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.

(News9 Oklahoma)   DC Prosecutors have decided to not to charge the David Gregory with breaking the law. Finally, a rich affluent white person can get justice in America   (news9.com) divider line 409
    More: Followup, Wayne LaPierre, David Keene, Oklahoma City, school massacre, Admonition, d.c. police, NBC, attorney generals  
•       •       •

7278 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2013 at 1:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-11 10:13:28 PM
Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?
 
2013-01-11 10:19:51 PM

Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?


I think they've successfully taken back the word.
 
2013-01-12 12:18:21 AM
Rich and affluent? That never happens.
 
2013-01-12 12:21:24 AM
Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.
 
2013-01-12 12:42:48 AM
legalinsurrection.com
 
2013-01-12 12:53:50 AM
That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?
 
2013-01-12 01:19:57 AM

It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?


This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.
 
2013-01-12 01:22:10 AM
Why the definite article, Subs?
 
2013-01-12 01:23:02 AM

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.

But I find this liberal talking point interesting (and stupid):

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Let me guess, you think it was made out of cheese?


What GAT_00 is stating is that he believes that criminal activity is always justified if it is committed in an effort to further the cause of restricting civilian firearm ownership.
 
2013-01-12 01:23:26 AM

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


More like...

www.annaguirre.com
 
2013-01-12 01:23:28 AM

dickfreckle: It appears I must repeat myself from another thread.


PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, MOTHERF*CKER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?

This case would not really serve the interest of the people. Had I been in the same shoes, I'd have declined it, too, even if it were Rush Limbaugh doing it. It would be nothing but a complete waste of resources and time.


Yes, but then you send the message that any rich, affluent person can wave a magazine around in order to make a vague political statement. Is that the kind of Sunday morning political talk show we want our precious children to sleep through?
 
2013-01-12 01:24:52 AM

Atomic Spunk: Sure, but when will it be cool to call them "crackers"? Or is that still something only they are allowed to call each other?


Who is actually bothered by "cracker"? I know a few folks who could possibly be upset by "redneck", but their kids and grandkids actually welcome being called "redneck".

Are we too far west of the Mississippi for "cracker" to matter here in California?

/Guera is my favorite term of abuse.
 
2013-01-12 01:25:19 AM

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.
 
2013-01-12 01:27:01 AM
Awesome headline, subby.
 
2013-01-12 01:27:07 AM
I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....
 
2013-01-12 01:27:58 AM
Anyone who give more than two shiats and a fark about this should be euthanized.
 
2013-01-12 01:28:17 AM
Beat him to the white meat
 
2013-01-12 01:29:30 AM

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


That is an amazingly expansive reading of the first.

But then, the current supreme court is well known for occasionally huffing the paint before writing up a ruling so they might actually do that.
 
2013-01-12 01:29:36 AM

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.
 
2013-01-12 01:31:26 AM
The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.
 
2013-01-12 01:31:40 AM

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


yes

THIS
 
2013-01-12 01:32:01 AM
Glad to see everyone agrees that the gun laws in DC are retarded.
 
2013-01-12 01:32:16 AM
I'm just impressed the article actually called it a magazine and not a clip.
 
2013-01-12 01:33:19 AM

Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.


Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.
 
2013-01-12 01:33:46 AM

Shadowe: The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.


Law enforcement agents are typically exempted from stupid and irrational firearm prohibitions.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:37 AM

Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....


He could make a good second amendment case.
 
2013-01-12 01:34:39 AM
I didn't pay attention to this the first time.. he was seen with an extended clip? That's it?
 
2013-01-12 01:34:46 AM
It is high time that whitey caught a break.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:38 AM

Bonzo_1116: Dimensio: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

I was unaware that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected the right to possess and display otherwise prohibited items if the display was intended as a form of speech.

Museums can display all sorts of freaky military and historical shiat in the name of education, including snuff-type photos of dead people that would be considered obscene in other contexts.

And display is a long way from use.


Museums are typically afforded specific exemptions not applicable in law to private citizens, even to journalists.
 
2013-01-12 01:35:39 AM
Dimensio and Holocaust Agnostic

I was referring to the free press provision, not the free speech provision. Without at least some freedom to operate outside the bounds of the law the press would be unable to report on any criminal activity. Journalists would be forced to testify about drug deals, prostitution, or mob activity witnessed while researching a story. This is less egregious than any of those instances, as no one in this case sought to break the law or do harm.

Without a similarly expansive reading of the First Amendment journalists would be guilty of at least obstructing justice almost every time they interviewed criminals.
 
2013-01-12 01:36:16 AM

Shadowe: The real question is how would a precedent in this case apply to all the police officers that display illegal items for the exact same purpose.


This is what I wondered
 
2013-01-12 01:36:35 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.


Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.
 
2013-01-12 01:37:57 AM
Arresting him would make him a martyr. That is the motivation Republicans have for seeing it happen.
 
2013-01-12 01:38:19 AM

Lenny and Carl: Dimensio and Holocaust Agnostic

I was referring to the free press provision, not the free speech provision. Without at least some freedom to operate outside the bounds of the law the press would be unable to report on any criminal activity. Journalists would be forced to testify about drug deals, prostitution, or mob activity witnessed while researching a story. This is less egregious than any of those instances, as no one in this case sought to break the law or do harm.

Without a similarly expansive reading of the First Amendment journalists would be guilty of at least obstructing justice almost every time they interviewed criminals.


The First Amendment to the United States Constitution typically allows journalists to refuse to disclose some sources to law enforcement. However, I am aware of no legal precedent stating that prohibitions established upon mere possession of banned items itself is exempted to journalists who are attempting to present a journalistic report.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:17 AM

Lsherm: That's not what the law was written for, so it shouldn't have been prosecuted in this case.


