did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]i know ny has there laws,but the door guys let him in knowing he was carrying a gun,and it really sounds like it went off by accident.is this politics comeing in play with the tough sentence? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4420263
    Posted by mosseffect43[/QUOTE]

    No politics involved with being a stupid moron. Nor is there any "fairness". He obviously tried to use his "celebrity" status to be above teh laws. The shame is that this idiot didn't get what anyone else would get (the MAX, according to NY laws). Hope he enjoy's Bubba's company. I wonder if Vick is going to give him a good reference?

    One more overpaid moron off the streets and TV screens.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Alright, if you dorks want to discuss this again, I'm game.  It sure beats yelling at reg122. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You can try to read limitations and qualifications into it as much as you want, but the simple truth is that under no construction of the English language does the first clause of that sentence modify the second.  You might spin your wheels that something or other is implied, but there is no explicit modification.  And the second clause is an absolute universal without restriction or qualification:  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Plax is a person in the United States. He was bearing arms.  Maybe the owner of the nightclub didn't want him to have a gun but that is between him and the nightclub.  The government can't put him in prison for this.  It's time for the people to stand up against these tyrants in Washington and the state capitals and take back our liberties.
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    What part of the equation "unregistered handgun" do you NOT copmprehend? Idiot Boy had an unregistered handgun in his possession, which is illegal in NYC. He also had the gun go off in his pants, which is also illegal in NYC. Now, ask yourself, how a gun goes off all by itself in his pants. I don't care what anyone says. Moron Man got what he deserved, both with his shooting and sentance.

    The Fed Govt, which you are conveniently quoting is not the TOTAL/ONLY law of the land. Each state can decide how best it wants to fit into this ammendment. NY, like the People's Republic of Mass, has laws that require hand guns to be registered. Thus, as long as you register it, you can have it. In Texas and Arizona, you get one at birth. So, drop your flag and be welcomed back in teh real world. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]It is there as a reason or justification for the independent clause.  For example, "A well educated workforce, being necessary to the economy of a capitalist country, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    Nice attemopt at reaching! But, unfortunately, you're still 5 yards short of the goal line.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : Wow, you know what the authors meant?  Holy cr*p, you must have the ability to go back in time or to summon their ghosts?  Please tell me.  Or don't.  Because I don't give a $h!t what the authors meant.  When the people ratified the amendment they didn't sit down and have a heart to heart with the authors to find out what it "meant."  They read the words that the authors wrote and took them at their plain meaning which is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    OK, I'll bite. Remind me of what teh Declaration of Indepencene said, completing this phrase: We hold these truths to be self evidebnt that ALL men are created free.." All colonial reps signed the document, so there was a united front in the Declaration. So, please explain why it took 90 more years and over 600,0000 dead Amerricans to abolish slavery. What dod the signers think about that statement?  Why, looking at teh Southern colonies, I'm sure thay would have felt more comfortable with something like "We hold these.... that all WHITE MEN OF POSITION, WEALTHY. AND MEANS are created equal."

    There's a HUGE difference between the govt taking away this "right" (Thanks, NRA!) versus the states determining for themselves how to best adhere to this ammendment. Mote: NO state has rescinded anyone's right to have a gun. Our wonderful elected yahoos in Washington have tried, and continue to try to RESTRICT our right to own one, but they have been unsuccessful in removing this right. (Again, Thanks NRA!) 

    Poor disenfranchised Plax, the simpleton that he is, did it to himself. In a way, it's good to get a moroin like him off the streets. God knows who else he would have shot if the gun left his pants!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    An unjust law is no law at all, no matter what those 9 f aggots on the Supreme Court say.

