Zundfolge
Member
I'm married to a Republican woman and I have no commentDerby FALs said:Aye. Can you imagine oral sex with a Republican woman?
Anyone know any felon shooters?
- Thread starter klover
- Start date
- Status
Sir Aardvark
Member
To all of you quoting the Constitution:
The Constitution is becoming more and more just a guideline, easily interpreted to mean whatever the current Supreme Court justices want it to mean.
Also, to quickly quote Frank Zappa:
"America is a nation of laws; poorly written and randomly enforced"
And finally:
How soon until there is "felony failure to stop at the stop sign"?.
The Constitution is becoming more and more just a guideline, easily interpreted to mean whatever the current Supreme Court justices want it to mean.
Also, to quickly quote Frank Zappa:
"America is a nation of laws; poorly written and randomly enforced"
And finally:
How soon until there is "felony failure to stop at the stop sign"?.
NineseveN
member
Sorry, was a away for a bit, but had to come back to reply to this.
Thank you for the reply Double Naught, now consider the following:
The Second Amendment is no different (or should be no different) than any other amendment. While imprisoned, an inmate is not protected against unreasonable search and seizure, nor can inmates elect to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, their inalienable rights to liberty are also suspended (and this is important if you understand what inalienable means, look it up). The very act of imprisonment is a forfeiture of liberty, and also many other rights.
However, every single right that is forfeited during imprisonment as part of that action, is immediately restored once the prison term is served to satisfaction…except the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote. However, voting rights are specifically mentioned in the document and the stipulation is clearly defined in that case that you will lose voting rights. No such admission is made about the RKBA. And that is wrong. It is going against the very nature of the Constitution, and for someone on a site such as this, someone that should be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms to declare it is okay to deny and infringe upon a right that by the very wording of the amendment cannot be infringed unsettles my bile.
Ask yourself this, in the 1700's, was the right to keep and bear arms restored to an individual after they were released from prison?
Did private civilians legally possess military weapons and vessels (cannons and war ships)?
Was there any mechanism to permanently revoke a right from a free individual (i.e. not imprisoned or in custody)?
Why is it different now?
You make a bold and incredulous leap with the statement that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as you have not committed a capital or otherwise infamous crime and been found guilty after due process" because those words do not appear in the Constitution either. Now do they?
And this quote, particularly what is in bold letters, proves a very important point. Those words do state that the right to vote can be infringed if a person is guilty of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". That clause is very specific, yet we do not see that clause on any other amendment, do we? Where is that clause on the Second Amendment? I am sorry, again I fail to see it. There is no clause in the Constitution or the amendments that states that the right to keep and bear arms can be permanently revoked for being a felon. In any case where a certain right can be revoked or forfeited, a specific clause is included or further enumerated somewhere in the document (see the right to vote). You are interpreting the document instead of reading it, and you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of forming a valid opinion. I am not for felons getting firearms per se, but I am for following the document's decrees and treating each right the same.
Thank you for the reply Double Naught, now consider the following:
The Second Amendment is no different (or should be no different) than any other amendment. While imprisoned, an inmate is not protected against unreasonable search and seizure, nor can inmates elect to exercise their right to peaceably assemble, their inalienable rights to liberty are also suspended (and this is important if you understand what inalienable means, look it up). The very act of imprisonment is a forfeiture of liberty, and also many other rights.
However, every single right that is forfeited during imprisonment as part of that action, is immediately restored once the prison term is served to satisfaction…except the right to keep and bear arms and the right to vote. However, voting rights are specifically mentioned in the document and the stipulation is clearly defined in that case that you will lose voting rights. No such admission is made about the RKBA. And that is wrong. It is going against the very nature of the Constitution, and for someone on a site such as this, someone that should be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms to declare it is okay to deny and infringe upon a right that by the very wording of the amendment cannot be infringed unsettles my bile.
Ask yourself this, in the 1700's, was the right to keep and bear arms restored to an individual after they were released from prison?
Did private civilians legally possess military weapons and vessels (cannons and war ships)?
Was there any mechanism to permanently revoke a right from a free individual (i.e. not imprisoned or in custody)?
Why is it different now?
You make a bold and incredulous leap with the statement that "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...so long as you have not committed a capital or otherwise infamous crime and been found guilty after due process" because those words do not appear in the Constitution either. Now do they?
