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.

(Washington Times)   It's one thing to break DC's gun laws when you're white and rich but if you're non-white and non-rich... oh you better believe you're going to get charged with a crime. Bonus: Defendant is an Army vet and applicant for US Marshal   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 310
    More: Obvious, gun laws, miller, Ed Donovan, MPD, Dodge Charger, Pennsylvania Avenue, U.S. Marshals Service  
•       •       •

11948 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-06 06:57:59 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?
 
2013-01-06 06:58:25 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I'm glad we have ged internet lawyers like you to clear this up for the rest of us.
 
2013-01-06 06:58:44 PM  

pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I see the Fark Law School recently had a commencement ceremony.
 
2013-01-06 07:02:45 PM  
This discussion has gotten pretty emotional, and I don't know if it's possible to raise the issue - but what exactly IS the position of the law regarding journalists and writers who are involved with criminal activities they report on? I have seen and read many "Expose' " type articles and books about highly illegal activity, where journalists and writers, sometimes "undercover" have either been passively present or even vestigially involved in illegal activities.
"Panic in Needle Park", a Life magazine expose about junkies in New York. "Tulsa", a similar photojournal about red-dirt speedfreaks in Oklahoma. HST's "Hells Angels". And countless others. In all these situations, the writers were direct observers, and even participants in unlawful activity - but i have never heard of any reporter being charged in those circumstances. I wonder if the authorities even HAVE any coherent stance on the issue. If I were caught in the presence of such people, passively witnessing their criminal activities, or participating, I would expect to be arrested - and these types of reports often clearly relate that circumstance.
Any Fark lawdogs here know anything about this? It piques my curiosity.
 
2013-01-06 07:02:45 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?



They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.
 
2013-01-06 07:03:56 PM  

pueblonative: Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".


I'd like to see that. He would be legally justified in doing so and there wouldn't be evidence to try him, BUT we would all get to call him the hypocrite that he is. I hope he goes that route.

I take the same approach with people claiming nothing was wrong with the Fast and Furious scandal. Why then did Obama claim executive privilege, and why did Holder refuse to testify?
 
2013-01-06 07:05:01 PM  
From an law standpoint, the whole deal is ridiculous, and the law shouldn't even be on the books. From an equal protection standpoint, these cops are hypocrites. To sum up: stupid hypocrites hold positions of power in the Washington D.C. area. Shocking, I know.

In the Atlantic Civil War archives, there is a phrase used here in the writings of a man who led one of the first black regiments during the Civil War.

For the tldr crowd: ...for there is nothing in human history so momentous as the transit of a race from chattel-slavery to armed freedom...

It's the "armed freedom" bit that is interesting, implying that there are indeed tiers of "freedom". Before everyone starts pointing out these men were in the army, yeah, I know. My point is this: armed freedom is freedom with power. Power in anyone else's hands always leaves would-be tyrants clutching at their pearls.
 
2013-01-06 07:05:07 PM  

pueblonative: They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.


Works for me, immunize the producers and charge Gregory
 
2013-01-06 07:05:13 PM  

david_gaithersburg: St_Francis_P: I find it encouraging that the Conservative Entertainment Complex is finally worrying about the treatment of minorities and the disadvantaged. Bravo!

.
You should step off of the plantation from time to time.

[atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com image 300x147]


"I think that some restriction on speech is appropriate." -Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on C-span2, Monday, June 5th, 1995

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
Bill Clinton, 42nd US President MTV's "Enough is Enough" 4-19-94

"We still will have the freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of movement, but we may have to have more discipline in doing it..." -President Clinton referring to his Ominibus Counterterrorism Act on "60 Minutes".

"[the United States] can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." -- President William Clinton, Boston Globe, 3/2/93, page 3
 
2013-01-06 07:05:37 PM  
Here's the fun part kids, Federal law allowed for transport of those mags (and even firearms) provided they were legal at both ends of the trip.

The sad part is that part of the law gets ignored in many instances. NJ, NY & I think Denver as well have violated it.
 
2013-01-06 07:06:41 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


There are a couple of them in Alabama, but they sure as hell arent producing any tax revenue. Were talking hard scrable depression era esque completely broke ass country folks.
 