    Whether you think it's good, bad, or ugly, the fact remains it is the law. If you think the law is unjust (as you call it), then you have some choices. The simple one is to not live in the state or city of NY. This way you are not subject to the law. If you do choose to live in, work in, or frequent these locations, you can petition to have the law changed. Since I haven't heard any petitions going around, I suppose those who live in NY support the law. This country is a democracy. If 90% of the people support such a law, there's not much the dissenting 10% can do, other than to leave the said jurisdiction. And again, your rights under the second amendment only extend to the powers of the federal government. All states have their own restrictions, especially on gun use/ownership. If you wish to pack iron anywhere you go, I'd suggest you move to a state which allows this. Some states out west have very few restrictions on guns. But I do believe all states have some restrictions (and licensing requirements) to carry a concealed firearm. So no matter where Plax was toting his piece stuffed inside his belt, he was committing a crime. Like the laws or not, they are still the laws! There is a process in place to change them, but you need more than outrage to do so. As far as the second amendment goes, it is indeed the Supreme Court who has the sole power to interpret and/or clarify the verbage. Whether you like or hate them, that is their function. There are 300 million people in the country, and these words could be interpreted many different ways. But that doesn't mean any individual citizen has the right to follow the law as he or she thinks it should read.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BrWyMi. Show BrWyMi's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Yup, hands down, and I can't stand him on a personal level. 

    You think the average scrub off the street that gets picked up for that same crime gets two years?  Unlikely.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]I went back to look for a thread on this.i went back as far as 10,but didnt see anything.but isnt 2 yrs harsh for stupidity?vick gets 2yrs for cruelty,stallworth gets 30 days in jail for dui manslaughter marshall gets off for beating his girlfreind.in any other case in another state a person would have gotten a slap on the hand,or a few days in jail.
    Posted by mosseffect43[/QUOTE]

    What's the common thread concerning the other NFL reprobate's crimes? NO GUNS! Gun play should, and is taken more seriously. I love it when Fairness Freaks like you try to equate one "crime" versus another.  Doesn't work that way. For his crime, Plax got what he deserved. Vick's guilt was against the unprotected animals. Stallworth's crime was against a guy who WALKED INTO HIS VEHICLE. Sure, he was DUI, but if the guy/victim hadn't done what he did, I'd profess that Stallworth would be option #3 for the Browns' QB of the Day right now, with no public knowledge of his DUI. Marshall's case is pure "he said/she said"; no trial if the victim doesn't testify against the perp.

    Ah, but Moron Man wasn't in "any other state when he went functionally brain dead. He was a resident of NY, and knew fully well his requirement to ahve his gun registered (he had done so with a gun he purchased in NY; why not this one he bought in Florida that he tried to blow his knee cap off with?) Idiots like this shouldn't be walking the streets. I'll bet he, like Vick and Stallworth have a whole better understanding of what is legal and what isn't where they reside. Ya think?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from N2thaIzzo. Show N2thaIzzo's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Yall are crazy!  2 years for possesion of a fire arm and you think it's fair?  C'mon man.  Look, I understand, you guys are tired of what you see as "preferrential" treatment towards athletes, but this is going overboard.  People have gotten less time for FAR MORE SERIOUS Crimes.  Yall are trippin.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Ok guys I will stop discussing all this procedural BS about the Supreme Court's role and whether the States are bound by the second amendment and the role of democracy, etc.  The Constitution and the Supreme Court and the States are just institutions set up by a bunch of wealthy fatcats to keep themselves rich and keep the poor man poor, so it is a waste of everyone's time to talk about complying with them like they have some intrinsic legitimacy. 

    But I will say, as a matter of natural law and justice, a man has a right to defend hiimself, and that right includes carrying a deadly weapon.  That right is especially important in a city as dangerous as New York.  And Plax was on another man's private property.  It was between him and the owner of the establishment. 

    We cannot rely on the government to protect us.  Government employees are like everyone else - lazy, fat slobs who only care about their next paycheck.  We have a right to look out for ourselves and not be required to sit around and get killed waiting for the police to come.  Government and the police are supposed to augment, not replace, self-defense. 

