did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp'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? : 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.
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Carawaydj I completely agree with this post and youre earlier post. While I dont like Plex(considering he predicted the score of the 07 superbowl) or his off field actions and I think he is a moron, I also do not think compared to other recent legal situations that he deserved what he got. Yes I too understand that the law is the law but the law to a degree is also up to interpretation of the courts, jury's and judges. Plexico did not have intent to assisinate somebody in cold blood but more likely he was just being a tard by sporting a glock in a night club and showing off to his buddies. I think 2 totally different things. One is intent to commit a crime and one is being a douch bag. It appears that he got 2 years because of the fact he tried to bribe hospital workers and eye witnesses. If that is the case I understand a little more but again compared to torchering dogs and running over and killing a guy I just dont get it.
     
  2. 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? : 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.
    Posted by wwsf4ever[/QUOTE]

    Question for you. If say Martin Brodeur was out and about in Newark, NJ with Scott Stevens and some of his teammates and  accidentally shot himself with a gun that wasn't registered or licensed, do you suppose Cory Booker would have responded in a similar way as Bloomberg? I think the answer is yes and rightfully so. I live in the tri state area. The amount of people getting shot and killed here is ridiculous and people of all hues have had enough.
    I don't think Bloomberg was trying to earn brownie points with voters. From what I've seen, my impression is he does what he thinks is right and lets others worry about his popularity. 
    PS, to any residents of Newark on this site, I'm not tryin' to slam your city. Just stating a point as far as the murder rate is concerned. 


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    I can't believe how many people are willing to just bend over and say, "Well, that's the law, then I guess it's ok.  We must obey our masters the politicians."  How about we tell the politicians to go f*ck themselves and serve the prison sentence themselves for the lies and corruption they've committed to stay in office.  Prison time for failure to fill out paper work is unjust.  To paraphrase some self-serving politicians from an earlier generation, this truth is self-evident.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from N2thaIzzo. Show N2thaIzzo's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    The problem with you guys is you don't try to see things from the other side.  Yeah Plax had an unregistered gun in the club.  Yeah he committed a crime, and yeah he deserves to be punished.  I get all that.  The problem I have is this.  Plax didn't go to the club with the gun looking for trouble, so why should he get the same time as someone who did go looking to start trouble with a gun?  Have you forgotten what happened to Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams, and numerous other athletes in the past 4 years?  Plax is a target.  To give the man 2 years because he wanted to protect himself is ridiculous.  And yes, it was all because of Bloomberg... he wanted to make an example out of Plax and he did..
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    He was made an example of. This is one of the very few times you could say " if that was me a I would have done less time" No doubt about it. I don't feel bad for  him either way. He's a millionaire. His thug friends should be packing the heat for him. This is as dumb as Nate Newton wanting to be a drug kingpin.
     
  6. 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]The problem with you guys is you don't try to see things from the other side.  Yeah Plax had an unregistered gun in the club.  Yeah he committed a crime, and yeah he deserves to be punished.  I get all that.  The problem I have is this.  Plax didn't go to the club with the gun looking for trouble, so why should he get the same time as someone who did go looking to start trouble with a gun?  Have you forgotten what happened to Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams, and numerous other athletes in the past 4 years?  Plax is a target.  
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    I get it.  He should be punished, but not to the same degree as a real thug carrying a weapon.  To be the devil's advocate, some of those who disagree with this view will point out that a real thug might have received a much stiffer sentence.  That is what happens when judges have no discretion to weigh in on such mitigating circumstances.  Perhaps if more judges weren't so lenient on real criminals, the need for mandatory sentences would have never arisen.  

    I hate to think what the murder rate in NYC was before the gun laws.  If it is still high now, imagine what it was before.  Then again, if you listed the countries with the toughest laws, and then listed the countries with the lowest crime rates, they would not be the same list.  Quite contrary to what I believed most of my life, there is not this obvious relationship between the toughness of laws and the crime rate.  When I worked in Saudi Arabia, a country where you can get your head and limbs cut off, or whipped in public, there was still crime.  There was more than you would think.  The fact is, there are many factors besides the strictness of the laws that influence crime rates.  I think the strictness of the laws is probably one of the least influencing factors.  Heck, when I lived in Germany, their crime rate was very very low, yet they had a very lenient judicial system.  Some would say their justice system is a Club Med.  Why is their violent crime rate sow low?  

