Thread: T.I's Day in Court
"T.I. helped police in convincing a suicidal man not to jump from a 22-floor Atlanta building, but the rapper's rescue, and the police's gratitude toward T.I. for assisting in the situation (one of the officers reportedly spoke at today's hearing), apparently did not factor into the judge's decision. T.I. was given two weeks to turn himself into authorities."
Do I like the guy? No way in hell. I hate rap, period, bar none, end of discussion.
Do I agree with what the judge did?
No way in hell, period, bar none, end of discussion. Ok, I wasn't there for the drug issues, which I'd have sent the guy on his way six ways to Sunday myself.
Still. Cold-hearted judge?
A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.
OC related how?
New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
Maybe if he had done it when he started serving his time he would have got 'good behavier' points. =P
"If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex
I would have made the same decision as the judge. For all we know, he could have said "hey, here's my get out of jail free card" when he heard about the guy threatening to jump.
Now, had he been busted while helping the police, that'd have been an entirely different issue.
However, if I am correct. He was originally in jail for weapons charges for being a felon in possession of a weapon and the felony was marijuana related. Am I correct? If so, I have a problem with that.
I don't know. As long as he insists on being stupid, he's gonna have to get used to paying the Stupid Tax.
I remember when he was lambasted on other gun forums for his weapons charges and was essentially given the "STUPID RAPPER WANTS TO PLAY WITH GUNS" rigmarole.
From his song "Ready for Whatever" ... basically a song detailing that he got in trouble with the weapons charge because there was good reason to believe people wanted him dead... one being his friend was shot dead next to him. I forgot if it was an attempt on TI at the time as well.
He says at one point "Either die or go to jail, that's a hell of a decision." Not too far from the line commonly spouted "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is it?
At the end of the song there is a monologue of sorts basically telling everyone that gets on some kick "herp derp dumb rapper likes playing with guns" to shut up because he had valid concerns and reasons to believe he needed to provide for his own protection, much like most in the RKBA community.If ya life was in jeopardy everyday, is you tellin' me
You wouldn't need weaponry just because of ya felony's
Consider this at least I got everybody sweatin' me
On these streets is people who won't rest unless I rest in peace
Killed my folk a year ago, still in my sleep they threatin' me
Paranoid, ya stressin' me, ain't nobody protectin' me
I'm dealing with the pressure from my partner dying next to me
*****s know I was arrested, they coming for me eventually
This was all the things that I was goin' through mentally
This could be the reason I ignore the penitentiary
Not mentionin' New Orlean *****s comin' in the city
Killin' all summer long, ain't nobody pay attention
Now is it that hard to understand if you listen
Either die or go to jail that's a hell of decision
But I'm wrong and I know it my excuses unimportant
I'm just tryin' to let you know that I ain't think I had a choice
But the fact of the matter remain
If ya ain't walk a mile in my shoes and ya ain't live a day in my life
Ya ain't survive the **** I done survived
Ya ain't had to deal with the **** I had to deal with homeboy
You can't mother ****in' judge me partner
I mean look at folk like Sean Taylor
You know what they said, they said had he had a strap
He woulda lived today, you know what I'm sayin'
Now true enough I did wrong I broke the law
I deserve to be punished I understand that, aight cool
But listen, man, I got a house full of kids
A mama and an old lady who's life is my
Responsibility, you dig that?
Now for all of y'all who think I was just ridin'
Around on some dumb ****
You know I'm smarter than you man
You know I'm smarter than you dawg
Ey if you think I was just being stupid
Shorty, I got some mother ****in' ocean front property
In Idaho for sale, homie
If you believe that I gotta bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you partna
Ey man real talk in order to understand my train of thoughts
You'll have to put yourself in my position
You can't expect me to think like you
'Cause my life ain't like yours you know what I'm sayin?
If you don't understand that you don't understand English, I'm done talkin'
At least in Virginia there is precedent for a felon to use a firearm in self defense without incurring the penalty of "felon in possession" charges.
Courts and commentators disagree over whether the appropriate label for the defense is self-defense, necessity or duress. See Panter, 688 F.2d at 272 n.7 (discussing self-defense and necessity and holding that accused was entitled to instruction under either); Castrillo, 819 P.2d at 1328 & n.2 (comparing justification defenses of duress and necessity to self-defense). The justification defenses of duress and necessity are similar in that both require that "the perceived harm must be imminent." Castrillo, 819 P.2d at 1328 n.2. Self-defense is similar to duress and necessity in that it "provides a justification for an otherwise criminal act; strictly speaking, however, it is not a defense to possession, although it may justify the possession."...The [common law] defense of necessity traditionally addresses the dilemma created when physical forces beyond the actor's control render "illegal conduct the lesser of two evils." -- emphasis addedCommon Law Right To Self Defense Includes Felons
Humphrey v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 36, 553 S.E.2d 546 (2001).
"[The legislature] in enacting criminal statutes legislates against a background of Anglo-Saxon common law . . . ." Part of this common law is the doctrine of self-defense. . . . [S]tatutes rarely enumerate the defenses to the crimes they describe. . . . We do not believe that [the legislature] intended to make [convicted felons] hapless targets for assassins. The right to defend oneself from deadly attack is fundamental. [The legislature] did not contemplate that [Code 18.2-308.2] would divest convicted felons of that right....Further, as the Commonwealth acknowledges, "[t]he fact that a man has been drinking does not ipso facto deprive him of the right of self-defense, even though the necessity for the exercise of the right might not have arisen had neither he nor his aggressor been drinking." Hawkins v. Commonwealth, 160 Va. 935, 941, 169 S.E. 558, 560 (1933); see Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 466, 473, 506 S.E.2d 543, 546-47 (1998) (holding that accused was not at fault in inviting aggressors to his house for drinks)....Courts and commentators disagree over whether the appropriate label for the defense is self-defense, necessity or duress. See Panter, 688 F.2d at 272 n.7 (discussing self-defense and necessity and holding that accused was entitled to instruction under either); Castrillo, 819 P.2d at 1328 & n.2 (comparing justification defenses of duress and necessity to self-defense). The justification defenses of duress and necessity are similar in that both require that "the perceived harm must be imminent." Castrillo, 819 P.2d at 1328 n.2. Self-defense is similar to duress and necessity in that it "provides a justification for an otherwise criminal act; strictly speaking, however, it is not a defense to possession, although it may justify the possession."...The [common law] defense of necessity traditionally addresses the dilemma created when physical forces beyond the actor's control render "illegal conduct the lesser of two evils." . . . We have held that, under appropriate circumstances, constructive possession of a firearm may support a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Blake v. Commonwealth, 15 Va. App. 706, 707-09, 427 S.E.2d 219, 220-21 (1993) (holding accused constructively possessed firearm which was in actual possession of his companion while accused and companion acted jointly to commit robbery). Here, however, neither the Commonwealth nor the trial court took the position that appellant constructively possessed the firearm earlier on December 29, 1999, before he took actual possession of it, presumably because the evidence indicated the firearm was located in a storage shed which was owned and used by appellant's father and located on property owned by appellant's father. "
See Also : Joann Marie Crews Walker v. Commonwealth, Va. App. (2004 Unpublished)
The difference being the immediacy of the threat of death or great bodily injury.
Last edited by skidmark; 10-21-2010 at 10:21 AM. Reason: revise comment