    In other news, it looks like reg122 has been banned.  Sweet.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    I think weed should be made legal, and i smoke it because i dont think it should be outlawed. But if I ever got cought by police and they arrested me and or gave me a ticket (as it is decriminalized in the state of Mass) if i have less then an OZ on me I wouldnt fight it, i would know the laws and i would pay my fine. The law is the law, sure i think its dumb that i cant walk down the street smoking a joint but if i do and someone arrests me thats my own fault.  No one is above the law.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : stallworth walked because the family settled for some money as far as i know... correct me if i am wrong
    Posted by rebels1520[/QUOTE]

    He got a light "sentence" because the victim walked into Stallworth's moving vehicle. The settlement was to keep a civil suit from being filed, which is a completely different kind of trial (no need to prove guily, only accountability based on the evidence) would only be about he money anyways. The prosecuters in looking at the evidence knew they had no Big Time case because the victim's actions directly contributed to his death. But, the civil case would only focus on the point that Stallworth was DUI and the victim died. OJ took a walk (thanks to a lousy prosecution team and crime scene handling of evidence), but lost the civil case (purely over money, bottom line). Stallworth just side stepped the civil trial.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : I have to disagree with some of your statement with respect to Burress and it not being political. I live in the Tri state area. Almost immediately after Burress' accident at Latin Quarters, Mike Bloomberg was on local TV stating he (Plaxico) should be held accountable for his actions.  Surely you gotta admit that if a popular two term Mayor goes on tv and says he has a problem with an athlete allegedly breaking the law, the DA isn't going to pay attention. At any rate, after I saw Jeremy Schaap's interview with Plaxico, I softened my stance a little. But what he did was stupid, and now he's gonna pay for it.
    Posted by paob[/QUOTE]

    Allegedly breaking teh law? ALLEGEDLY???? Oh, I get it. Moron Man would have successfully stated in court that peoiple only THOUGHT they heard a gun go off, and his leg injury was not due to this, but an unfortunate incident he had with a  table leg. Here's a clue: HE BROKE THE LAW! He's getting off lighter than if he was a "common crfiminal". Hizzhonor Bloomberg correctly used this "incident" to solidify his intent to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets of NYC. What better example than Moron Man to do something stupid with an unregistered hand gun? 

    You have just been selected to lead Apologists Amalgamated Union #101. Just watch out for the Tooth Farey (Thank the Globe for not allowing me to spell this correctly) and Santa Clause when they fly by.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Yall are crazy!  2 years for possesion of a fire arm and you think it's fair?  C'mon man.  Look, I understand, you guys are tired of what you see as "preferrential" treatment towards athletes, but this is going overboard.  People have gotten less time for FAR MORE SERIOUS Crimes.  Yall are trippin.
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    I both agree with you and disagree.  Let me first say where I disagree.  Like most of the other posters, the law is the law.  You may not agree with it, but it's the law.  If you know a law has serious repercussions for violating it, and you do it anyway, you are an idiot.  I have never lived in NY but even I have heard about their gun laws.  Heck, I'm not sure I would even drive through the state of NY with a hunting rifle disassembled in the trunk of my car without checking the law.  Someone who has lived in NY like Plax should have known better.

    Where we agree is whether or not the law itself is excessive.  There are pro's and con's to mandatory sentences.  One of the con's is that the judge cannot "fully" take into account any mitigating factors.  IMO, there is a difference between a gang member running around with a concealed weapon and a star athlete who may be just paranoid for his safety, and probably won't go around jacking people.  That said, he knew the law and he ignored it.  He was stupid to do so, but I don't think sending someone like him, or you, or I to prison for 2 years is just.  Sending a gang member away for 2 years is OK because he probably was going to jack someone.  OK, so I disagree with the mandatory aspect of the law, but there is no chance in h$ll I would violate the law.  
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from passedball. Show passedball's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Yall are crazy!  2 years for possesion of a fire arm and you think it's fair?  C'mon man.  Look, I understand, you guys are tired of what you see as "preferrential" treatment towards athletes, but this is going overboard.  People have gotten less time for FAR MORE SERIOUS Crimes.  Yall are trippin.
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    You think that's tough? In the state of Florida they have 10-20-life to deal with people like Burress. 10 years for the crime, 20 years if the gun discharges, 30 if you shoot someone. How ironic would it be to shoot yourself & go to jail for 30 years because of it?