    I hear all of the posters who say such laws are necessary because of all the crime.  However, for every study showing that gun laws reduce crime there is one that shows it doesn't.  I guess criminals don't register their guns.  Most criminals don't think they will get caught.  Therefore, they don't fear the punishment.  In a Supreme Court ruling on gun control last year, one of the justices wrote:

    At the crudest level, as Justice Breyer wrote, violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. “Indeed,” he continued, “a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place.”

    We all have our opinions, but this is hardly as cut and dry as we all try to make it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rpn123321. Show rpn123321'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]


     Yeah, the law is messed up big time. Plaxico gets two years in jail for carrying a handgun in his pants in NYC. But Chris Brown gets nothing but 5 years probation for beating the begeezes out of a woman. Something is wrong with this picture. I can understand wanting to protect yourself as you are a celeb icon in NYC, but I can't understand beating a woman, and getting a slap on the wrist.
     
  8. 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]The problem with you guys is you don't try to see things from the other side.  Yeah Plax had an unregistered gun in the club.  Yeah he committed a crime, and yeah he deserves to be punished.  I get all that.  The problem I have is this.  Plax didn't go to the club with the gun looking for trouble, so why should he get the same time as someone who did go looking to start trouble with a gun?  Have you forgotten what happened to Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams, and numerous other athletes in the past 4 years?  Plax is a target.  To give the man 2 years because he wanted to protect himself is ridiculous.  And yes, it was all because of Bloomberg... he wanted to make an example out of Plax and he did..
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    N2thaIzzo,
    I can understand where you're coming from as far as protecting yourself. But Plaxico could easily have afforded to have gone out and got a license for that gun. What do you suppose would have happened if he was in Latin Quarters and some sh*t broke out and he had to use that gun? 

    Why didn't he think about that?

    Roger Goddell is not the forgiving kind! One final note: considering all the gun deaths especially in Newark and NYC this year, did you think Bloomberg was gonna look the other way? I have to believe that may be one reason why they (DA's office) weren't looking to plea on his case.
    I know I'm asking you a lot of questions, but as a grown a*s man w/a child on the way, these are things Plaxico should have been thinking about.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Shadowcpt. Show Shadowcpt's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Way back in the old day, around 1778, owning a gun was common. The 2nd amendment was written to establish two princiiples. First that all gun owners could be called  upon to form, in times of crisis, a militia. Second, that all Americans had the right to bear arms and that the government had no authority to remove them from the citizens.  The reason why the second clause was inserted, was because of a fear of the government becoming over powerful and dictitorial. Perhaps, they should have followed the adivice of Thomas Jefferson and other like minded men, who were against the Bill of Rights because he freared that selecting ten rights to focus on could be detrimental to the freedom of the people. See, ole TJ and the boys believed that the Constitution, as written without the Bill of Rights, guaranteed LIBERTY and PERSONAL FREEDOM. Me thinks he had a point, given the absurdity of the anti-gun clowns. Also, dead offenders cannot become repeat offenders. Have a nice day.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    If Plaxico Burress was a poor man with no positive press, we wouldn't be talking about him.  Should rich men get more rights than the rest of us?  They usually do get more rights, but not in this one case.  How about rich men with good 40-yard times?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from N2thaIzzo. Show N2thaIzzo'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? : N2thaIzzo, I can understand where you're coming from as far as protecting yourself. But Plaxico could easily have afforded to have gone out and got a license for that gun. What do you supposed would have happened if he was in Latin Quarters and some sh*t broke out and he had to use that gun? Why didn't he think about that? Roger Goddell is not the forgiving kind?! One final note: considering all the gun deaths especially in Newark and NYC this year, did you think Bloomberg was gonna look the other way? I have to believe that may be one reason why they (DA's office) weren't looking to plea on his case. I know I'm asking you a lot of questions, but as a grown a*s man w/a child on the way, these are things Plaxico should have been thinking about.
    Posted by paob[/QUOTE]

