If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   As it turns out, the cops did tell David Gregory is was legal to show a 30-round magazine on air. Is police ignorance of the law a defense?   (slate.com) divider line 134
    More: Followup, ignorance of the law, Meet the Press, Town privileges, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  
•       •       •

3825 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Dec 2012 at 1:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 01:54:50 PM  
1) ATF aren't police, Subby.
2) Apparently, they also asked the real DC police, who said no. This is essentially like asking mom and dad for permission separately, getting different answers, and going ahead... At best, you're going to be in trouble with one of them. At worst, they'll be even more upset about your duplicity and come down even harder.
 
2012-12-28 01:57:37 PM  
The only evidence in this "case" is Gregory waving around something that looks like a magazine on TV. No evidence he did any more than touch something on his desk.

Of course, when the DA wisely decides not to pursue charges it'll BENGHAZI all over again.
 
2012-12-28 01:59:07 PM  

Theaetetus: 1) ATF aren't police, Subby.
2) Apparently, they also asked the real DC police, who said no. This is essentially like asking mom and dad for permission separately, getting different answers, and going ahead... At best, you're going to be in trouble with one of them. At worst, they'll be even more upset about your duplicity and come down even harder.


Asking a cop if something is legal is stupid, and if anyone at NBC asked the police for legal advice then they are stupid.

Police are not lawyers, they are not trained in law, and in general are very ignorant of the law.
 
2012-12-28 01:59:54 PM  
Goddammit, Darrell Issa has "gun-related" in his Congressional scandal pool again for this year, and he'll be GOD DAMNED if he loses to the jerk-off who drew "some Middle East something or another" again! Somebody has to pay for whatever outrage this is!!!
 
2012-12-28 02:00:08 PM  
Is police ignorance of the law a defense?

Nope.

"Hey, I want to commit a felony while trying to make a minor point while arguing on a TV show. Is that okay?"
It'll be even more interesting when someone gets around to asking the ATF what they really said. If they asked "is this a Federal crime?" then the answer would be no. The real question would be "is it against the local laws in DC?"

...and when they asked the local cops, the answer was "yes."
 
2012-12-28 02:00:15 PM  
I think the fact that police are using resources to investigate David Gregory for having a high-capacity mag in a city that has about 1000 unsolved homicides might be part of the problem.
 
2012-12-28 02:00:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The only evidence in this "case" is Gregory waving around something that looks like a magazine on TV. No evidence he did any more than touch something on his desk.

Of course, when the DA wisely decides not to pursue charges it'll BENGHAZI all over again.


Out of political partisanship, the right wingers will be clamoring for gun control to be heavily enforced? If this happens then they will have achieved complete Orwellian doublethink.
 
2012-12-28 02:00:42 PM  

The Larch: Theaetetus: 1) ATF aren't police, Subby.
2) Apparently, they also asked the real DC police, who said no. This is essentially like asking mom and dad for permission separately, getting different answers, and going ahead... At best, you're going to be in trouble with one of them. At worst, they'll be even more upset about your duplicity and come down even harder.

Asking a cop if something is legal is stupid, and if anyone at NBC asked the police for legal advice then they are stupid.

Police are not lawyers, they are not trained in law, and in general are very ignorant of the law.


You know I hear it from a good source that the Police have their own lawyers.
 
2012-12-28 02:02:30 PM  
Is police ignorance of the law a defense?

Technically, no. Even if in committing a crime you act in good faith on an attorney's (or a cop's) advice, you're still liable for the crime. Unless you're the Bush administration, and you can get some lawyers to write up bogus memos saying torture is fine and dandy. Then it is a defense.
 
2012-12-28 02:02:38 PM  

Theaetetus: 1) ATF aren't police, Subby.
2) Apparently, they also asked the real DC police, who said no. This is essentially like asking mom and dad for permission separately, getting different answers, and going ahead... At best, you're going to be in trouble with one of them. At worst, they'll be even more upset about your duplicity and come down even harder.


What that article doesn't mention is that supposedly the ATF also contacted somebody in the DC police, who told them it would be okay. ATF then gave the go-ahead to NBC.
 
2012-12-28 02:03:36 PM  
As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?
 
2012-12-28 02:04:18 PM  
Hope he gets the $1000 fine. Cheap farking political stunt. If the intent was to inform the viewers, they could have shown some pictures.
 
2012-12-28 02:05:08 PM  
This whole thing is stupid.

That being said, David Gregory looks like the lovechild of Alfred E. Neumann and Andy Warhol.
 
2012-12-28 02:05:57 PM  
I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.
 
2012-12-28 02:07:02 PM  

SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?


Especially since David Gregory is a Republican.
 
2012-12-28 02:07:25 PM  

cirby: Is police ignorance of the law a defense?

Nope.


Actually, yes it is. If the cops give you incorrect information, and you act on it, that is indeed a defense. It's called "entrapment".
 