And this quote, particularly what is in bold letters, proves a very important point. Those words do state that the right to vote can be infringed if a person is guilty of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". That clause is very specific, yet we do not see that clause on any other amendment, do we? Where is that clause on the Second Amendment? I am sorry, again I fail to see it. There is no clause in the Constitution or the amendments that states that the right to keep and bear arms can be permanently revoked for being a felon. In any case where a certain right can be revoked or forfeited, a specific clause is included or further enumerated somewhere in the document (see the right to vote). You are interpreting the document instead of reading it, and you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of forming a valid opinion. I am not for felons getting firearms per se, but I am for following the document's decrees and treating each right the same.
Gordon Fink
Member
Of course, voting is a civil right, while bearing arms is a natural right, but I digress.…
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
M-Rex,
Are you trying to annoy people by purposefully ignoring what they say, or do you honestly not understand the point of what Zundfolge is trying to tell you? Your comments have failed to address any of his arguments. For example:
Fine, you think it's weird. Good for you. But once again, you have missed the point. Let me spell it out for you so that you can understand. The point is, there are so many felonies out there that you might easily commit one without knowing it... but it doesn't make you a dangerous person and it shouldn't cause you to lose your rights. So let's say you collect bird feathers and you pick up a Bald Eagle feather, do you deserve to lose your rights? Yes/No?
BTW, it's funny to read comments like this:
from someone who claims to be "0% Police state". What do you think a police state is, anyway? Do you even know what the term big brother refers to? :banghead:
Are you trying to annoy people by purposefully ignoring what they say, or do you honestly not understand the point of what Zundfolge is trying to tell you? Your comments have failed to address any of his arguments. For example:
Fine, you think it's weird. Good for you. But once again, you have missed the point. Let me spell it out for you so that you can understand. The point is, there are so many felonies out there that you might easily commit one without knowing it... but it doesn't make you a dangerous person and it shouldn't cause you to lose your rights. So let's say you collect bird feathers and you pick up a Bald Eagle feather, do you deserve to lose your rights? Yes/No?
BTW, it's funny to read comments like this:
from someone who claims to be "0% Police state". What do you think a police state is, anyway? Do you even know what the term big brother refers to? :banghead:
thorn726
Member
big brother would never confirm nor deny his actual existence
that's what kept him strong.
kinda like what we have in this thread
that's what kept him strong.
kinda like what we have in this thread
Powderman
Member
blackrazor said:
I believe that you are missing one thing here, blackthorn.
Everyone here has unwittingly broken the law. Some have even been contacted by law enforcement because of it.
The element that has kept most of these people from being arrested and charged is one thing--INTENT.
The presence of mens rea--the evil mind, or the intent to commit crime--is what is missing in the cases of unwitting lawbreaking. This is what M-Rex is saying.
For instance, let's say that you were driving from Oregon to New Mexico. You decide to take along a couple of rifles and stop in at the NRA Whittington Center, in Raton, NM.
One rifle is an M1 Garand. The other is an M1A National Match, in the pre-ban color.
Your route of travel involves going straight down I-5 thru CA, where you will take I-10 near Los Angeles. Guess what?
AS SOON AS YOU CROSS THE STATE LINE OF CALIFORNIA, YOU BECOME AN INSTANT FELON.
Why?
Because that evil M1A is not in California legal configuration. Now, what will keep you from being arrested, should you be stopped?
1. You get stopped by an officer with a good mindset, and
2. You honestly had no intent of flaunting California State law.
(Of course, it helps if you have the bolt removed from the rifle, too.)
It is INTENT that separates us from the criminal.
thorn726
Member
uh, although it doenst bother me, you may be unwittingly insulting mr blackrazor
addign my name to his.........
addign my name to his.........
thorn726
Member
uh, than why do we keep hearing "ignorance is no excuse"
it would be great if all LE took into account the intent of violator, but they don't.
having bene profiled and treated like dirt by enough cops for having long hair, you think i make a mistake like that the cops will "understand"
considering some of the BS games i've had run on me by LE
i take no comfort in the above theory
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
Intent has nothing to do with it
and that's the problem. As a matter of fact, that the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, that you could intend to be the most honest, lawabiding, model citizen in the world, and you can still become a felon and therefore lose your rights.
Cetain crimes should be felonies, e.g. murder, robbery, etc. You cannot commit one of those crimes with the INTENTION of being a bad person. But you can certainly pick up a bald eagle feather with no evil intent whatsoever. Pick up the feather, lose your rights and go to jail. And that's exactly what's going to happen when some overzealous prosecutor tries to add your conviction to his resume. Are you willing to bet your freedom on one police officer's "good mindset"?
