OT: Professional Sports Star's and the Legal system

The link is to the story about Burress agreeing to take a deal on his case for unlawful possesion of a firearm, and unlawful discarge of a firearm. According to the story, the NY District Attorny wouldn't accept any deal that gave Burress less than 2 years in prison.
Maybe it is because I don't see a problem with guns, where many others do, but this seems way out of line for what he did. No one would argue that what he did was wrong, but in a time where you can take a loaded assualt rifle to a Presidental Speach protest in Arizona, it seems a little harsh.
It use to be that Athlete's would get off more than the normal person, because of their fame, and ability to pay for a good lawyer. But now it seems that might have turned, everyone can remember what happened to Vick, while what he did was horrible, what the system did to him was just as bad. (What he did, when he did it, was not a federal crime, it was handled by the states, but when the news broke, it was quickly made into a federal case and he was railroaded into jail).
I have no real hard feelings for these guys, after all it appears you can still get off if you can pay the family off like Stallworth did, (he is serving 30 days for killing someone with his car, yet Vick and Burress get 2 years each for killing dogs or shooting themselves, don't really seem right does it).

/rant

3 months ago usmcr3049 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not Quite

Stallworth was in a very different situation. The victim stepped into the road in front of his car if I remember correctly. In Florida (I think that was where) the laws concerning DUII are different, in OR being drunk when someone was struck by your car would elevate the crime to Vehicular Manslaughter etc. In Florida the law is something along the lines of the DA would have to prove that the man would not have been struck and died but for the inebriation. In this instance that was a very heavy burden to proove, so the DA’s office decided to offer a plea bargain, get his license etc and make a statement on a case which they likely would not have won.

As for the right to carry arms, I’m something of a fan of the 2nd amendment, but I disagree with you. Burress shot himself with a pistol hidden in the waistband of his sweatpants, without a safety on. I don’t see this as much to stand up for on a gun rights issue, its the epitome of reckless endangerment. Seriously he could have shot anyone in the club just as easily.

Down with the Ruskies

by TheSabasFan on Aug 20, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I see your points, and I agree

what I am more mad/confused about is the differences in the punishments. What all of these 3 players did, was stupid, illegal, and dangerous. But the one which caused the most harm, was given the lightest punishment, and that doesn’t seem right. It is very upsetting that each state doesn’t use the precedent of other states when deciding what the minimum punishments for crimes should be. So in Florida you can runover a person while drunk, spend 30 days in jail, and then be back out to do it again, but in OR you would be put in jail for 5+ years for the same crime, that doesn’t seem right.

The interesting issue I see with the Burress case, is that if he didn’t let his permit to carry expire in 08, he most likely wouldn’t have recieved the 2 year punishment. 1 piece of paper, that is all it would have taken for him. That is why this seems so silly to me, to put this man in jail for 2 years for carrying a gun, even if it was loaded, and having an accident with it, where the only person hurt was himself.

I want to be very clear here, what he plead guilty to was,

one count of attempted criminal possession of a weapon

so he didn’t get 2 years in prison because he shot himself, or because he almost shot someone else, he got 2 years in prison for attempting to carry a consealed weapon in public. 2 years, is a crazy amount of time for that crime. In fact I would argue that if someone was found guilty of this crime he should be fined heavily, and have his rights to own a weapon revoked, but not go to prison at all. Withour prison systems overcrowed as it is, this is just another case that should have been handled differently, and I am not convinced that the NY DA’s office was more concerned about public safety, then they were about making an example out of a public figure.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Aug 20, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's called federalism

different states (and lesser jurisdictions) can have different laws, and different punishments. New York State, and New York City in particular, happens to have VERY strict gun laws. Burress, either stupidly or ignorantly, and certainly foolishly, chose to violate gun laws in a place that has very tough ones.

Comparing that situation to a completely different law about a completely different subject in a completely different state is like comparing apples to oranges. If the people of New York feel their gun laws are too stringent, they should attempt to change them through legislative processes. If the people of Florida feel their DUII laws are too lax, they should attempt to change them through legislative processes.

As an aside, my understanding of the Stallworth situation was that the pedestrian stepped off the curb right in front of him. It’s possible that even if he were stone cold sober, he still might have hit and killed the guy. No doubt that led to a much lighter sentence then say, if he had ran his car up onto the sidewalk and killed the guy. I"m not justifying the relatively light sentence necessarily, just explaining why it may have been what it was. You have to somewhat consider context in sentencing.

