...

I would say that there was definitely a victim in this. Plaxico was a victim having shot himself. Then there was his employer who was depending on him. The fans who bought tickets to the games. etc. I do think that two years is excessive and if stupidity were a crime then who would we get to build all the jails needed and guards to close the doors.

Click to expand...

you can't be a victim of yourself... yet...

the rest is a huge stretch and opens a can of worms that would make everyone a criminal.


cops are criminals.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

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 morality/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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if a smiley would work for what I am going to post, so I'll just suggest that everyone pretend I used an appropriate smiley.

Of course one has to frame the argument, or else it is a free-for-all shouting match, Which, BTW, this thread has just about deteriorated into.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Burress copped a plea because he did not see trying to fight the constitutionality of the laws he was charged with violating as a possible win. If my presumption is correct then Burress himself framed the argument as to limit it to "did I or did I not violate the law as it is written?" He at least was mature enough to not try for all sorts of excuses, but took a sure short punishment as opposed to a distinctly possible longer punishment. (DA agrees to 2 years on a plea and the least he could get at trial was 3 1/2.)

If Burress has framed the argument himself, why do some here insist on trying to open it to a free-for-all? Burress' case is closed, so blue-skying whether or not he could have gotten off if someone attempted to use jury nullification is as speculative as trying to figure of the next set of winning lottery numbers. It's a great intellectual exercise, but has no practical value that I can see.

On the other hand, there are lots of practical ways and means of trying to get the New York City and State laws changed. Although the odds are against that happening, I see those odds as less that the odds against winning the lottery.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

Good article in the matter:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/foss1.1.1.html

Quite simply, anyone who justifies this sentence is a monster and an enemy to his neighbour.

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Good article in the matter:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/foss1.1.1.html

Quite simply, anyone who justifies this sentence is a monster and an enemy to his neighbour.

Click to expand...

Are you British?

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Good article in the matter:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/foss1.1.1.html

Quite simply, anyone who justifies this sentence is a monster and an enemy to his neighbour.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but "Plaxico Burress was hounded into a plea bargain of two years in prison for the crime of shooting himself" is both not accurate and disingenuous.

You want to make what he did not a crime, change the existing law. Don't make up nonexistent laws and then say he should not be charged with violating that nonexistent law.

BTW, had the DA wanted to charge Burress for shooting himself there are plenty of laws that could cover the act, from reckless endangerment to felony assault to maiming. It's strange that the DA did not bother to charge him under any of those laws, isn't it? Kind of ruins your persecution complex argument.

stay safe.

skidmark

imported post

skidmark wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Good article in the matter:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/foss1.1.1.html

Quite simply, anyone who justifies this sentence is a monster and an enemy to his neighbour.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but "Plaxico Burress was hounded into a plea bargain of two years in prison for the crime of shooting himself" is both not accurate and disingenuous.

You want to make what he did not a crime, change the existing law. Don't make up nonexistent laws and then say he should not be charged with violating that nonexistent law.

BTW, had the DA wanted to charge Burress for shooting himself there are plenty of laws that could cover the act, from reckless endangerment to felony assault to maiming. It's strange that the DA did not bother to charge him under any of those laws, isn't it? Kind of ruins your persecution complex argument.

stay safe.

skidmark

Click to expand...

Burress did not violate the law, and it's laughable to argue that some tyrants can band together and make a rule and dare to claim that the rule is a peer to the law.

You have some truly scary ideas that are completely offensive to justice and liberty.

I wonder why you're on a gun board.

imported post

For crying out loud, people. What do we do, start a revolution?? Shall we take New York State by main force of arms or what?? New York law is New York law, and since I do not care for New York law I shall refrain from being in New York insofar as possible. I shall support the beleagured folks in New York in their attempts to - regain? - nay to enforce the Supreme Law of the 2A; insofar as I am able but when and if I go there I obey their laws. Burress was a stupid ass and in multiple layers at that. And if he had been Rodger Kaputnik, private citizen this would never have gotten past the third page of the local section of the New York Times (and he would wind up rotting in prison for at least 5 years and nobody would give a damn)

The problem here is basically Obergruppenfuehrer Bloomberg, Mayor of New York and self-styled Reich Protector of the Commonwealth of Virginia. And yes I know he is Jewish and yes I know just how grave the insult is. He deserves to be compared to Heydrich. This pissant of a mayor sends his Gestapo into our beloved Commonwealth and violates OUR laws with impunity, but by God don't come to NYC and violate HIS diktat or there will be hell to pay.

The NYPD has something in excess of 10.000 sworn offficers. Many of them cite as one of the chief factors in seeking a Law Enforcement career as being "a legal gun". You figure out for yourself the meaning of that fact.

Burress was dancing around with a loaded Glock and no retention save the elastic in his waistband. I wouldn't shove my Walther down my pants without a holster unless there was some sort of midnight emergency and even then I would be carrying it in my hand until I had ascertained there was no threat, in which case it might nestle in my waistband for a sec as I fumble for my keys or something. This entire discussion s much ado about something which ther is not much that can be done about.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

This entire discussion s much ado about something which ther is not much that can be done about.

Click to expand...

Actually, a good part of this "discussion" is silly criticism of police. After observation of this and several other threads, I can't help but suspect that certain parties engage in this absurdist criticism as a way to short circuit intelligent criticism of the police, backed by law and documented examples.

Those of you with a background in usenet may recall the label "alt.syntax.tactical"...

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

The NYPD has something in excess of 10.000 sworn offficers. Many of them cite as one of the chief factors in seeking a Law Enforcement career as being "a legal gun". You figure out for yourself the meaning of that fact.

Click to expand...

Way, way more than that. 30,000 plus.

And, yes, having a legalgun in NYC is a wayyyyyyy kool perq. It's worth paying for. Or behaving for....



Alexcabbie wrote:

Burress was dancing around with a loaded Glock and no retention save the elastic in his waistband. I wouldn't shove my Walther down my pants without a holster unless there was some sort of midnight emergency and even then I would be carrying it in my hand until I had ascertained there was no threat, in which case it might nestle in my waistband for a sec as I fumble for my keys or something. This entire discussion s much ado about something which ther is not much that can be done about.

Click to expand...

Yep, goof with a gun for sho'.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

For crying out loud, people. What do we do, start a revolution?? Shall we take New York State by main force of arms or what?? New York law is New York law, and since I do not care for New York law I shall refrain from being in New York insofar as possible.

Click to expand...

News, kiddo, it's all New York, or worse.

imported post

So when does Obama get the Feds involved?

Illegal transfer of a firearm across state lines. Unless they are both New Yorkers,
and I think that is not the case. Also very unlikely either has a ffl license.

Tampering with evidence, by his buddy. Interstate flight. How do we
know that the gun used in the shooting was the one he finally turned over?

But I was so looking forward to the affirmative self defense. After all the
black man had a gun so he was justified in the shooting.:banghead::banghead:

But the commentaries about killing dogs or people gets you less time
was funny in itself.
If it wasn't so sad that this had to happen, if only NYC allowed OC so the
gun would be properly holstered. After all the entire reason he had it stuffed
in his pants was to show it off. Much safer to do this out in the open.

imported post

skidmark wrote:

BTW, had the DA wanted to charge Burress for shooting himself there are plenty of laws that could cover the act, from reckless endangerment to felony assault to maiming. It's strange that the DA did not bother to charge him under any of those laws, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Actually, skidmark, that's exactly what he was charged with: two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and a single count of reckless endangerment in the second degree.