2013-01-06 07:07:47 PM  
I thought DC had a ban on guns? Wouldn't it be illegal for him to posess the gun even if it was locked in the trunk?
Did they go after him because the gun was not registered, was he licensed to have one? I would think that alone would be cause to push any charge to the end.
But I do find it odd that I could have say, ten 10 round mags and would be considered to be safer than if I had one 15 round mag
 
2013-01-06 07:08:11 PM  
hasty ambush:

Here's another for your collection

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-27 April 1995 Dianne Feinstein
 
2013-01-06 07:09:29 PM  

pedrop357: pueblonative: They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Works for me, immunize the producers and charge Gregory


That would work, assuming that the producers know where the clip is now and didn't destroy it or something.

But here's the thing that a lot of you are forgetting: the whole point of the article is that the prosecutors tried to convict a guy for that and FAILED before the David Gregory case with shockingly similar circumstances. Yeah they can bluster all they want about the previous case, but they know that with that around their neck second time really will be harder.
 
2013-01-06 07:12:26 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.


Or maybe some of us think that neither should be charged with anything because the law is utterly retarded, and are pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the anti-gun stance when they want to exempt "their" guy from the laws they intend for everyone else.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. If a law becomes a burden for the politically connected class, either repeal it, or suck it up. But please stop the mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.
 
2013-01-06 07:13:45 PM  

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: The desperation here is hilarious.

I agree. At least about the desperation coming from you. A news anchor went on TV and claimed the object in his hand was a 30 round magazine, it resembled a 30 round magazine, and he had even called the police department ahead of time to see how to possess a 30 round magazine.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this was some right wing hack holding a firearm that resembled a machinegun, which he claimed was a machinegun and of which he had talked to the NYC or DC PD about before bringing on his show, we'd be hearing a very different tune from you.


Camptown Races?

OK, here's Gregory's defense:

Three hours of video of TV news hosts holding up fake guns, drugs, fireworks, space stations, car parts, jewelry, food and electronics for the past fifty years without referring to them as "props" followed by another three hours of video of someone holding up various weapons and accessories and asking the prosecution's expert witnesses to identify them as fake or real.

And here's the part you dim bulbs don't seem to get:

Gregory doesn't have to prove anything.

The prosecution has to prove he committed a crime and they can't do it with just that tape.
 
2013-01-06 07:14:10 PM  

pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.


Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.
 
2013-01-06 07:14:29 PM  

GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.


No. It boils down to people being upset about the hypocrisy in the gun debate, and for me nuts of any stripe. This guy was breaking the law and arguing for stronger laws on that subject. I am all for asshats like that, no matter what the subject, getting punished.
 
2013-01-06 07:17:07 PM  
If you are a politician white and rich, you can keep your money gun in the freezer and have a National Guard detachment private security consultant retrieve the cash firearm in case a natural disaster police investigation threatens the sanctity of your freezer.

/that guy was black
 
2013-01-06 07:19:09 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Farkage: And if either of them was charged, they both have to be charged.

Because a picture of you holding a magazine in a place not your residence is EXACTLY the same class of evidence as being busted with said magazine in your vehicle along with the weapon it is intended to be used with.

The desperation here is hilarious.


So now you are confused between a 'picture' and a news segment where a reporter showed it had moving parts and talked about how it should be illegal'?
 
2013-01-06 07:19:40 PM  

MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag


How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?
 
2013-01-06 07:19:41 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: hasty ambush:

Here's another for your collection

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."-27 April 1995 Dianne Feinstein


Considering that it is impossible (not "almost",impossible not "virtually" impossible) for a non-government connected citizen to get a CCW in San Francisco... this is the most disgusting one.
 
2013-01-06 07:21:04 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: GAT_00: BSABSVR: Can I say neither should be charged with anything, or is that going to throw you dipshiats into a fake goddamned froth?

It's worth pointing out here that a few people who are fervently pro-gun are now demanding that someone be charged with a law they consider illegal without actual proof that the law is violated.  Which really boils down to nothing more than wanting to throw your political enemies in prison.

Thiis. You said it more eloquently than I just did.

Or maybe some of us think that neither should be charged with anything because the law is utterly retarded, and are pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the anti-gun stance when they want to exempt "their" guy from the laws they intend for everyone else.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. If a law becomes a burden for the politically connected class, either repeal it, or suck it up. But please stop the mental gymnastics to defend the status quo.


Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.
 
2013-01-06 07:21:51 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?
 
2013-01-06 07:23:16 PM  

Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?


Places that receive farm subsidies.
 
2013-01-06 07:23:56 PM  

Moopy Mac: Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?

Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?