2012-12-28 02:07:50 PM  
This is incredibly stupid. You can practically get the things at Wal-Mart.
 
2012-12-28 02:07:54 PM  
This is seriously what people care about right now? For farks sake.
 
2012-12-28 02:07:58 PM  

mrlewish: You know I hear it from a good source that the Police have their own lawyers.


Wal-Mart has lawyers too. That's why I always get my legal advice Wal-Mart cashiers.
 
2012-12-28 02:08:11 PM  

Theaetetus: 1) ATF aren't police, Subby.
2) Apparently, they also asked the real DC police, who said no. This is essentially like asking mom and dad for permission separately, getting different answers, and going ahead... At best, you're going to be in trouble with one of them. At worst, they'll be even more upset about your duplicity and come down even harder.


Shouldn't matter. Ignorance of the law is not a viable defense. You can't explain to the cop you totally didn't know the speed limit was 45 and not 55. You don't get a reduced sentence for being unaware that law existed.

I like David Gregory (though sometimes he's a pussy in interviews). I like Meet the Press. But fark that, if I claimed ignorance I wouldn't get away with it. He shouldn't get to either.
 
2012-12-28 02:09:59 PM  

mittromneysdog: SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?

Especially since David Gregory is a Republican.


So were Reagan and GHWB, and they both signed anti-gun legislation/executive orders.
 
2012-12-28 02:10:07 PM  
Wow, am I sick of this "story".
 
2012-12-28 02:10:58 PM  

lennavan: You can't explain to the cop you totally didn't know the speed limit was 45 and not 55. You don't get a reduced sentence for being unaware that law existed.


But officer, I called someone at the FBI and they said that someone in your department said it was OK for me to speed because I'm late!
 
2012-12-28 02:11:05 PM  
So?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-28 02:12:15 PM  

Loaded Six String: I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.


Why? Even if they had the recourses to prosecute each and every violation of the law it would be silly. Is there really a need to give a ticket to every person who goes one mph over the limit?
 
2012-12-28 02:12:40 PM  

1derful: I think the fact that police are using resources to investigate David Gregory for having a high-capacity mag in a city that has about 1000 unsolved homicides might be part of the problem.


Good point.

Can you imagine how much police time we'd waste trying to enforce such a stupid ban on a federal level?  We'd better not make that mistake.
 
2012-12-28 02:13:01 PM  

mittromneysdog: SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?

Especially since David Gregory is a Republican.


Because they want to redirect the gun control discussion to this rather than having an adult conversation on gun regulation? Seriously, this is very transparent.
 
2012-12-28 02:16:34 PM  

SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?


"Properly enforce the laws on the books before adding more" has been a gunhead talkingpoint for more than a decade.

Also, enforcing ridiculous even when they inconvenience white, male, rich, popular, etc. people is a very fast way to get them changed.
 
2012-12-28 02:17:33 PM  
Gun enthusiasts are very, very concerned about this blatant, and frankly, dangerous disregard for the law.

Your concern is noted and will be given the attention it deserves.
 
2012-12-28 02:17:50 PM  

vpb: Loaded Six String: I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Why? Even if they had the recourses to prosecute each and every violation of the law it would be silly. Is there really a need to give a ticket to every person who goes one mph over the limit?


1) He's right on the particular public policy concern, which is why good faith reliance even on a cop's advice isn't a defense against liability.

2) But you're right that there are other sound reasons to exercise prosecutorial discretion here. In particular, the de minimis nature of the offense and its lack of connection to any serious wrongdoing.

3) On the other hand, this is a high profile case, which argues for prosecution.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-28 02:18:41 PM  
The information wasn't incorrect. It isn't a violation of Federal law, so as far as the ATF is concerned, it IS legal.

Just because the ATF said that it was OK with them doesn't mean that it is OK with the District.

Still, nothing is going to happen. We have people calling for the violent overthrow of the government (which isn't protected under the first amendment) and nothing happens to them.

No one is going to prosecute a politician or a journalist for something like that.
 
2012-12-28 02:19:03 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: mittromneysdog: SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?

Especially since David Gregory is a Republican.

Because they want to redirect the gun control discussion to this rather than having an adult conversation on gun regulation? Seriously, this is very transparent.


True.
 
2012-12-28 02:20:08 PM  
I am surprised that absolutely no person in Washington DC is allowed to have any high-capacity magazine for any reason whatsoever.

Does the secret service store their weapons in a locker outside the city?
 
2012-12-28 02:20:57 PM  
Who asks the police what's legal? He should have consulted the corporate lawyers.

However, I don't think the intent of the law is really aimed at what he did.
 
2012-12-28 02:23:53 PM  

SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?


Because they think that this will some how discredit him and his arguments regarding gun control..
 
2012-12-28 02:23:54 PM  

SixPaperJoint: Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?


The top hits on google news for this right now are The Blaze, Breitbart, and something called "The Patriot Perspective". So, the correct answer is "because they're pants-on-head retarded".
 