    NYC has the gun laws it does because of all the scumbag people that live there & carry guns. Crime has been reduced because you pay the consequences for screwing up.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Yall are crazy!  2 years for possesion of a fire arm and you think it's fair?  C'mon man.  Look, I understand, you guys are tired of what you see as "preferrential" treatment towards athletes, but this is going overboard.  People have gotten less time for FAR MORE SERIOUS Crimes.  Yall are trippin.
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    Besides understanding your Captn Crunch box, it's obvious you know nothing about what the law sates. 1) the gun was registered (against the law)  2) it was concealed (again, against the law), and 3) Idiot Boy discharged it in the city.

    Dude needs to go away for longer just to protect himself from himself, as well as society.  You're teh tripper, and obviously have sustained a seriuous head injury. Get treatment before your brain cell oozes out tonight!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to :[QUOTE]I think weed should be made legal, and i smoke it because i dont think it should be outlawed. But if I ever got cought by police and they arrested me and or gave me a ticket (as it is decriminalized in the state of Mass) if i have less then an OZ on me I wouldnt fight it, i would know the laws and i would pay my fine. The law is the law, sure i think its dumb that i cant walk down the street smoking a joint but if i do and someone arrests me thats my own fault.  No one is above the law.Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]They actually give you a ticket for smoking a joint in MA? That was supposedly the premise in CA, but I never heard of anyone actually getting a ticket! I've had the cops take my stash before, and I've had them totally ignore it. But I've never been arrested or even given a ticket. And though NYC may be tough on guns, evidently you'd be OK blazing one there! I remember sitting on a door stoop toking away once, when a foot patrolman walked right up to me (I was so stoned I didn't even notice!). He said "If you want to smoke that s h i t, go around the corner to a side street"! Never searched me or anything. So I went (not even bothering to put it out). Good thing I wasn't packing, or I'd have been in a load of s h i t!!!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : Besides understanding your Captn Crunch box, it's obvious you know nothing about what the law sates. 1) the gun was registered (against the law)  2) it was concealed (again, against the law), and 3) Idiot Boy discharged it in the city. Dude needs to go away for longer just to protect himself from himself, as well as society.  You're teh tripper, and obviously have sustained a seriuous head injury. Get treatment before your brain cell oozes out tonight!
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    CORRECTION: The gun was UNregistered
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from paob. Show paob's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : Allegedly breaking teh law? ALLEGEDLY???? Oh, I get it. Moron Man would have successfully stated in court that peoiple only THOUGHT they heard a gun go off, and his leg injury was not due to this, but an unfortunate incident he had with a  table leg. Here's a clue: HE BROKE THE LAW! He's getting off lighter than if he was a "common crfiminal". Hizzhonor Bloomberg correctly used this "incident" to solidify his intent to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets of NYC. What better example than Moron Man to do something stupid with an unregistered hand gun?  You have just been selected to lead Apologists Amalgamated Union #101. Just watch out for the Tooth Farey (Thank the Globe for not allowing me to spell this correctly) and Santa Clause when they fly by.
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]

    AZPAT, 
    I'll get to the point - some of you M*&^%$#@!*^%S, apparently like to comment on what's written without reading and understanding the entire post. I'm not an apologist for Burress and if you think I'm jumping on your f*cking back for saying something stupid that's cause I am! 
    It took four years, but I've lost my damn patience with some of the idiots who choose to post on this site. 
    I won't respond to any of your post in the future and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same.
     