The other factor at work here (besides differing jurisdictions), is the wide latitude that nearly all district attorneys in all places have. Which cases to pursue, how vigorously, and what that “line in the sand” is for plea bargains is almost entirely up to the discretion of the DA’s office. That’s how our system works, rightly or wrongly.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Aug 20, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess what my feelings are then is this

I don’t like it. The system to me doesn’t work. We have far to heavy punishments being given out for minor incidents, and far to easy punishments given out for major incidents. I don’t believe it can be changed, though the legislative process, or otherwise, because money and power are strong motivators, and the legislative system if full of men and woman drunk on power and greed.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Aug 20, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most District Attorneys

Evaluate high profile cases from a what it will or wont do to help them move up the food chain point of view not the merits of the case

by southern oregon on Aug 20, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is going to jail because he did a dumb thing by getting caught in a jurisdiction with tough laws

If he would have properly stowed his gun in a holster somewhere safe then this would have never happened. Even though it is against the law, I would not have a problem with someone that took great care to avoid accidents. That type of person probably would not do something dumb like shot himself, or go crazy in a club shooting others. Unfortunately, Burress was not smart, and he just stuffed the gun in his sweat pants. Therefore the law works to take people that do dumb things off the streets.

I get the paper, so I don't care!

by Name's Ash on Aug 20, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem

with viewing Stallworth as the worst crime offender (Obviously emotionally its the worst) is his culpability. In Oregon we say if you’re drunk during an accident it elevates the crime to a heightened level. In Florida they look at the accident first, and then elevate the scrutiny only if they can show but for the alchohol it would have happened. In this case with the man stepping in front of his car, the prosecution would have had a very hard time gaining a conviction, because how do you say that it wouldnt have happened but for the drinking.

Thus faced with a high probability of no conviction, the Prosecutors chose to deal and gaurantee some punishment. This isn’t a failure of the system, its a difference with thought and reason behind it, just as Oregon’s very different rule is also backed by a purpose.

Is it right to send a man to jail for 20 years because someone stepped into traffic directly in front of a driver over .08 rather than .07 if the accident would have happened either way? On the other hand doesn’t it make sense to end the scurge of DUII by stating in the strongest terms that there will be no messing around, don’t do it, and the fact that you put others at risk and harm occurs is enough to create the correlation, we aren’t going to pussyfoot around 70% accident and 30% alch… or is it 90% and 10%…..

We have problems in the system, but I don’t see them typified here at all.

Down with the Ruskies

by TheSabasFan on Aug 20, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 years does seem harsh

but I understand the precedent NY is trying to set. With so many high profile celebrities around there, if they were to let Plax off for carrying a loaded gun into a club, that opens the door up for every actor, rapper, whoever, to have their entourage bring loaded weapons around because they know they’ll get preferential treatment.

I’d guess that some sort of mild altercation at these clubs isn’t an uncommon thing with these people bumping up against each other, so removing any possibility of having loaded guns around would be of utmost importance.

For the record, while I don’t mind guns in general, I’m not especially a fan of people bringing loaded assault rifles to “peaceful” protests either, especially ones where the president is at (be it Obama or Bush or whoever, not meaning this to be a political thing.

by Royster on Aug 20, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The funny thing

is that the weapon at the protest might actually fit best with the 2nd amendment. You always hear politicians say “Well Im not against hunting etc. blah blah blah”, but if the right to bear arms is based on a dissruption to tyranny, then it is exactly that AR-15 in the hands of an accountant that is the goal, not an over under 12 gauge fowling peice. Places like NY and DC have gone after guns by keeping guns from those who might use them for good. Criminals will violate any law, while good people obey and thus are left vulnerable. Take a look at “More Guns, Less Crime” by an economist who used to work for the US Sentancing Commission. Very interesting work, more kids under a certain age die by drowning in bathtubs than by guns. And when we hear about the costs of gun violence, no one ever attempts to quantify the cost benefit as realized by those who use guns to protect themselves and prevent crime.

Down with the Ruskies

by TheSabasFan on Aug 20, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I have owned fire arms all my life and I feel the NRA position that full auto rifles are a legit need as a hunting tool is lame and they would be better off spending their money on penis enlargement products. In what scenario do you see an accountant with an AR-15 or an AK defending me or my kids freedom?

by southern oregon on Aug 20, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is it illegal to even hypothetically answer that question?

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

by staylost on Aug 20, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree completely about bringing loaded assault rifles

to protests. What possible justification can there be to bring a weapon that is potentially lethal on a large scale to an area where there will be many unarmed, presumably peaceful bystanders? If it’s about symbolism, there’s no need for it to be loaded. And given that it is an event that said accountant is choosing to go out of his way to go to, I don’t see how it is anything but symbolism, because he’s perfectly free to ignore the event all together. If government officials came to drag him out of his home to go sit in on this town hall, that’d be a completely different thing.

An accountant wants to own an assault rifle, fine, but his self-defense doesn’t give him the right to put hundreds of innocent lives potentially in the crossfire at a peaceful event. We’re talking about town hall meetings, not exactly the government going around rounding up people to throw in ghettos.

by Royster on Aug 20, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs