Plaxico 2A question

[TAB]

he deserves that. "Feloy" destruction of property?

Its tied to wreckless endangerment... his wreckless actions cuased the damage. That right there is reason for it to be a felony in my mind
I'm not sure about NY law, but in most states, if damage is above XXXX its a felony. In CA for example its $400. As a general contractor, I can tell you, it does not take very much for it to be $400. I mean real easy.

Lets just say it was clean hole thru a wall. I send out 2 guys, they are there for atleast 2 hours. Now it costs me ~ $50/ man hour for my employees that have the skills to do this and make it perfect. Thats $200 right there add in another $75 for paint/patch/texture. we are at 275 and I've not made a dime yet.

Now since this is a biz and they can right it off, I'm going to bid it out at $500. After all is said and done, I might make $100, maybe.

 

[ny32182]

If 500 bucks in property damage is enough to pull a felony charge, in my opinion that law is just as bad as the gun free zone law.

 

[TAB]

Its only $400, out of the 4 states I have CLs in, the lowest is 200 the highest is $2500. Even at $2500, you would be amazed at how little damage that actually is. Keying the side of some ones car will get you there. I've handed people 40k bills from tagers. Think about that for a second. 1 can of spray paint and it cost some one $40000.

 

[ny32182]

It also turns out I'm saving more money than I ever thought possible by doing my own spackling and painting...

I expect these laws regarding felonies for property damage were made when those amounts of money were worth a whole lot more than they are now. How old is the law saying that grand larceny starts at $1k worth of theft? I don't know, but its been a while, and its time to update that number for inflation.

My cousin, in his younger dumber years (still less than 5 years ago) had to plead out of a felony charge for breaking a car window and taking a handful of CDs. Obnoxious? Yes. Should he have to pay for the damages, and maybe then some? Of course. But I think a felony charge for something like that is ridiculous.

I've been on the receiving end as well. My house has been egged twice in the last year (and a couple others around the neighborhood). Apparently we've got some juvenile delinquents on our hands. Is it aggravating? Very much so. Would it cost 500 or 1k or more to have it professionally power washed? I don't know, I did that myself too... wouldn't surprise me though. But as much as I would like to beat some sense into the little ****s, I would still feel that ending their life over something like that with a felony conviction would be wrong.

Also, I'm not saying that what Burress did is not more serious that that.... I'm not even saying he should not have a felony charge on him. I just want to see him charged as he *should* be, for things that he actually did that were dangerous. That would be, endangering the lives of others through his negligence. Simply *having* the gun should not be illegal and endagers no one in and of itself. Furthermore, I'm sure he's willing to pay a couple hundred bucks to have the wall spackled... no need for any criminal charge there. What he did *wrong* (unconstitutional laws aside, of course), was fire a weapon in a manner that was wreckless and negligent, and endangered other people as a result. That should be the most serious charge, and in a perfect world, the only charge he should be facing... all my opinion of course, and I'm sure NY state has other plans.

 

[TAB]

I'm sure he's willing to pay a couple hundred bucks to have the wall spackled

so as long as some one can pay for it, they should not be charged?

The way I see it, if an adult does something dumb, they need to pay for it and be charged. now minors its on a case, by case bases. The thing about stuff like this is, it does not just hurt one of us, we all pay for it.

It also turns out I'm saving more money than I ever thought possible by doing my own spackling and painting...

Welcome to the world of owning your own biz... People don't understand how much things cost.

 

[ny32182]

so as long as some one can pay for it, they should not be charged?

The way I see it, if an adult does something dumb, they need to pay for it and be charged. now minors its on a case, by case bases. The thing about stuff like this is, it does not just hurt one of us, we all pay for it.

If it is an act of deliberate destruction, then yes I think some criminal charge is appropriate. I think the bar to reach to get a felony should be higher than it apparently is.

This, however, was an accident. He did not intend to put a hole in the wall. If my neighbor backs into my mailbox because he wasn't paying attention, I think that paying to have my mailbox fixed is enough... I don't think he needs a criminal charge. If he smashes my mailbox with bat because he doesn't like my Christmas decorations... well, then maybe a criminal charge is in order.

 

[TAB]

If he had been carrying his gun in a holster this would not have happen.

Now if some one backs into a mail box in the normal corse of driving, there should be no charges, if he was spining a donut and hit your mail box, there should be.... He was spining a donut, by carrying a gun in his sweat pants waste band. Any logical person would see that as a wreckless act.

 

[MCM]

To FoMoGo

Perfectly put,Well said.

 

[ny32182]

TAB, ok, I can see that point. I guess we will see how it plays out.

 

[notorious]

"Mister Foreman of the Jury, how do you find?"

"Your honor, we find the defendant guilty because he was stupid."

----

This guy had every means and obligation to follow the law and he didn't. Countless thousands or tens of thousands have followed the laws in NJ and NY where he thinks he is exempt.

I am sure his motivations were not based on his disdain for anti-gun laws and he wanted to be the bright shiny beacon for us. He simply wanted to shove a Glock down his sweat pants and couldn't be bothered with the rules.

Whether or not we agree with the rules, they are there, put in place by people we elect, and in some cases, re-elect.

Surely you don't think this madness should apply to every law that someone thinks is unconstitutional?

Otherwise, juries would be nullifying every prostitution case too because, hey, nobody got hurt and it was two adults consenting to an exchange or money for services... drug cases for users because he only uses it at home and nobody got hurt.... theft cases because hey, the rich asked for it and they need to spread the wealth, and for Californian gunowners to buy guns and parts from the 49 free states and bring them back across state borders because they are under siege by Commies in Sacramento... (actually, that is not a bad idea)

 

[notorious]

This reminds me of every other case where the defendant did something that has nothing to do with the people who took up his cause to defend him and attributed nobler ideals into a straight-forward situation where someone just broke the law, plain and simple.

Was Plaxico a NRA member or even knew the difference of Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun other than that he wanted a Glock because all the cool rappers said to carry a Glock and make it pop, strap on da nine, gonna get mine! Who cares if he's rich or famous. That gives him no more or less right to defend himself than any other American.

When OJ Simpson was on trial the first time, African-Americans took up his cause and made it a race issue when it should be a scumbag murderer issue. I am pretty sure OJ never thought he had to kill his ex-wife and boyfriend because he was making a statement that the rules against murdering your ex-wife and boyfriend are wrong.

Similarly, when the Rodney King trial happened, I am sure good ole Rodney did not think that he was speeding and resisting arrest was because the speed limit is arbitrary and unconstitutional and that he had a right to resist arrest by officers who were enforcing an unconstitutional law. No commentary on the other parts of the case, but did anyone even care that Rodney King was the instigator of the situation and broke laws and endangered people's lives?

Look at it this way, would it be the same if Average Joe did the same thing. Would there be this much talk? Nope... Joe would've been pled out a long time ago and filed in a annals of the New York criminal system.

Just saying... extreme cases, but just thought it funny about how groups rush to defend people who previously never really gave a crap about their cause or even knew they existed. The real case and the facts and law of the situation got lost in the hype of everything and each special interest group trying to make their issue the only issue in an otherwise insignificant criminal case.