You see, your intent may be what *you* think seperates you from the criminal, but the law doesn't agree. This is where the phrase "ignorance is no defense" comes from... how can you be ignorant of the law and intend to break it? You can't. Nonetheless, many people have been and will be arrested for breaking laws they were unaware of.
and that's the problem. As a matter of fact, that the WHOLE POINT of this discussion, that you could intend to be the most honest, lawabiding, model citizen in the world, and you can still become a felon and therefore lose your rights.
Cetain crimes should be felonies, e.g. murder, robbery, etc. You cannot commit one of those crimes with the INTENTION of being a bad person. But you can certainly pick up a bald eagle feather with no evil intent whatsoever. Pick up the feather, lose your rights and go to jail. And that's exactly what's going to happen when some overzealous prosecutor tries to add your conviction to his resume. Are you willing to bet your freedom on one police officer's "good mindset"?
You see, your intent may be what *you* think seperates you from the criminal, but the law doesn't agree. This is where the phrase "ignorance is no defense" comes from... how can you be ignorant of the law and intend to break it? You can't. Nonetheless, many people have been and will be arrested for breaking laws they were unaware of.
HI express
Member
Two stories
I have true two stories..just food for thought before you decide.
I would say that even if you think you know the person, unless you predicted that the person would commit a felony you didn't know the person. I will relate two true stories that illustrate my point.
I worked with a young troubled man for fifteen years. He seemed to be a hard worker and very responsible. The two times that he went into county lock-up wasn't his fault if you believed his story. I did. So the second time that he came out he said that he will marry his baby's momma but he was having trouble with a gang that didn't want to let him out of the gang. He asked if he could borrow my rifle for home protection because his family was in danger with these home invaders in his neighborhood, he showed me news clippings that showed a rash of home takeovers where the attackers wore body armor. I loaned him my Gali in 308.
A few weeks later he disappears from work. Didn't hear from this guy for 5 years. I'm out a $1000 rifle registered to me and I'm wondering what happened.
I called up a favor with my LEO buds and they found that my so called coworker and his brother got caught..armed robbery with my rifle. My rifle got confiscated and crushed. Sigh. Being a convicted felon, that was an added charge for his conviction for armed robbery.
A friend of mine thought he knew this high school buddy who was a convicted felon. After his friend got out of prison, expressing his regret for committing a felony, the convicted felon convinced my friend to take him out for some plinking like they used to do when they were high school buds. One morning they went shooting outdoors in the Angeles Crest Forest. They found my friend and another shooter friend dead up in the forest. Eventually they caught the convicted felon..found my friend's Uzi pistol and his BHP. You do the math. The UZI carbine was sold to another known felon who used it in a shooting.
All I'm saying is you're taking an extra risk when you hand a convicted felon a loaded firearm. You're an adult, you weigh your risks..and remember if he is caught with your gun..you just helped the felon go back to prison. That is a violation of his parole.
Good luck with your decision.
I have true two stories..just food for thought before you decide.
I would say that even if you think you know the person, unless you predicted that the person would commit a felony you didn't know the person. I will relate two true stories that illustrate my point.
I worked with a young troubled man for fifteen years. He seemed to be a hard worker and very responsible. The two times that he went into county lock-up wasn't his fault if you believed his story. I did. So the second time that he came out he said that he will marry his baby's momma but he was having trouble with a gang that didn't want to let him out of the gang. He asked if he could borrow my rifle for home protection because his family was in danger with these home invaders in his neighborhood, he showed me news clippings that showed a rash of home takeovers where the attackers wore body armor. I loaned him my Gali in 308.
A few weeks later he disappears from work. Didn't hear from this guy for 5 years. I'm out a $1000 rifle registered to me and I'm wondering what happened.
I called up a favor with my LEO buds and they found that my so called coworker and his brother got caught..armed robbery with my rifle. My rifle got confiscated and crushed. Sigh. Being a convicted felon, that was an added charge for his conviction for armed robbery.
A friend of mine thought he knew this high school buddy who was a convicted felon. After his friend got out of prison, expressing his regret for committing a felony, the convicted felon convinced my friend to take him out for some plinking like they used to do when they were high school buds. One morning they went shooting outdoors in the Angeles Crest Forest. They found my friend and another shooter friend dead up in the forest. Eventually they caught the convicted felon..found my friend's Uzi pistol and his BHP. You do the math. The UZI carbine was sold to another known felon who used it in a shooting.
