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  
•       •       •

7279 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
 
2013-01-12 04:18:15 AM  

enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.


Yeah, would those be the same people who have charged people who LEGALLY transport their items, after calling the DC police and finding out exactly what they have to do to be in compliance?

Yeah, that's someone "using their brains" all right...

Even US Marshall applicants get busted by these non-robots
 
2013-01-12 04:18:40 AM  
Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.
 
2013-01-12 04:19:32 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4umDXI6zREM&t=14m14s

Well so far this is already teaching me a good deal, thanks.


Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)
 
2013-01-12 04:23:17 AM  

untaken_name: enochianwolf: untaken_name: enochianwolf: There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Not under the law as written, there isn't.

Thankfully, the people who interpret the law aren't robots and can use their brains in deciding whether or not the law was meant to apply in this case.

Right, they only use it against people they don't like. Not people they like who cause the exact same degree of harm. That you are in favor of this tells me everything I need to know about your character. That is, you have none.


I'm interested in what they did with this "highly dangerous" magazine when they were done with it. Who brought it in, and was that person a local from inside the city? Is it back on the streets? I mean.if this thing was so dangerous, did they do the only moral thing and destroy it immediately after the segment was done taping?

Of course not, they gave it back to the owner, which means someone illegally transported it across town again, and got off scott free again...
 
2013-01-12 04:23:32 AM  

gweilo8888: Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)


LOL this is pretty damn funny. Not totally sure what the premise of the show quite yet, but I'm digging it. I might not watch/listen to much British humour, I enjoy it most of the times I do.
 
2013-01-12 04:24:20 AM  
Or could it be that reporters often, or just about always, get a a pass when using something that may be illegal as a apart of their story. It's not like this is something new, Geraldo made a career out of it.
 
2013-01-12 04:24:34 AM  
Since it isn't a state it provides it's own laws, signed off by? The US Congress. So I'm guessing somebody gave him a pass.
 
2013-01-12 04:25:56 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


And the second it gives teeth to all the others
 
2013-01-12 04:26:12 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.


They are American citizens, correct?
 
2013-01-12 04:27:04 AM  

ongbok: Or could it be that reporters often, or just about always, get a a pass when using something that may be illegal as a apart of their story. It's not like this is something new, Geraldo made a career out of it.


Geraldo made a career out of doing things in jurisdictions where he broke the law?

/Citation needed
 
2013-01-12 04:27:20 AM  

The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.


There's nothing "first amendment" about violating the law. He had plenty of options to show his "dangerous" magazine that didn't involve violating the law. Interpreting this as a first amendment issue just shows how little understanding people have of what free speech is. Using your logic, he could have walked into a mall with a 30 round magazine filed with blanks and an AR-15, loaded that puppy up, and opened fire on the mall. Nobody would be actually injured, and he would just be "demonstrating" using his first amendment rights.

IN other words, the first amendment is not as broad as people seem to think it is.
 
2013-01-12 04:28:25 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.

They are American citizens, correct?


yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.
 
2013-01-12 04:30:04 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.


DC is ultimately administered by Congress, and thus is more strongly bound to the Constitution than the states.  Its only a non-direct interpretation of the 14th amendment that binds States to the majority of the rights granted by the Constitution.

/Not arguing the legitimacy of the equal protection clause, just trying to frame some history for the poor fellow.
 
2013-01-12 04:31:02 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?


Gat has a special ability to take the most obvious of facts and turn them into something entirely different.  This special ability is more common known as "farking retarded".
 
2013-01-12 04:31:59 AM  

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


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



Also known as, "Having the right connections".
 
2013-01-12 04:32:44 AM  

untaken_name: I've always heard that the best defense is a good offense


The Dalai Lama, considered by many to be the living epitome of peace, said "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
 
2013-01-12 04:32:45 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Why is anyone discussing the constitution in relation to the District of Columbia? It's not a State.