Aesthetically, there isn't much of a different between the majority of CT and somewhere like Miami County, Ohio.
 
2013-01-06 07:24:06 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Subpoena duces tecum.


I had that once...

Used sooooooo much toilet paper!
 
2013-01-06 07:24:49 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.



Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.
 
2013-01-06 07:25:57 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?


This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.
 
2013-01-06 07:27:43 PM  

Moopy Mac: Pray 4 Mojo: Moopy Mac: But at the same time, "blue" suburbs and rural areas

Where are these blue rural areas?

Never been to rural CT? Or to most of CT?


Nope.

Wasn't a smartass question...
 
2013-01-06 07:31:17 PM  

pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.


Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.


So now the prosecutors charge the producers with spoilation of evidence. Intentional hiding of evidence they reasonably knew to be inculpatory to the defendant. I mean, they asked ifbit was legal, got a resounding NO response from DC police and carried on with the illegal act. Any destruction, hiding, etc. of that evidence could be construed as spoilation.
 
2013-01-06 07:31:40 PM  

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?

This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.


A deal for what? Immunity from a charge they can't make without your testimony? Where's your video of a producer holding the magazine?

Not to mention, what a great career move! Hey, I'm already working close to the ceiling of network news, think I'll roll over on the talent! That'll get me to 60 Minutes for sure!

Yeah, "prospector", you got that right.
 
2013-01-06 07:32:26 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: The_Six_Fingered_Man: pueblonative: Mrbogey: GAT_00: The defendant is never required to provide evidence against themselves. It is obtained by police through warrants.

Police: "Here's a warrant to produce the device you had on TV".

Producers: "Here's the fifth amendment. Unless that warrant comes with an offer of immunity, go fark yourselves".

You cannot be seriously suggesting that no criminal defendant has ever been compelled by subpoena to produce evidence that might incriminate them. No, you cannot be that stupid. How else do you believe prosecutors obtain evidence only under control of a dedendant? Magic, perhaps?


They cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce specifically the item in evidence that the police and prosecutors want to convict a person unless the authorities want to give them use immunity. The police can search their premises to locate that item and can seize that item, but searching ain't always finding.

Subpoena duces tecum. Learn it. In other words: subpoena to produce evidence.


Documents not a physical clip. And the police by that subpoena have just told the producers to commit a criminal act (i.e possess a clip that is illegal within the bounds of DC for the purpose of turning it over).

But okay, let's assume you're right and the police can do that then turn right around and charge them with the crime of possessing an illegal clip.. I'm sure that the producers did have legal advice that consisted of get that farking thing out of there as quickly as possible after showing it. So they no longer have possession of said item. Now we're back to where the police have to. . .shock of all shocks. . .get testimony to determine the location of that item. Hell they even have to get testimony from the producers that that was the clip if they did charge David Gregory with that crime. And we go back to the fifth amendment yet again.

So now the prosecutors charge the producers with spoilation of evidence. Intentional hiding of evidence they reasonably knew to be inculpatory to the defendant. I mean, they asked ifbit was legal, got a resounding NO response from DC police and carried on with the illegal act. Any destruction, hiding, etc. of that evidence could be construed as spoilation.


Also, it's magazine, not clip. In case you weren't aware, as it appears that you are not.
 
2013-01-06 07:33:08 PM  
Sweet!! Our guns don't even need bullets in them any more to be deadly!!!

And all this time I spent loading 50,000 rounds of various calibers... when the mag is the deadly part.

Washington DC....almost as douchebaggy as The Peeplez Republik of Kalifornia.

Almost, but not quite.
 
2013-01-06 07:33:48 PM  

SDRR: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense

Haha cuz all gun owners are Cletus the slack jawed yokel. Ha ha


Shut the fark up.


So generalizations are stupid?

Eat a bag of dicks

/derp
 
2013-01-06 07:35:42 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Peter von Nostrand: Lsherm: In the much better, much longer version of the story they actually note that he had an arrest warrant out because of a prior traffic stop that never got taken care of.  That's what snowballed the search.  They should have dropped the charges.  It's a stupid law, and it shouldn't have been applied in this case anyway.  Nor should it have been applied when what's his face waved an empty magazine on tv.

Gun control laws tend to be pretty stupid, as do the people who support them.  They don't do any good, and instead exist solely so the police have an excuse to harass law-abiding citizens like this man.