    P.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Yea Bub they passed a law now in Mass that pretty much says if you are found with more then an Oz of weed on you they can arrest you because thats enough to sell. But if you are found with less then an Oz of weed on you they can take your weed and give you a $100 dollar ticket. So pretty much you can smoke what you want when you want so long as you dont have too much weed on you. But the point was we smoke weed cause w eliek it and we think its dumb that it is against the law however if we got cought smoking and was arrested or what not we wouldnt be upset at the cops for arresting us because we knew it was against the law when we did it. Plax knew the laws in NYC and he did it anyway, he thought he was above the law and now he is paying the price.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : I have to disagree with some of your statement with respect to Burress and it not being political. I live in the Tri state area. Almost immediately after Burress' accident at Latin Quarters, Mike Bloomberg was on local TV stating he (Plaxico) should be held accountable for his actions.  Surely you gotta admit that if a popular two term Mayor goes on tv and says he has a problem with an athlete allegedly breaking the law, the DA isn't going to pay attention. At any rate, after I saw Jeremy Schaap's interview with Plaxico, I softened my stance a little. But what he did was stupid, and now he's gonna pay for it.
    Posted by paob[/QUOTE]

    NO.. I don;t have to admit it was political..... The law has been on the books for YEARS now.. and whether Bloomberg said anything or not the penalty was stil a MANDATORY 3-5 for the crime.

    Bloomberg may have been going for the voteds when he tried to get people spun up... but that does not mean that Buress' was in ANY WAY a victim of anything but his own prima-donna ignorance.

    Funny, I don;t think Bloomberg kneew that Mrs Burress was pregnant.....  I am not sure he knew that Mr Buress had a 4  yr old who would dearly miss his daddy - when he made the statement.  What he said was THE LAW IS THE LAW AND IT APPLIES TO YOU ALSO.

    Pandering (Bloomberg) Maybe.... but had Buress not been punished then I feel that would have more been political garbage of letting the rich guy off.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]An unjust law is no law at all, no matter what those 9 f aggots on the Supreme Court say. Whether you think it's good, bad, or ugly, the fact remains it is the law. If you think the law is unjust (as you call it), then you have some choices. The simple one is to not live in the state or city of NY. This way you are not subject to the law. If you do choose to live in, work in, or frequent these locations, you can petition to have the law changed. Since I haven't heard any petitions going around, I suppose those who live in NY support the law. This country is a democracy. If 90% of the people support such a law, there's not much the dissenting 10% can do, other than to leave the said jurisdiction. And again, your rights under the second amendment only extend to the powers of the federal government. All states have their own restrictions, especially on gun use/ownership. If you wish to pack iron anywhere you go, I'd suggest you move to a state which allows this. Some states out west have very few restrictions on guns. But I do believe all states have some restrictions (and licensing requirements) to carry a concealed firearm. So no matter where Plax was toting his piece stuffed inside his belt, he was committing a crime. Like the laws or not, they are still the laws! There is a process in place to change them, but you need more than outrage to do so. As far as the second amendment goes, it is indeed the Supreme Court who has the sole power to interpret and/or clarify the verbage. Whether you like or hate them, that is their function. There are 300 million people in the country, and these words could be interpreted many different ways. But that doesn't mean any individual citizen has the right to follow the law as he or she thinks it should read.
    Posted by bubthegrub2[/QUOTE]

    I love seeing constitutional arguments from people who just found out we had a constitution last week.  Some of you are so funny... YOU have no problem with the gov't stealing the right of the middle class to their pursuit of happiness... just to give something to their donors .... THIS administration is doing just that daily.

    However you want to gripe about the 2nd ammendment.  Registration of a handgun is not an infringement of your right to bear arms..... ANY  MORE than Registering of your car prevents the slobbering drunks from running over little old ladies.  OR the Textring while driving fools from killing others in outr country daily.

    I believe the gov't has gotten way to far into our everyday lives, but I do not think that requiring registration is nearly as bad as them having the right to give my 14 year old girl birth control AGAINST my desires....
    Most Americans just care about themselves.... TODAY we are fighting over healthcare.... and it's many truths (from someone who read the entire 1100 page monstrosity called HR3200).  Take it from me YOUR government is about to Take away more of your freedom.  This time to decide whether you live or die....

    We have some huge fish to fry, and I really do not think that stucking up for a gun toting moron nor being upset as we might have to let the gov't know we have a weapon is really that bad when compared to what is being stolen from us for the last 5 years......