DC is ultimately administered by Congress, and thus is more strongly bound to the Constitution than the states.  Its only a non-direct interpretation of the 14th amendment that binds States to the majority of the rights granted by the Constitution.

/Not arguing the legitimacy of the equal protection clause, just trying to frame some history for the poor fellow.


And here I agree, as I said. All laws and ordinances are approved by the congress before falling to lower levels of the executive branch. So Congress approved the law or ordinance in question. That's all I was saying.
 
2013-01-12 04:36:39 AM  

ThisIsntMe: yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.


In a sense, yeah. I wonder what happens when someone moves to DC. Do they get demoted or something when it comes to rights?
 
2013-01-12 04:37:08 AM  

TheJoe03: gweilo8888: Such as that Alan Davies has a small one... ;-)

LOL this is pretty damn funny. Not totally sure what the premise of the show quite yet, but I'm digging it. I might not watch/listen to much British humour, I enjoy it most of the times I do.


It's worth watching from the start, I just linked to the relevant bit. And it's a superb show, but if you're outside the UK and don't have relatives there to share it with you, not easy to find through legal means.

QI = "Quite Interesting". Premise is basically just that, they talk about quite interesting things vaguely related to a specific topic area, debunk urban legends in the process, and Alan Davies plays the foil to all the jokes each week while the other three are random (but often, repeat) guests.
 
2013-01-12 04:37:13 AM  
Do I have to be rich and affluent to be called "The Elmo Jones?"
I'm not white. Does that matter?
 
2013-01-12 04:38:19 AM  

Mikey1969: The Loaf: Mikey1969:
Well, first,
Second,
Third,
Fourth,
Fifth,

Sixth: Its arguably a first amendment case, but noone seems to care about any amendment but the second.

/Wishes people cared as fervently (or more so) about the fourth than they do about the second.

There's nothing "first amendment" about violating the law. He had plenty of options to show his "dangerous" magazine that didn't involve violating the law. Interpreting this as a first amendment issue just shows how little understanding people have of what free speech is. Using your logic, he could have walked into a mall with a 30 round magazine filed with blanks and an AR-15, loaded that puppy up, and opened fire on the mall. Nobody would be actually injured, and he would just be "demonstrating" using his first amendment rights.

IN other words, the first amendment is not as broad as people seem to think it is.


He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District.  By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.
 
2013-01-12 04:38:57 AM  
That being said , The District of Columbia is a Federal City and actually does not fall within the scope of the constitutional  ammendments. James Madison  made sure of that in Federalist No. 34 in 1788.
 
2013-01-12 04:39:59 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: yes, much like Puerto Ricans or Samoans.

In a sense, yeah. I wonder what happens when someone moves to DC. Do they get demoted or something when it comes to rights?


No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.
 
2013-01-12 04:41:09 AM  
Emanuel
 
2013-01-12 04:42:32 AM  

ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.


Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.
 
2013-01-12 04:42:58 AM  

ThisIsntMe: That being said , The District of Columbia is a Federal City and actually does not fall within the scope of the constitutional  ammendments. James Madison  made sure of that in Federalist No. 34 in 1788.


1. The Federalist Papers are not the law.

2. DC is administered by Congress**, most amendments directly restrict what Congress can and can't do, and thus apply more directly to DC than they do to the states.

**their self-elected government is empowered by an act of Congress
 
2013-01-12 04:43:43 AM  
Regardless. There was an ill-written  ordinance passed. We shouldn't even have to be discussing this. But, an ill-informed advisor told a talking head  to do the wrong thing.

That's all.
 
2013-01-12 04:45:18 AM  

The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District. By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.


You're missing the entire point.  They are selectively enforcing this law.  I think it's a bullshiat limitation, but another guy was given hell even though he tried to do everything right (he had everything in properly locked cases, etc).  Gregory is getting a pass because his politics happen to correspond with the city's political stance.  If he'd been showing the magazine on the show to be defiant instead of to denounce it, you bet they'd be going after him.
 