    I understand all that, and that's why I agree he needs to be punished, but 2 years is way to much for his crime.  His crime was just carrying one.  I don't expect Bloomberg (or any other politician for that matter) to "look the other way" when a crime is committed.  If we both have 2 pounds of coke, and I get knocked for a possesion charge, and you get knocked for possesion with intent to distribute... those crimes have different penalties.  You're right, he could have gotten a license and for not doing that, punish him, but not that hard.  As far as I know, this is his 1st offense.  Had something gone down in the club, and he used it, we would have dealt with it then.  But lets say he didn't have one and needed one.  In my opinion, better to be caught with one, than to be caught without one...  would you rather get locked up, and get put to sleep?  Trust me, as a parent myself, I understand your questioning my logic.  There really is no right or wrong answer to this one in my opinion... 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Way back in the old day, around 1778, owning a gun was common. The 2nd amendment was written to establish two princiiples. First that all gun owners could be called  upon to form, in times of crisis, a militia. Second, that all Americans had the right to bear arms and that the government had no authority to remove them from the citizens.  The reason why the second clause was inserted, was because of a fear of the government becoming over powerful and dictitorial. Perhaps, they should have followed the adivice of Thomas Jefferson and other like minded men, who were against the Bill of Rights because he freared that selecting ten rights to focus on could be detrimental to the freedom of the people. See, ole TJ and the boys believed that the Constitution, as written without the Bill of Rights, guaranteed LIBERTY and PERSONAL FREEDOM. Me thinks he had a point, given the absurdity of the anti-gun clowns. Also, dead offenders cannot become repeat offenders. Have a nice day.
    Posted by Shadowcpt[/QUOTE]

    I like this post.

    It's concise, informative and not condescending at all (okay . . .  maybe a little).
    The thing you want to remember about ol' TJ, though, is that he never had an original idea in his head, and many of his contemporaries wanted to distance themselves from John Locke and the myriad Frenchman that Jefferson was perpetually plagiarizing.
     
  13. 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? : I understand all that, and that's why I agree he needs to be punished, but 2 years is way to much for his crime.  His crime was just carrying one.  I don't expect Bloomberg (or any other politician for that matter) to "look the other way" when a crime is committed.  If we both have 2 pounds of coke, and I get knocked for a possesion charge, and you get knocked for possesion with intent to distribute... those crimes have different penalties.  You're right, he could have gotten a license and for not doing that, punish him, but not that hard.  As far as I know, this is his 1st offense.  Had something gone down in the club, and he used it, we would have dealt with it then.  But lets say he didn't have one and needed one.  In my opinion, better to be caught with one, than to be caught without one...  would you rather get locked up, and get put to sleep?  Trust me, as a parent myself, I understand your questioning my logic.  There really is no right or wrong answer to this one in my opinion... 
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]

    Two years is a long time...As for being caught with a gun as opposed to not having one if some s*it breaks out, it didn't help Vernon Forrest much. With all due respect to the man, he's now taking a dirtnap. Like you, I'm also a parent and a majority if not all of what I do is based on how is this going to affect my daughters.
    Peace.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]Way back in the old day, around 1778, owning a gun was common. The 2nd amendment was written to establish two princiiples. First that all gun owners could be called  upon to form, in times of crisis, a militia. Second, that all Americans had the right to bear arms and that the government had no authority to remove them from the citizens.  The reason why the second clause was inserted, was because of a fear of the government becoming over powerful and dictitorial. Perhaps, they should have followed the adivice of Thomas Jefferson and other like minded men, who were against the Bill of Rights because he freared that selecting ten rights to focus on could be detrimental to the freedom of the people. See, ole TJ and the boys believed that the Constitution, as written without the Bill of Rights, guaranteed LIBERTY and PERSONAL FREEDOM. Me thinks he had a point, given the absurdity of the anti-gun clowns. Also, dead offenders cannot become repeat offenders. Have a nice day.
    Posted by Shadowcpt[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]The problem with you guys is you don't try to see things from the other side.  Yeah Plax had an unregistered gun in the club.  Yeah he committed a crime, and yeah he deserves to be punished.  I get all that.  The problem I have is this.  Plax didn't go to the club with the gun looking for trouble, so why should he get the same time as someone who did go looking to start trouble with a gun?  Have you forgotten what happened to Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams, and numerous other athletes in the past 4 years?  Plax is a target.  To give the man 2 years because he wanted to protect himself is ridiculous.  And yes, it was all because of Bloomberg... he wanted to make an example out of Plax and he did..
    Posted by N2thaIzzo[/QUOTE]
    How do you know he didn't go to the club looking for trouble? How would you know if his purpose for carrying was protection rather than acting as a gangsta' poser?
    Granted protection is an issue for high profile athletes but if you're concerned about your safety why are you even at a club after midnight? He already had a bodyguard with him anyhow.
    This is all irrelevant. There is no intent element in this crime. Its strict liability, like statutory rape. If you're caught carrying a gun, you go to jail. period. Good law IMHO.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Shadowcpt. Show Shadowcpt'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 like this post. It's concise, informative and not condescending at all (okay . . .  maybe a little). The thing you want to remember about ol' TJ, though, is that he never had an original idea in his head, and many of his contemporaries wanted to distance themselves from John Locke and the myriad Frenchman that Jefferson was perpetually plagiarizing.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    I agree, Thomas was a great "borrower" of ideas. His own were often obscure and inconsistent. As an example, he wanted to abolish slavery in the Declaration of Independence (over ruled by Benjamin Franklin) but refused to free his own slaves.
     