    DID any of you hear that the present regime just let out that they have put us $2 trillion further in debt than they thought?  Did you hear that they now expect us to have a />10% unemplyment for the foreseeable future?....  Did you know that the current healthbill will not in any way try to improve healthcare quality..... but rather will just try to lower the cost.  You do realize that since the only directive of the law is to lower the cost... and their is a section on Productivity vs cost..... that SOMEONE will be making decisions to pull the plug.  NO WHERE in that bill is the QUALITY Guaranteed to remain the same or get better than what we have now.....  THERE IS A REASON that those in our government will nto sign onto the BAD DEAL we are having forced on us.


    SO did this DINGBAT get a RAW DEAL?.....  NO NO NO NO He got a sentence = 40% of the max.... and I believe that in most cases with good time you only serve about 60-70% of the sentence....  SO he was supposed to get a max of 60 mos, and they expect him to be in jail for 20..... 1/3 the punishment for the crime.. RAW DEAL? 
    I quote the theme of an 80's crime drama.....
    Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time...... DON'T DO IT!
     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Yall are crazy!  2 years for possesion of a fire arm and you think it's fair?  C'mon man.  Look, I understand, you guys are tired of what you see as "preferrential" treatment towards athletes, but this is going overboard.  People have gotten less time for FAR MORE SERIOUS Crimes.  Yall are trippin.
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    I think he should do 2 years and YOU should do the rest of his 5 yr term for not understanding what kind of an azz he was and how he endangered others and just violated the law.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wwsf4ever. Show wwsf4ever's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : I both agree with you and disagree.  Let me first say where I disagree.  Like most of the other posters, the law is the law.  You may not agree with it, but it's the law.  If you know a law has serious repercussions for violating it, and you do it anyway, you are an idiot.  I have never lived in NY but even I have heard about their gun laws.  Heck, I'm not sure I would even drive through the state of NY with a hunting rifle disassembled in the trunk of my car without checking the law.  Someone who has lived in NY like Plax should have known better. Where we agree is whether or not the law itself is excessive.  There are pro's and con's to mandatory sentences.  One of the con's is that the judge cannot "fully" take into account any mitigating factors.  IMO, there is a difference between a gang member running around with a concealed weapon and a star athlete who may be just paranoid for his safety, and probably won't go around jacking people.  That said, he knew the law and he ignored it.  He was stupid to do so, but I don't think sending someone like him, or you, or I to prison for 2 years is just.  Sending a gang member away for 2 years is OK because he probably was going to jack someone.  OK, so I disagree with the mandatory aspect of the law, but there is no chance in h$ll I would violate the law.  
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Caraway...
    IF the judge can take mitigating factors into his Opinion then he can also decide he likes the Giants and let Plaxico off with nothing.  THAT IS CR*P!

    Certain things there should be mandatory minimums for and that is what this is... CARRY a concealed  ILLEGAL weapon and go play sulck face with bubba......

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : I love seeing constitutional arguments from people who just found out we had a constitution last week.    
    Posted by wwsf4ever[/QUOTE]

    Well then, at least tell us which university you teach constitutional law at?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal? : Caraway... IF the judge can take mitigating factors into his Opinion then he can also decide he likes the Giants and let Plaxico off with nothing.  THAT IS CR*P! Certain things there should be mandatory minimums for and that is what this is... CARRY a concealed  ILLEGAL weapon and go play sulck face with bubba......
    Posted by wwsf4ever[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm sure that some folks get off light without mandatory sentences.  It is equally true that some folks get overly crushed with mandatory sentences.  Mandatory sentences are contentious for that very reason.  A false perception I think I get off of this board is that only the rich and famous get off lightly.  There are a LOT of ordinary folks who get off light.  There are even a lot of people with criminal backgrounds who get off lightly.  Because of the latter, mandatory sentences can be popular in some areas.  Everyone hears about the rapist who got off easy just to kill someone a month later.  What doesn't make the headlines is the guy with no past criminal record and has lived a fairly normal life who gets overly crushed.  No matter what your stance is, there is a winner and a loser either way.

    Plax deserved the sentence he got, because that was the law.  I just don't like the law in this case.
     

Share