did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rebels1520. Show rebels1520'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? : 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.
    Posted by AZPAT[/QUOTE]


    thanks for the details.... i just remembered on WEEI one morning them discussing how the family settled blah blah... thanks for the clarification
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    I dont really see how Stallworths case is even compearable to teh Plax case. they are different situations.
     
  3. 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]I dont really see how Stallworths case is even compearable to teh Plax case. they are different situations.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    I don't like Plax, so it doesn't tickle my fancy taking his side on anything.  I could compare it to the Stallworth case like this:

    1. Both men knew full well that they were violating a law.  Plax knew he shouldn't have had an unregistered gun with him, and Stallworth knew you don't drink and drive.  The both intentionally decided to break the law.  Both men knew bad things can happen.  Stallworth should have know that driving impaired can lead to bad things, and as for Plax, well I just think alcohol and guns probably don't mix.

    2. Neither man "intended" to do harm.  I doubt Stallworth got into his vehicle intending to run over someone, and I doubt Plax intended to shoot himself or anyone else sans self defense.  I'm aware of the somewhat spirited views some have of Plax and that they will insist he was out there intending to jack someone.  I don't think that's a credible assumption.

    3. They both intentionally broke a law, and they both harmed someone.  Of the two, the harm caused by Stallworth was far greater.  Driving impaired is every bit as reckless and dangerous as carrying a gun.  You cannot be "registered" to drive impaired though.  What if they had mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a DUI?  What if the first violation sent you away for 2 years?  After all, a car in the hands of a drunk driver is more dangerous than a gun (registered or not) in the hands of an otherwise law abiding citizen who doesn't make a living jacking people.  To be my own devil's advocate though, Plax mixed alcohol and guns.  I think that makes it equal.
     
  4. 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]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.
    Posted by tompenny[/QUOTE]

    YOU are kidding right?...

    This cruime has a MINIMUM sentence of three years..... with a 3-5 recommendation....

    YOU actually think YOU - some nobody who has no worth to the city of Ny would have gotten off with a 30-40% sentence?....  NO WAY!

    What you would have gotten was IGNORED, no one would have cared if you were sentenced to 3-5yrs.....   therefore no one would have said Boo.


    It truly is absolute ignorance to think he got a bad deal when he actually got 20 months of a 60 month sentence....    How about this- Send me $10,000 and I will pay you $3000 back.....  that way you too will only get the payback of 30%...

    SILLINESS......


     
  5. 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 did plaxico burress get a raw deal? :  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.
    Posted by rpn123321[/QUOTE]

    YOU can understand wanting to protect yourself as a celeb in NYC..... HMMM? SO you protect yourself by being a MORON and keeping the gun without a holster in the pant leg of your jeans.......  WHATEVER....
    Look if you want lawlessness, I am game- but I guarantee you I have no second of hesitation in pulling a trigger if a threat is seen.

    I personally think the attitude that this guy was mis-treated is foolish.... HE got 30% of the max.. and that is before his time off for good behavior....
    He was a MORON..  The Stupid shall be punished and it was his own choice to take everyone in the bar's life into his hands when he walked through that door.

    ONLY a mental midget cannot see that once he went through the door into a public space with intoxicated people he put himself into a depper situation.  YEP some of you say he only shot himself..... I AGREE, but that wasn;t because of anything he prepared.... It was Moron Luck that some poor 19 year old girl did not get put over the edge of a bridge and left to drown well this drunk slob with his gun ran home to wait until the next day to call the police.

    HE violated the law, and he is being punished VERY LENIENTLY I may add for his mistake.....

    This crime had NOTHING to do with the Chris Brown crime....  Chris Brown assaulted one person (And I wish he was punished much more harshly) but that does not equate with taking the lives of 200 in a bar in your hands....
    Look at it this way, if the gunshot had hit someone sitting at the bar he could have been tried for Depraved indifference attempted murder...... even though he didn;t know he would slip on the stairs....  I believe that the penalty for that crime is 20-life.