  17. 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? : 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.
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Yeah most people do not like a LAW when it makes them change the way they want to act.


    The LAW was there, for a reason- he was an arrogant azz- who did not take into acct in any way how nice of a person YOU think he is.. nor how important he was to his family, nor the fact that this could cost him his livelihood. WHat he took into acct was that he wAnted to be able to CAP someone if they threatened him- He wanted to be the big man in the building.....   WELL GOOD FOR HIM... He can be the man in the BIG HOUSE.

    The Law is correct... it was there before he thought he was above the law, and it will be there after.

    It did not say that he could not have a gun- it said that he had to have a registered gun....

    In every state in the union as far as I know it is ilegal to shoot an innocent man because you are a dumbazz.....   SO he violated that law too.
     

     
  18. 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? : Carawaydj I completely agree with this post and youre earlier post. While I dont like Plex(considering he predicted the score of the 07 superbowl) or his off field actions and I think he is a moron, I also do not think compared to other recent legal situations that he deserved what he got. Yes I too understand that the law is the law but the law to a degree is also up to interpretation of the courts, jury's and judges. Plexico did not have intent to assisinate somebody in cold blood but more likely he was just being a tard by sporting a glock in a night club and showing off to his buddies. I think 2 totally different things. One is intent to commit a crime and one is being a douch bag. It appears that he got 2 years because of the fact he tried to bribe hospital workers and eye witnesses. If that is the case I understand a little more but again compared to torchering dogs and running over and killing a guy I just dont get it.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    He didn;t have intent to commit the crime? />> REALLY?
    Did he not put that Unregistered weapon in a concealed place and carry it into a business establishment?   Did he not say the other day on ESPN that he KNEW it was unregistered, and he knew NY's law about it?  Did he not further go onto say that he took it with him because a friend had been accosted a few days earlier at a bank (or something like that)?.

    HE HAD INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW....

    He just cannot believe that the LAW would violate him....

    Heck if you heard his story about a friend getting assaulted and the fact he was not going to let that happen to him... then given a bad situation he intended to use that gun if he wanted....

    SORRY, I know you feel bad for the guy and want to believe he was victimized......   but if he was victimized it was by his own feeble mind....  He ACTUALLY got LESS THAN THE LAW CALLS FOR by pleading before hand......

    I think they should have demanded he take the minimum if he wanted to be sure he did not get the MAX.

    PLAXICO shot an innocent man in a Bar for tripping on the stairs.....

    THis right here should tell you that he WAS NOT IN CONTROL of the situation.... mistake or not, and therefore I think he should be punished more harshley.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Plax didn't go to the club with the gun looking for trouble, so why should he get the same time as someone who did go looking to start trouble with a gun? 

    For one thing, the law states that merely carrying the gun is the crime, intent or not. And if you are carrying a gun concealed under your belt, it's a fair assumption that you are either looking for trouble, or expecting to find it. In any case, you cannot truly know what Plaxico's "intent" was. Only he truly knows that.

    To give the man 2 years because he wanted to protect himself is ridiculous. 