Seems pretty clear to me. Anyone in DC who posses this type of magazine is breaking the law. There was no intent written into the law and yet DC has horrible crime stats.
 
2013-01-12 01:40:20 AM

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.


What about a veteran?

D.C. arrests vet for unregistered ammunition
In September 2011, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler was arrested at the VFW in the District because he happened to have a few long-forgotten rounds of ordinary ammunition in his bag.
 
2013-01-12 01:41:32 AM

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution typically allows journalists to refuse to disclose some sources to law enforcement. However, I am aware of no legal precedent stating that prohibitions established upon mere possession of banned items itself is exempted to journalists who are attempting to present a journalistic report.


Sure you do. You know of journalists who have driven their cars with their sources riding with them. If I were driving my car with a dealer riding shotgun my car can be impounded and sold at auction because I'm responsible for the drugs inside of it. Until a journalist is charged with possession under those same statutes then Gregory has a case.
 
2013-01-12 01:41:57 AM
If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.
 
2013-01-12 01:42:56 AM
Rich and affluent? Doubtless he is also well-heeled.

/Effluent?
 
2013-01-12 01:43:38 AM

ThisIsntMe: Lenny and Carl: I'm only a lawyer on the interwebs, but don't you think Gregory would have beaten back any prosecution with a First Amendment argument? Free press, informed public, etc....

yes

THIS


No, for the same reason that Gregory couldn't hold up pictures of child porn during an expose about child pornographers. The law is specifically targeted against possession. And guess what? The fact that publicly-broadcast video exists of him holding the magazine is rather solid evidence backing a possession charge.
 
2013-01-12 01:44:17 AM

GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.


lol

You know... when you dig your holes, you don't HAVE to jump into them headfirst. It's funny when you do, but it isn't required.
 
2013-01-12 01:44:40 AM

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


You, My friend do not live in central New Jersey. They'll pull you over for an out of date inspection and call a K-9 to smell your vehicle.
 
2013-01-12 01:48:20 AM
JasonOfOrillia: Why the definite article, Subs?

"The
David Gregory?"

"No, just a David Gregory. Didn't you hear I come in six-packs?"
 
2013-01-12 01:49:28 AM

Bonzo_1116:
And display is a long way from use.


In what sense is 'use' relevant? I was under the impression that the bans were because a high proliferation of large magazines was so undesirable no one should be permitted to own them for any reason. The guy bought the magazine, putting money into the hands of dealers who presumably used at least some portion of the money towards making more of the things and marginally increased demand and therefore profit margins increasing the incentive to make more. And he also carried the thing around instead of, say, immediately destroying it, creating the chance that he could have it stolen from him or that he could suffer a psychotic break while it was in his possession and use it to massacre the film crew. He is exactly as destructive to the common good as others subjected to this law.

Why then should he be exempt?
 
2013-01-12 01:49:33 AM
For all the people jumping on the bandwagon that this decision was made for the stated reason that "criminal charges wouldn't serve the public's best interests", you need to seriously read up on DC's gun laws and how they are applied to persons not in the media. People are prosecuted for possessing a handful of rounds of ammunition, or a magazine as shown in the television segment. These are the sole charges and and aren't, as was stated by someone else in this thread, tacked on other charges to "cover the bases". The plain fact is if you or I had waved that mag around on television, we'd be facing charges, but because of who did it and the agenda behind it, it gets a free pass. The people lauding this decision should be ashamed.
 
2013-01-12 01:49:48 AM

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


That's funny, because as a gay pothead, I'm seriously considering purchasing a gun sometime soon. Maybe we are the future.
 
2013-01-12 01:49:49 AM

twistofsin:

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays?


Never been to an Appalachian queer bar, have you?
 
2013-01-12 01:51:53 AM

Gyrfalcon: Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


Because everyone else damn well knows better.
 
2013-01-12 01:52:28 AM

Gyrfalcon: Holocaust Agnostic: GAT_00: Except, you know, there was only circumstantial evidence that the law was broken.  But hey, good to know Republicans are more than happy to apply a law they claim is unconstitutional to someone without proof so they can throw a political enemy in jail.

Yes shiatty laws should only be applied to unpopular and poor people. You know, people who have no resources to defend themselves with and who no one will give a shiat about. That way we can keep them on the books longer.

Uh, do you think that anyone unpopular and poor would have been arrested for this in the first place? The statute is pretty  much an enhancement to the existing laws, so that attorneys can't argue loopholes and claim "Yes, but my client only had five rounds of loose ammunition--the rest was contained in magazines!" or somesuch. If you got arrested for having a 30-round magazine, chances are you got arrested for something else, much more serious and the magazine charge was just to make sure they covered all the bases.

I mean, I understand your enthusiasm for standing up for the poor and downtrodden, but it's highly unlikely that an impoverished person would get arrested for, say, a single joint and also having a 30-round magazine in the back of his VW bus. Those things tend to concentrate themselves where there are also lots of illegal weapons or excessive amounts of highly proscribed narcotics. Nobody else is going to be waving them around just to make a point.


An army vet just got acquitted after a months long legal fight because he seas caught with one. It was the only charge. The kicker is the same prosecutors that excused Gregory said that the vet deserved the book thrown at him despite the acquittal.
 
2013-01-12 01:52:43 AM

twistofsin: If gun nuts want to make it through this they need to reach out to other people looking for more freedom.

Could you imagine a coalition of gun nuts, potheads, and gays? The platform for America's next great party will revolve around those 3 issues.


You have my and all my dead relatives votes good sir.
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report