     
  6. 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 don't like Plax, so it doesn't tickle my fancy taking his side on anything.  I could compare it to the Stallworth case like this: 1. Both men knew full well that they were violating a law.  Plax knew he shouldn't have had an unregistered gun with him, and Stallworth knew you don't drink and drive.  The both intentionally decided to break the law.  Both men knew bad things can happen.  Stallworth should have know that driving impaired can lead to bad things, and as for Plax, well I just think alcohol and guns probably don't mix. 2. Neither man "intended" to do harm.  I doubt Stallworth got into his vehicle intending to run over someone, and I doubt Plax intended to shoot himself or anyone else sans self defense.  I'm aware of the somewhat spirited views some have of Plax and that they will insist he was out there intending to jack someone.  I don't think that's a credible assumption. 3. They both intentionally broke a law, and they both harmed someone.  Of the two, the harm caused by Stallworth was far greater.  Driving impaired is every bit as reckless and dangerous as carrying a gun.  You cannot be "registered" to drive impaired though.  What if they had mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a DUI?  What if the first violation sent you away for 2 years?  After all, a car in the hands of a drunk driver is more dangerous than a gun (registered or not) in the hands of an otherwise law abiding citizen who doesn't make a living jacking people.  To be my own devil's advocate though, Plax mixed alcohol and guns.  I think that makes it equal.
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but need ti disagree. Stallworth's problem came when a 3rd party walked into his moving vehicle. No contact: no stop, no police, no trouble, at least at that point. Plax's issues undoubtedly happened when he decided to play Gunslinger with his loaded weapon, and I'm referring to the gun. I have yet to know of ANY loaded weapon discharging as long as the safety is on.

    Were they both guilty of breaking the law? Undoubtedly. Would they have been caught if their "incidents" hadn't have happened? Stallworth, probably not, as the natural course of events could have played out. Plax, he'd probabky get the same result after diddling with his gun.

    Ask yourself this: IF Stallworth was not DUI, and the accident happened, would we even be discussing it? Keep in mind we're putting all the elements in the same place (him, the moving vehicle, and the victim). Only the DUI made this  more newsworthy. As for Plax, we'll put him, the club, and the gun in the same place. To make this incident seem less newsworthy, we'll have to remove an element. Can't remove him, the club or the gun. The only element we can remove is the gun to keep this from happening as it played out. Sorry, that can't happen. Plax compounded his stupiduity by obviously trying to play Lone Ranger with it. It's well know that he's got other guns, and should obviously know the significance of the "safety" feature. He compounded hi stupidity by removing it, if he even had it on at all. And I don't care how dumb you are, NO ONE will out a loaded handgun xosn his pants ith the safety off.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    There are some states with mandatory sentences for DUI's, but the sentence is either light, or you need a few convictions to get around a year in prison.  That's a whole other topic.  I was just using it as an example of how the Plax and Stallworth cases do have some similarities.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ajclark4. Show Ajclark4's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Mike Wilbon said on PTI a couple of days ago that when you live in a state with unusually stringent law or laws, you are, typically, at least aware of those laws and the penalties they carry. He used the DUI laws in Arizona as an example (for those who do not know, BAC over .08 in AZ = minimum three days in tent city jail, mandatory interlock device in your car, plus all applicable fines. god help you if you get an extreme DUI). He argued that the AZ DUI law is the NY gun law, which I think its a fair comparison. I think Wilbon has a point that Plax was probably at least cognizant of these laws, and violated them anyway.  

    That said, in my opinion, he did get a VERY raw deal. He was clearly singled out by the NY prosecutors and made an example of. His sentence has basically ended his career (I believe he'll be 34 when he gets out. What NFL team would take a flyer on a 34 year old WR who has been out of the league for two years and was never a top flight receiver even in his prime?). Also, you must consider that Donte Stallworth got considerably LESS time for killing another human being, and Vick is already back in the league after serving less jail time for organizing and funding the torture and killing of animals for profit. It was foolish to not consider those two cases for precedent. Burress' case becomes a lot less serious when viewed in light of Vick and Stallworth. 

    Plax shot himself in the leg. With his own gun. 

    Was it stupid? You bet. Will he learn from it? One would hope so. 

    Did he get a raw deal? Absolutely. 

    I hate the Giants and I am not a Plaxico Burress fan. I think he is a showboating, selfish, T.O.-wannabe b*tch. But even I do not believe for one second that he got what he deserved here. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dogbones. Show dogbones's posts

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    carrying a gun in a city with with very strict laws

    carrying a loaded gun in your pocket

    not having the safety on

    shooting yourself in the leg while scratching your balls

    hiring a dumb lawyer

    not taking the 1 year deal

    thinking that a jury would find you innocent because you think your a star

    ruining his career

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2 years is a good deal instead life in a mental hospital

    the person who started this post should spend 2 years in the cell with this moron

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

    Re: did plaxico burress get a raw deal?

    Isn't the very nature of a crime that it hurts somebody else?  It's been a long standing principle of justice that you don't punish people for what they might have done (i.e. you don't criminalize gun possession or gun "unregistration" because the guns might be used to hurt someone).  This law is therefore unjust, and where the legislature fails to obey the laws of justice, the courts must uphold it.  Plax should walk free.
     

Share