2013-01-12 04:49:08 AM  

OgreMagi: The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District. By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.

You're missing the entire point.  They are selectively enforcing this law.  I think it's a bullshiat limitation, but another guy was given hell even though he tried to do everything right (he had everything in properly locked cases, etc).  Gregory is getting a pass because his politics happen to correspond with the city's political stance.  If he'd been showing the magazine on the show to be defiant instead of to denounce it, you bet they'd be going after him.


Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.
 
2013-01-12 04:49:20 AM  

TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.

Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.


I have not clue what he's saying, but DC does, in fact have citizens.  And also, is in fact, under the purview of the Constitution.  Anyone who switches their residency to DC become a citizen of the District and can vote for President, a vote-less congress(wo)man, and the local government (mayor/council, etc...)  They do not retain their previous state's citizenship, and can no longer vote in their previous state's election.
 
2013-01-12 04:53:23 AM  
ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.
 
2013-01-12 04:53:24 AM  

The Loaf: TheJoe03: ThisIsntMe: No , they claim their home State. Like the guy from Chicago.

Are you saying that DC does not have actual citizens (like I'd be a California citizen based on an ID and residency)? No snark, just very curious.

I have not clue what he's saying, but DC does, in fact have citizens.  And also, is in fact, under the purview of the Constitution.  Anyone who switches their residency to DC become a citizen of the District and can vote for President, a vote-less congress(wo)man, and the local government (mayor/council, etc...)  They do not retain their previous state's citizenship, and can no longer vote in their previous state's election.


Funny, that's not how Rahm Emanuel saw it before running for mayor of Chicago.
 
2013-01-12 04:54:11 AM  
Y'all may know something about guns or even the Constitution but you don't know jack about television or the courts.

I expect to see a truckload of hilarious youtube videos by Monday.
 
2013-01-12 04:55:30 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe:  Or he could have shown it from New York or Atlanta.

By that logic, Heller (as in DC vs Heller:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) could have exercised his right to bear arms in Virginia or Maryland.

Of course, for some reason, you don't seem to think that the Constitution applies to DC, so you're obviously not in a position to make an informed opinion on the matter.


Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.
 
2013-01-12 04:55:52 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Funny, that's not how Rahm Emanuel saw it before running for mayor of Chicago.


Rahm didn't establish residency in the District, and was arguing that since he was in the District on official business he didn't need to.
 
2013-01-12 04:57:59 AM  
Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?
 
2013-01-12 04:58:00 AM  

gingerjet: untaken_name: He confessed on air. Out of his own mouth. How is that not sufficient to at least move forward with prosecution?

Because DAs are given a wide degree of discretion over what to prosecute and the DA wisely stated - fark this.  Why waste the courts time with this?


"Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.
 
2013-01-12 05:00:05 AM  
DC isn't a State , it is a Federal City. They have laws. The DC DA said pass on prosecuting the law. Big deal. Happens all the time.
No big deal.
 
2013-01-12 05:00:15 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.


Luckily for him, the Constitution applies to the District, despite what Publius may or may not have said.
 
2013-01-12 05:02:06 AM  

HeWhoHasNoName: "Equal protection before the law"

It's not just a catchy soundbite, man. There's a reason "arbitrary and capricious enforcement" is a strong defense in criminal prosecutions.


Really? Are you saying that DA's and judges should not be allowed to throw out cases that they consider not worth it? In the interest of justice.
 
2013-01-12 05:04:18 AM  

enochianwolf: Dadoody: David Gregory possessed a 30 round magazine, categorically prohibited under D.C. Law.


1.) Which he held up for 3 minutes in a news segment, and has since, I'm sure, gotten rid of it. He didn't have the weapon for private use, as the other individual you mentioned did. There is, in reality, a difference between the two.

Dadoody: Diane Feinstein carries guns

2.) She's also received death threats in the past, and I don't believe she's calling for complete repeal of all firearms just the high-powered ones.