All I'm saying is you're taking an extra risk when you hand a convicted felon a loaded firearm. You're an adult, you weigh your risks..and remember if he is caught with your gun..you just helped the felon go back to prison. That is a violation of his parole.
Good luck with your decision.
NineseveN
member
Let us also not forget, it is not only felonies that will remove your right to keep and bear arms...
While the felonies are bad enough, misdemeanors and other loopholes are even worse.
While the felonies are bad enough, misdemeanors and other loopholes are even worse.
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
HI Express
As a little added bonus to your story, you realize that you just admitted to being a felon yourself for loaning a firearm to a convicted felon/gangmember? So by your logic, can we trust you with a firearm?
As a little added bonus to your story, you realize that you just admitted to being a felon yourself for loaning a firearm to a convicted felon/gangmember? So by your logic, can we trust you with a firearm?
NineseveN
member
Touche.
thorn726
Member
that's exaclty what i mean, much more well said
M-Rex
member
blackrazor said:
Well...in a very general way, I suppose that is true...IF 'you' suddenly developed intent and went out and committed a crime, were apprehended, stood trial, were found guilty, and incarcerated.
That is, of course, if one assumes that the 'overzealous prosecuter' has the time to prosecute people who pick up eagle feathers...in between all of the murders, robberies, rapes, and burglaries.
I think the problem isn't so much law and it's interpretation/application. Rather, it appears that you have a deep-rooted, inherent, and entirely illogical fear of authority figures and you believe that 'overzealous prosecuters' are just festering for you to pick up an eagle feather so they can pounce on you like a cat on a proverbial mouse.
Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.
You don't appear to have any real knowledge of how the legal system works, other than what you watch on CSI or Law & Order. You have no factual basis for your argument. Finally, you are throwing out baseless assumptions to fog your ignorance.
You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.
Last edited:
Strings
Member
>Because that evil M1A is not in California legal configuration. Now, what will keep you from being arrested, should you be stopped?<
Actually, I seem to recall that there's something called "fair travel" laws, or somesuch...
>Well...in a very general way, I suppose that is true...IF 'you' suddenly developed intent and went out and committed a crime, were apprehended, stood trial, were found guilty, and incarcerated.<
Which can happen VERY easily, with no intent on "your" part...
>That is, of course, if one assumes that the 'overzealous prosecuter' has the time to prosecute people who pick up eagle feathers...in between all of the murders, robberies, rapes, and burglaries.<
Or is willing to go after an unwitting accomplice to a crime, because it's high profile? Read on...
>Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.
You don't appear to have any real knowledge of how the legal system works, other than what you watch on CSI or Law & Order. You have no factual basis for your argument. Finally, you are throwing out baseless assumptions to fog your ignorance.
You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.<
Time to tell another friend's story, I guess. It relates back to "overzealous prosecuter"...
Eric had sme friends that weren't upstanding pillars by any stretch. Into all KINDS of things they shouldn't have been. Late one night, they call him at his dorm room, and ask if he'd be willing to give them a ride. Being that he considered them friends, he said yes...
When they had gotten into his car, they informed him that they had just killed a cop. He went ahead and started driving them to where they wanted to go, figuring that the sooner he got rid of them, the sooner he would be out of danger (and could call the police himself). Along the way, they got pulled over, and the whole carload was arrested...
There were two girls and two guys in the group that did the shooting: my friend was still at his dorm at the time. Who got prosecuted? My friend and the other guys. Now, my friend got lucky, and beat the rap (putting himself into serious hock in the process, which he's just recently paid off. This was over five years ago). If he hadn't been able to get the money together for the best possible lawyer, he would've been a felon, without any intent involved on his part (except that of staying alive).
By your logic, my being willing to defend him makes me "anti cop". That's Bull. Saying "the system is broken" is NOT the same as saying "those who work for the system are bad". My friend faced SERIOUS consequences for something he didn't bloody do. He actually had to DEAL with consequences because he was charged (lost the tuition he had paid for school when he got kicked for the incident, and has faced serious harrasment by local police ever since). But you think the DA was correct in going after him?
BTW: the girls (who had been present at the shooting) were never charged with anything...
Actually, I seem to recall that there's something called "fair travel" laws, or somesuch...
>Well...in a very general way, I suppose that is true...IF 'you' suddenly developed intent and went out and committed a crime, were apprehended, stood trial, were found guilty, and incarcerated.<
Which can happen VERY easily, with no intent on "your" part...