2012-12-28 02:27:45 PM  
wouldn't this be the NBC producer's ignorance of the law? Read your articles, subby.
 
2012-12-28 02:28:48 PM  
I wish I could care less about this story. But I cannot. This is too dang important!
 
2012-12-28 02:31:15 PM  

The Larch: SixPaperJoint: Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?

The top hits on google news for this right now are The Blaze, Breitbart, and something called "The Patriot Perspective". So, the correct answer is "because they're pants-on-head retarded".


I get HuffPo, Mediaite, NY Daily News and Salon
 
2012-12-28 02:32:09 PM  

SixPaperJoint: As a pothead, I have never wanted a DARE officer or a politician that use actual drugs in their talks or presentations to go to jail for possessing because I don't want ANYONE to go to jail for possession.

Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail?


Usually the officer or politician gets approval and manages it in a controlled manner.

David Gregory has as much of an excuse for having a 30rd magazine in DC as anyone else on the street.
 
2012-12-28 02:32:34 PM  

vpb: Loaded Six String: I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Why? Even if they had the recourses to prosecute each and every violation of the law it would be silly. Is there really a need to give a ticket to every person who goes one mph over the limit?


So then what's the point in proposing a ban on high-capacity magazines if you're not going to enforce it?
 
2012-12-28 02:32:56 PM  
This kind of seems like a distraction
 
2012-12-28 02:37:00 PM  

joness0154: vpb: Loaded Six String: I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Why? Even if they had the recourses to prosecute each and every violation of the law it would be silly. Is there really a need to give a ticket to every person who goes one mph over the limit?

So then what's the point in proposing a ban on high-capacity magazines if you're not going to enforce it?


There was a story over the summer where a woman visiting from Kentucky or some other such place checked her gun at security at the Empire State Building before going to see it. She was arrested for having a concealed weapon which is punishable by death via fire ant under Bloomberg. They wound up giving her a warning because her mistake was an innocent one, as they should have. (some of the details might be off here but you know the story I am referring to)
If NBC producers were told by DC Police that it was unlawful to do this, I don't see much of a defense in that regard. I do see it as being merely a fine rather than putting Gregory in jail. His purty, boyish ass wouldn't last a week
 
2012-12-28 02:37:12 PM  
Stupid as it may have been, I find it oddly telling that you're more likely to get in trouble for showing an empty ammunition clip on a TV show while discussing gun control than you are owning a small arsenal or weaponry and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the presence of someone you know to have emotional or mental problems.

America is farking weird....
 
2012-12-28 02:38:00 PM  

Epicedion: This is incredibly stupid. You can practically get the things at Wal-Mart.


That's-the-joke.jpg

They are easy to get and millions of people stocked up on them after The AWB failed. Gun owners have been expecting a return to the ban since its the only way some high ranking dems know how to deal with crime.
Because of that, these items will be traded across the Internet for decades to come no matter what Feinstein does.

/so far as David Gregory, his defense is that the ATF knows the law better than metro.
/metro was trying to say it was a auto-mail response from some program.
/could be they're trying to back their way out of a pr disaster.
/just goes to show how stupid the law was.
/I still want it shown in court, because nothing matters unless its in legalese.
 
2012-12-28 02:42:26 PM  
And nobody shot up the Meet the Press studio while he was in possession of it. Therefore, the NRA is correct.
 
2012-12-28 02:44:06 PM  
Isn't this the textbook definition of entrapment?

The cops cannot tell you its ok to do something then arrest you for doing it.
 
2012-12-28 02:46:32 PM  
He should be put in jail with Greg Gutfriend.
 
2012-12-28 02:46:49 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Isn't this the textbook definition of entrapment?

The cops cannot tell you its ok to do something then arrest you for doing it.


but they can tell you it is not ok and then arrest you when you do it anyway
 
2012-12-28 02:48:06 PM  

joness0154: vpb: Loaded Six String: I don't think it would set a good precedent for law enforcement of any jurisdiction to be able to give the go ahead to break a law. That just doesn't seem right to me.

Why? Even if they had the recourses to prosecute each and every violation of the law it would be silly. Is there really a need to give a ticket to every person who goes one mph over the limit?

So then what's the point in proposing a ban on high-capacity magazines if you're not going to enforce it?


Because the debate about safty is in reality just a proxy for a debate about power. The authoritarian left thinks power(guns) belong only in the hands of the state. So even though he may have violated the alleged spirit of the law by possessing a dangerous 30rd magazine, increasing the density of the things in the area and therefore the chances that it would fall into the wrong hands, he didn't violate the actual spirit of the law. He doesn't want to use it and doesn't want people to have it and was using it to make a point that its a thing that only the state ought to have.

So you get the fark crowd here who elsewhere talk about how hppy they would be to be the ones to pry em from law abiding owners cold dead hands going meh instead of frothing. It just as dangerous for him to have it as the law abiding owner, but that isn't the point.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report