1.) Someone brought a 30 round magazine into a city where it is illegal to have one. Not a prop. A city which persecutes/prosecutes citizens for the smallest of infractions. There is a difference between the two, in that one is pro-Obama media and the other, a simple soldier who made a mistake. A mistake that shouldn't have even been illegal to begin with.

2.) So she deserves protection, while the rest of America can just pound dirt. Because she's royalty to you. And yes, she would like to ban ALL firearms possession, she has made that clear in speeches in the past and it is recorded. Aiming @ "high powered rifle/Assault Weapon" is low hanging fruit. Its a slippery slope that'll eventually lead to EVERYTHING being outlawed.
 
2013-01-12 05:05:32 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Heller actually tried that, but he also bore arms in the District. That's a No-No.

Luckily for him, the Constitution applies to the District, despite what Publius may or may not have said.


Here nor there.

Very nice debate.

You are a ...challenge.
 
2013-01-12 05:07:37 AM  
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the usual cadre of politicians, pundits and commentators are hitting the airwaves and condemning believers of the "guns don't kill" rationale. This exercise in demonization is being followed with pleas to strip Americans of their guns and place a ban on vaguely-defined "assault" weapons.

What's been lacking in the flurry of proposals that inevitably followed a catastrophe like Sandy Hook has been a deeper look at the kind of environment impressionable minds are coming of age in. Far too often, politically-minded observers fall back on reactionary emotion for the solution to problems without actually engaging in critical thinking as to the root of what they are trying to solve.

As Southwestern University School of Law professor Butler Shaffer put it, we tend to focus too much "attention on the consequences of our behavior" instead of the "casual factors, as the thinking that produces dysfunctional results."

We then end up looking to government to solve problems which it has a hand in creating. Many pro-gun control advocates are quick to mention that there is little gun violence in countries with "reasonable" gun laws in place. Yet as economist Thomas Sowell points out, countries with stricter gun control laws such as Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have higher murder rates than the U.S. When you compare Switzerland to Germany, where the former has higher rates of gun ownership than the latter, Switzerland has a lower murder rate.

The difficulty with using the empirical method to explain human phenomena is that it ignores the complexity of mankind. Data can be cherry-picked to prove any conclusion. Logic and reason are the best tools to make sense of a tragedy such as a school shooting. And the fact remains that government bans never prevent said goods from reaching the public. More often than not, good people abide by the prohibition while the more criminally inclined ignore the law.

The truth is we will never really know what compelled a young man to take the life of his mother, her coworkers and the children of Sandy Hook Elementary. There are discernable factors that may have played a significant role, however.

Our country's empathetic response to the ongoing wars that result in the deaths of innocent women and children has certainly resulted in the dehumanizing of fatal violence. The press's ignoring, and outright covering up, of the human victims (often called "collateral damage") of the War on Terror has had an immeasurable impact on how today's society views the loss of life.

When the Washington Post ran a photo of 2-year-old Ali Hussein being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad after an American air strike in 2008, some wrote to the paper and complained that the picture would undermine the war effort. The fact that the child was stripped of a life that was fully ahead of him was lost on most Americans.


There also is the increased use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals that have been shown to induce suicidal and violent tendencies. These drugs were used by the shooter in Connecticut, the shooter in Aurora, Col., and one of the Columbine High School assailants.

The politically-connected pharmaceutical industry, in cahoots with the equally connected medical industry, cashes in by peddling these government-approved narcotics. While correlation doesn't automatically mean causation, none of these points have been highlighted by a media establishment that would rather make quick judgments instead of taking the time to examine what has become the new "normal" American life.

Those who decry "the guns don't kill people" line aren't acknowledging reality. Guns are inanimate objects. They lack free will and consciousness. To say that a gun kills a person is to say that couches, shoes and washing machines can kill people.