    If Plax truly wanted to be "safe", he should never have been in a place where he felt he could be attacked. You or I couldn't walk down the street with an assault rifle and tell the cops we were only "protecting ourselves" when we were stopped by the police! And I know you'll say he has the "right" to go where he wishes. But in doing so he has to realize he takes certain risks. You also have the "right" to jump in the everglades amongst the alligators, but why would you want to? Nobody has the "right" to break the law, whether they feel endangered or not. The sensible thing to do is to avoid those places where you feel you may be in danger. But we all know Plax has little or no common sense! Just the fact he shot himself proves he has no business even carrying a gun.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    I'm weary of this debate, but I'll chime in to agree with bub here.

    The sad fact is that celebrities, while they are entitled in theory to the same "rights" and "liberties" that you and I anonymous folk enjoy, real life does not permit them to enjoy them the same way we do.

    I'm sorry, but the fact that you are a hero makes you a target -- and, yes, I get that -- for some of you -- that means "I'm rockin' my glock and I'll cap the pap(arazzi)." For those of the gifted, professional athlete class -- it means "stay your *ss out the public eye."

    I doubt very much that Cool Hand Plaxico wants to be a "thug" anymore ( if he ever was one ), but I'd be willing to bet money I haven't earned yet that he's still got a posse following him around ( or did, until recently) that believes he is. I'd be willing to bet further that Plax carrying had nothing at all to do with any perceived danger that he might be in, but was simply what I call a "big d*ck" thing. Dude's got money. He's got people. No one is raising up on him.  He's carrying loose for the same reason Mike Vick was running blood dogs -- cuz he's got a big d*ck, and in case you can't see it, y'all better check again.

    Raw deal?

    Arnold Schwarzenegger made a movie called Raw Deal about 25 years ago that made more sense than anyone who is defending Cool Hand Plaxico right now.

    That's how it is.

    I'm out. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    We got some real debate going here with professers and everything and then Pmine comes out of no where and lays down the law. From here on this will be reffered to as the "big d*ck" theory
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dv8ed. Show dv8ed'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]

    uhm, maybe you haven't been ayaing attention.  He was not given 2 years for the posession of a firearm.  Posessing a firearm is not illegal.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dv8ed. Show dv8ed'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]

    I see what you're saying here, but a paranoid person breaking a law and handling a firemarm improperly is EVERY bit as dangerous as a gang member with a gun.  Thankfully, no bystanders were hit this time.  A firemarm only needs to be discharged once.  intent for it's use is irrelevant when an inoocent bystander is injured or killed.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dv8ed. Show dv8ed's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    In Response to Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?:
    [QUOTE]I'm weary of this debate, but I'll chime in to agree with bub here. The sad fact is that celebrities, while they are entitled in theory to the same "rights" and "liberties" that you and I anonymous folk enjoy, real life does not permit them to enjoy them the same way we do. I'm sorry, but the fact that you are a hero makes you a target -- and, yes, I get that -- for some of you -- that means "I'm rockin' my glock and I'll cap the pap(arazzi)." For those of the gifted, professional athlete class -- it means "stay your *ss out the public eye." I doubt very much that Cool Hand Plaxico wants to be a "thug" anymore ( if he ever was one ), but I'd be willing to bet money I haven't earned yet that he's still got a posse following him around ( or did, until recently) that believes he is. I'd be willing to bet further that Plax carrying had nothing at all to do with any perceived danger that he might be in, but was simply what I call a "big d*ck" thing. Dude's got money. He's got people. No one is raising up on him.  He's carrying loose for the same reason Mike Vick was running blood dogs -- cuz he's got a big d*ck, and in case you can't see it, y'all better check again. Raw deal? Arnold Schwarzenegger made a movie called Raw Deal about 25 years ago that made more sense than anyone who is defending Cool Hand Plaxico right now. That's how it is. I'm out. 
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    Pmike makes a good point (and a rather funny one).  Some of this makes me wonder if other NFL quarterbacks, oh let's say Tom Brady, are toting illegal weapons into nightclubs.  Somehow, I don't think he is.  Man am i glad Brady is a Patriot.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    No but thats cause players like Brady dont go to night clubs....cause they have brains.
     

Share