>That is, of course, if one assumes that the 'overzealous prosecuter' has the time to prosecute people who pick up eagle feathers...in between all of the murders, robberies, rapes, and burglaries.<
Or is willing to go after an unwitting accomplice to a crime, because it's high profile? Read on...
>Rather, it looks like you have a powerful inferiority complex when it comes to police, prosecuters and other authority figures that borders on paranoia. Believe it or not, there is not a cop hiding behind every bush waiting for you to stupidly bumble into a felonious act, no matter how much you wish it were so to support your world view.
You don't appear to have any real knowledge of how the legal system works, other than what you watch on CSI or Law & Order. You have no factual basis for your argument. Finally, you are throwing out baseless assumptions to fog your ignorance.
You are not that important. 'They' are not out to get you. Truly, I am amazed at the number of cop-bigots that pollute these forums. It's unreal.<
Time to tell another friend's story, I guess. It relates back to "overzealous prosecuter"...
Eric had sme friends that weren't upstanding pillars by any stretch. Into all KINDS of things they shouldn't have been. Late one night, they call him at his dorm room, and ask if he'd be willing to give them a ride. Being that he considered them friends, he said yes...
When they had gotten into his car, they informed him that they had just killed a cop. He went ahead and started driving them to where they wanted to go, figuring that the sooner he got rid of them, the sooner he would be out of danger (and could call the police himself). Along the way, they got pulled over, and the whole carload was arrested...
There were two girls and two guys in the group that did the shooting: my friend was still at his dorm at the time. Who got prosecuted? My friend and the other guys. Now, my friend got lucky, and beat the rap (putting himself into serious hock in the process, which he's just recently paid off. This was over five years ago). If he hadn't been able to get the money together for the best possible lawyer, he would've been a felon, without any intent involved on his part (except that of staying alive).
By your logic, my being willing to defend him makes me "anti cop". That's Bull. Saying "the system is broken" is NOT the same as saying "those who work for the system are bad". My friend faced SERIOUS consequences for something he didn't bloody do. He actually had to DEAL with consequences because he was charged (lost the tuition he had paid for school when he got kicked for the incident, and has faced serious harrasment by local police ever since). But you think the DA was correct in going after him?
BTW: the girls (who had been present at the shooting) were never charged with anything...
NineseveN
member
I happen to be very fond of LEO's in general, but your incessant pom-pom waving does not change the fact that you do not speak for the entire law enforcement and legal community.
You are clearly biased if you say prosecutors do not pull harder than they need not to sometimes (young prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, DA's office trying to make an example, someone is just an arsehole, disagreement on the practicality of prosecuting someone for grabbing a feather). Some DA's will run you into the ground unless you cop a plea. For someone that truly feels they are innocent, this can become a legal tug of war where it does, in fact, go to court. It does happen, every day. There are millions of court cases settled every day, most never go to trial, but if one truly felt they had no intention of breaking the law and were faced with a silly felony, I doubt they'd cop a plea.
As for police officers not being out to get others. More often than not, this is true, but if you expect a reasonable person to turn a blind eye to the faction of rule-bending, ambitious or corrupt cops in this country and agree that there are not police officers that will ruin you if you get in the way or if they have a bad day or if they just don't like you, you might want to try and sell someone a bridge in Brooklyn sometime...might prove easier by comparison.
This is hardly the rule, and definitely a rare occurrence, but when we're dealing with over a million lawyers and LEO's, rare can still mean 50,000 cases...if the liberty of those 50,000 people is a risk you're willing to take to serve as a shortcut for keeping violent felons from legally owning firearms for the safety of the people, well then as the saying goes, you deserve neither liberty nor safety.
But hey, you know, I'm only saying this cause I hate cops.
bcochran
Member
When you have a legal question, do you ask the corner auto mechanic? Oh, and when he responds and you follow his direction, do you blame him if he is wrong?
M-Rex
member
No. Defending your friend makes you his friend. Your friend faced serious consequences because of a serious lack in judgement and decision making, not because of some 'bad cop' or 'overzealous prosecuter'. He associated with people who claimed to have killed a cop. Why he didn't tell them to get out of his car is beyond me. I don't have any friends that I can think of that claim to be 'cop killers'. He chose to give them a ride, and in so choosing, became an accessory after the fact. He's lucky that all he lost was his tuition money. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him.
As to the 'pom pom waving'. Don't think of it so much as cheerleading. Rather think of it as common sense bucking the frothy anti-cop bigotry rampant on these boards.