I guess all those countries with far more restrictive gun laws that have far fewer deaths due to gun violence are "stupid". However the belief that because Billy Joe Bob and his drinking buddies are armed, they are the last thing that stands between us and the tyranny of the US government makes complete sense

crime rates in the UK and US are pretty similar, despite that the US has a much more diverse population with more economic disparity


We aren't talking about crime rates
 
2013-01-06 07:39:48 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: MrHelpful: all the prosecutors have to do is subpoena people involved with that broadcast to testify that this was a real mag

How are they going to do that without incriminating themselves?

If they brought it to the studio they're at least as guilty as Gregory. Same thing if they inspected it closely enough to see that it was real.

So what's the scenario by which someone can testify in court that they knew it was a real magazine without incriminating themselves?

This is case where the prospector would offer someone a deal.

A deal for what? Immunity from a charge they can't make without your testimony? Where's your video of a producer holding the magazine?

Not to mention, what a great career move! Hey, I'm already working close to the ceiling of network news, think I'll roll over on the talent! That'll get me to 60 Minutes for sure!

Yeah, "prospector", you got that right.


On my phone.

I don't think the guy who bought the magazine is 'close to the ceiling'.

Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.

Even if he says nothing they have a great case.
 
2013-01-06 07:40:13 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.


I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?
 
2013-01-06 07:45:17 PM  
Wow, a gun reference and race card play in the headline. Can we have an IQ test mandatory for being on the link approval panel?
 
2013-01-06 07:46:27 PM  
Anyone notice that this guys is wearing a badge in his picture? If he's not a cop then why the fark is he wearing a badge?

(If he was a cop then the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act would have applied and he never would have been arrested)
 
2013-01-06 07:47:20 PM  
mea culpa on the whole clip vs magazine distinction. Still, if it were that easy to get the producers to put up evidence I'm pretty sure the DC police would have done it before.
 
2013-01-06 07:47:58 PM  

liam76: Plus you are assuming he will lie or clam up when the police question him, either one is going to damage his credibility.


God, do you people even glance at any other parts of the Constitution?
 
2013-01-06 07:52:15 PM  
IS DAVEGREGRY A MEME YET?
 
2013-01-06 07:52:28 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?


According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.
 
2013-01-06 07:54:18 PM  

rvabenji: Anyone notice that this guys is wearing a badge in his picture? If he's not a cop then why the fark is he wearing a badge?

(If he was a cop then the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act would have applied and he never would have been arrested)


Uh, he was a candidate for US Marshall? (RTFA)

I'm guessing his arrest didn't derail his process.
 
2013-01-06 07:59:26 PM  

Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?


Some -- not all, but some -- gun control advocates believe that criminal activity is entirely acceptable when committed in an effort to advance an agenda of gun control. I have read admissions of such from at least two individuals.
 
2013-01-06 08:00:13 PM  
Enough already! Can we just negate and nullify the Bill of Rights and be done with all this?

/Oh, too late, most of them are already severely eroded.
 
2013-01-06 08:01:17 PM  

pueblonative: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?

According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.


The federal protections applicable to Mr. Brinkley would likely not apply to Mr. Gregory.
 
2013-01-06 08:06:18 PM  

Dimensio: pueblonative: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin: Nadnerbus: AssAsInAssassin:
Where did I say neither (or both) should be charged? I just pointed out that the same people who think the magazines should be legal also want to see the liberal David Gregory prosecuted. No hypocrisy on my end.

I think you are misreading the intent (though I can't speak for anyone but myself). Again, either the law applies to Gregory the same as everyone else, or it should not apply to anyone. By pointing out that he absolutely should be charged under the law as it is written and implemented, the hope is that people will concede that the law is in fact stupid and protects no one, while empowering the state to control people to an even higher degree.

Think of it as the Socratic method. If Gregory shouldn't be charged, then why should TFA guy be?

According to the court, he was acquitted, so prosecutors should probably take a hard line on whether or not they want to go with this shiat again.

The federal protections applicable to Mr. Brinkley would likely not apply to Mr. Gregory.

FTA: Mr. Brinkley believes the "Meet the Press" anchor is receiving special treatment because of his high-profile job. "I'm an average person," Mr. Brinkley said in an exclusive interview with The Washington Times. "There seems to be a law for us and a law for the upper echelon."


So unless I'm missing something here, there doesn't seem to be a federal protection for US Marshall applicants that Mr. Gregory wouldn't have.
 
2013-01-06 08:10:03 PM  
Go be not white somewhere else.

/amirite?
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report