In short, guns don't act - people do. The same goes for television shows, movies and video games with violent content. They are objects that are valued by the minds of the public. Why so many in our society are drawn to violence is worth asking because the Sandy Hook shooting was but another extension of this fascination.

My father often shares with me an anecdote about a classmate who brought a rifle to his high school speech class to demonstrate how to properly clean a firearm. This was in the blue-collar city of Emmaus, and nobody felt unsafe in the presence of a student brandishing a functioning weapon. The question is; what has changed in the decades since the late 1960s? It certainly can't be access to guns since they were just as widely available back then, if not more.

Eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote that "the nature of man is intricate; the objects of society are of the greatest possible complexity" and that the simplicity often displayed in hasty political action is "grossly ignorant." It's disappointing, but not unexpected, to witness another intellectual mob calling for prohibition of the one tool that holds tyranny at bay.

Common sense says that disarming law-abiding citizens will make them more susceptible to harm. But in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Sandy Hook, rational thought is tossed aside in favor of short run solutions.

What must be considered is why some individuals are so drawn to violence, what effect has the increased prescription rate of antidepressants had, and why casualties in war have become so dehumanized. There is an uncomfortable but common denominator in all these factors.

I would hope anti-gun zealots notice it before they ramp up their War on Firearms.

http://mises.ca/posts/blog/guns-like-washing-machines-dont-act-people - do/
 
2013-01-12 05:10:22 AM  

ThisIsntMe: Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?


Well, it depends....   If I move on my own free will, they want me to change it pretty quickly.  However, if I were there in the service of the Federal government, say maybe in the military, then they give me leeway and I can stay were a citizen of where I was for as long as I want, despite where I am.

This is how all your senators and congresspersons can live in DC, Maryland and/or Virginia for nine months a year and still be eligible for reelection.   This also extends members of the executive branch as well, though, with exception to President and VP, they are not up for reelection.
 
2013-01-12 05:14:04 AM  

Dadoody: In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

TL:DNR

And your point as it relates to a grown man waving what may or may not have been a multiple round magazine on cable television is?

 
2013-01-12 05:17:15 AM  
Ok, its 5:15 in the morning, and I've sobered up enough to go to sleep. Good night.
 
2013-01-12 05:20:24 AM  

The Loaf: ThisIsntMe: Tell me Loaf, how long will your State let you show residency when you move family and cars somewhere else for 90 days?

Well, it depends....   If I move on my own free will, they want me to change it pretty quickly.  However, if I were there in the service of the Federal government, say maybe in the military, then they give me leeway and I can stay were a citizen of where I was for as long as I want, despite where I am.

This is how all your senators and congresspersons can live in DC, Maryland and/or Virginia for nine months a year and still be eligible for reelection.   This also extends members of the executive branch as well, though, with exception to President and VP, they are not up for reelection.


Sorry, Grew up outside of Ft. Rucker in Alabama and my boy flies out of Eglin AFB above Ft. Walton FL. AL and FL require you to show residence and get tags in 30 days. And I should check, but I think Congresspersons and Senators are actually supposed to reside within their constituency. Or at least pretend to.
 
2013-01-12 05:21:02 AM  
G'Night Loaf
 
2013-01-12 05:32:17 AM  

The Loaf: He had no option to show the world his "dangerous" magazine without leaving the District.


He had plenty of option. Network news shows have the capability to broadcast from pretty much anywhere in the world. They even have batteries for their cameras.

The Loaf: By your logic, if Heller wanted a gun, he should have just bought one and kept it in a locker in Virginia.


Who's Heller? That's not anybody involved in this story, the one about the person who illegally possessed a gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo in DC. The "logic" here is that despite what you seem to think, just because he is a journalist, he doesn't get to break the law and cry "first amendment". The rest of us don't get to, and journalists don't have a special set of laws that they get to abide by.
 
2013-01-12 05:32:28 AM  
They should put him in jail with Tucker Max.
 
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