And, this is just plain stupid.
Jeezus Crimeney! I used to watch over almost 500 inmates who 'felt they were innocent'. Not a single one of them were, mind you...but they all 'felt' they were.
You really have no idea how the justice system works. In a general sense, it is structured to allow 100 criminals to go unpunished for every criminal that is incarcerated as a caution against locking up the wrong person. Quite frankly, with all the hand-wringing, excuse making, and loophole technicality exploitation done by defense attornies, I'm surprised anyone makes it to prison.
Judging by your post, I don't think you are anti-cop per se, but I do think there is a distinct and vitriolic anti-cop world view propegated by a significant number of posters frequenting this board.
Strings
Member
>No. Defending your friend makes you his friend. Your friend faced serious consequences because of a serious lack in judgement and decision making, not because of some 'bad cop' or 'overzealous prosecuter'. He associated with people who claimed to have killed a cop. Why he didn't tell them to get out of his car is beyond me. I don't have any friends that I can think of that claim to be 'cop killers'. He chose to give them a ride, and in so choosing, became an accessory after the fact. He's lucky that all he lost was his tuition money. Don't ask me to feel sorry for him.<
He associated with people he shouldn't have, yes. They were already IN HIS CAR when they informed him they had shot the cop. Why didn't he tell them to get out? Because he didn't want to get shot himself! Which would be the reaction of ANY human in the same situation... except those like yourself who are bulletproof, I guess. He chose to give a ride to friends HE DIDN'T KNOW HAD COMMITED A CRIME. As for the "he's lucky..." comment: he lost that DESPITE AQUITAL. Never asked for your sympathy, merely that you admit that the system consists of fallible human beings. Too much to ask? Seems so...
NOW I know why WA and Spiffy make so much use of that one button...
He associated with people he shouldn't have, yes. They were already IN HIS CAR when they informed him they had shot the cop. Why didn't he tell them to get out? Because he didn't want to get shot himself! Which would be the reaction of ANY human in the same situation... except those like yourself who are bulletproof, I guess. He chose to give a ride to friends HE DIDN'T KNOW HAD COMMITED A CRIME. As for the "he's lucky..." comment: he lost that DESPITE AQUITAL. Never asked for your sympathy, merely that you admit that the system consists of fallible human beings. Too much to ask? Seems so...
NOW I know why WA and Spiffy make so much use of that one button...
Hey M-Rex and Zundfolge.......Now someone caught burning leaves twice will be a felon. M-Rex do you think a felon convicted of burning leaves will always commit felonies and be in and out of prison the rest of their lives and will never want to go straight? Make sure you read the last paragragh.
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/1805681.html
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/1805681.html
M-Rex
member
Hunter Rose said:
His mistake was associating with lowlife. Don't believe for a minute that he 'didn't know'. The system worked as it should have. Your friend suffered the natural consequences of his bad decision. And, yes, I read the part where he was aquitted. Sucks to be him.
Essex County
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,247
The State of New Hampshire passed a law, effective January 1st, 2005 making first offense DWI a felony. A friend of my daughter who is a sportsman and a pretty solid citizen was arested a couple of days later. Yep, He's now a convicted felon and this will have a major impact on his life. Before anyone jumps down my throat I DO NOT condone DWI. I just don't see the connection between this and his bird hunting.........Essex
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
PCGS65,
I just read your story. WOW. What the hell is going on in this country?! A Felony for burning leaves, and yet the fine is only $50? I've had parking tickets for more than $50, so by that logic it would now be acceptable to issue felony parking tickets! Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the old constitution, we don't really use that anymore.
Slightly off topic, but this story has me wondering, is it even legal for local counties/cities to enact ordinances where a felony conviction can result? Let's say you're driving through some backwoods rural town and they have made smoking a felony. There go all your rights?!?! Because some 500 person community is offended by smoking?
I just read your story. WOW. What the hell is going on in this country?! A Felony for burning leaves, and yet the fine is only $50? I've had parking tickets for more than $50, so by that logic it would now be acceptable to issue felony parking tickets! Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Oh wait, I forgot, that's the old constitution, we don't really use that anymore.
Slightly off topic, but this story has me wondering, is it even legal for local counties/cities to enact ordinances where a felony conviction can result? Let's say you're driving through some backwoods rural town and they have made smoking a felony. There go all your rights?!?! Because some 500 person community is offended by smoking?
- Status
