Here's why we can't have nice things.

[Growler]

Big gummint at work.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-man-imprisoned-gun-charge-appeals-governor-clemency/story?id=12287484&page=1

C'mon. Logic and the Judicial system just don't mix, I guess.

[GoldenRivet]

Not only that, but it is no longer a crime to use another person's social security number :doh:

Dont really know what this country is coming to.

EDIT: From MSNBC

Is using a forged Social Security Number -- but your own name -- to obtain employment or buy a car an identity theft crime? Lately, U.S. courts are saying it's not.
The most recent judicial body to take on the issue, the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled last month that a man who used his real name but someone else's Social Security number to obtain a car loan was not guilty of "criminal impersonation," overturning convictions by lower courts.
That follows a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that a Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number.

[frau kaleun]

Okay I get that's it not "identity theft" per se if you made up what you thought was a random SSN that turned out to belong to someone else, since an argument could be made that you didn't intend to steal that person's identity in particular, and didn't use or even have their name and other identifying information.

But wouldn't giving any SSN that isn't actually yours be, I dunno, falsifying information? Fraud? Something covered by some statue somewhere? Regardless of whether or not you knew it belonged to anyone else, it's not yours and you're putting it down like it is in order to get something that you wouldn't be able to get otherwise.

[Tribesman]

So he checked on the laws to make sure he followed them, then was found to be in violation of the laws as he had checked on but not followed.
If local government(big government as you put it) wants mandatory sentencing then people shall expect mandatory terms.
To complain about getting caught after checking the laws makes this individual a real numbskull.
So to summarise he was moving from one place to another but hadn't got a get out that he needed, his defence was that he should be exempt as he was claiming he was really moving from a third place instead of between the two places he did...which is moot anyway as he hadn't sorted the move between the two let alone the claimed third move.
So he was attempting a pure bull excuse.
Besides which even if he had got the gun move sorted he was still transporting illegal ammunition and accesories which as he claimed to have checked the laws he must have known were illegal.

Not only that, but it is no longer a crime to use another person's social security number
It is a crime, but you will not get a conviction that stands if you prosecute under the wrong laws.

[ETR3(SS)]

I agree that this man should have never have gone to prison and that IMHO should have never gone to trial either. However I can't help but feel that when asked if the police could search his car, just saying no could have stopped the whole scenario. Stand by your 4th Amendment right, if they don't have a warrant (and presumably no probable cause from what the story says) then they don't get to search anything.

As to the Social Security Number thing, if it isn't your number it isn't your number, period! If someone uses their name but my number for a car loan and doesn't pay for it, who gets the shaft on their credit report there?

[Tribesman]

I agree that this man should have never have gone to prison and that IMHO should have never gone to trial either.
So you agree that people can break the law, and not only just break the law but do so after checking what the law is:doh:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

C'mon. Logic and the Judicial system just don't mix, I guess.

But enough about Bush v. Gore

[Growler]

The problem with mandatory sentences is the lack of actual judgment by the judge. Mitigating circumstances matter.

Case in Point: I have heard more than one "baby-delivery" story from mothers who tell of high-speed rides to the hospital that, instead of resulting in the immediate incarceration of the driver, instead end with a police escort to the ER.

Clearly, this circumstance isn't the same, but the exercise of judgement is. After having the situation explained to them by the defendant's mother, who initiated and then aborted the call, why should the LEOs have any reason to ask to search his vehicle? That's the judgment question. No crime had been committed.

If nothing else, I think that we can agree that the article is perhaps not telling the complete story.

[Growler]

But enough about Bush v. Gore

LOL...

This doesn't help the LEO logic & judgement argument.

http://gizmodo.com/5704184/police-spend-all-day-investigating-murder-scene-that-was-really-a-movie-set

OR... it's an affirmation of a quality job on the special effects team's part.

[AVGWarhawk]

Here was the problem:


But the judge in the case did not allow


The judge is entirely at fault IMO and should be removed from the bench. He did not listen to reason. :down:

[Tribesman]

The problem with mandatory sentences is the lack of actual judgment by the judge. Mitigating circumstances matter.


Its the ttraditional law and order crowd who want it, they also scream loudest about judges being lenient with mitigating circumstances.

After having the situation explained to them by the defendant's mother, who initiated and then aborted the call, why should the LEOs have any reason to ask to search his vehicle? That's the judgment question. No crime had been committed.


No, no no no. No.
Clear enough, not only had a crime been committed...several in fact but given the circumstances the police would be required by law to search the car.

I think that we can agree that the article is perhaps not telling the complete story.
Yes , the parents obviously feel guilty as their initial report that they thought their armed son was going to do something silly led to his eventual imprisonment for breaking the law.

The judge is entirely at fault IMO and should be removed from the bench.
The judge followed the law, the criminal is entirely at fault.
He did not listen to reason.
The "reason" offered was pure bull

[Growler]

No, no no no. No.
Clear enough, not only had a crime been committed...several in fact but given the circumstances the police would be required by law to search the car.



What crime had been committed?

We have NO EVIDENCE in the article that a criminal act had taken place upon the driver's arrival back at his mother's residence. (That's the key I'm arguing on here - there's nothing in the article to suggest that the LEOs had any reason to ask to search the vehicle.)

True, criminal possession was taking place. But the LEOs (according to the article) had no reason to suspect it was taking place. And the defendant, who clearly thought he was OK with the firearms in the car, since they were stowed properly disassembled and not easily accessible from within the vehicle, allowed the search, since he also did not suspect a crime had been committed. After all, wouldn't you deny a search if you thought you were wrong?

[Tribesman]

What crime had been committed?

The ones he was sent to prison for after getting convicted.

We have NO EVIDENCE in the article that a criminal act had taken place upon the driver's arrival back at his mother's residence.
CAPS LOCK strikes.
You have already said the article doesn't tell the full story:haha:

True, criminal possession was taking place.
So he was breaking the law and did get the mandatory punishment for breaking the law as set down in law.


But the LEOs (according to the article) had no reason to suspect it was taking place.
Ah the article again:haha:
Obviously the article isn't telling the full story is it...damn that liberal media.

And the defendant, who clearly thought he was OK with the firearms in the car
He claims he had looked up the laws, so either he didn't look them up or he was just chancing his arm with the hope of not getting caught.

After all, wouldn't you deny a search if you thought you were wrong?
Do you think denying a search will deny a search?

[AVGWarhawk]

The judge followed the law, the criminal is entirely at fault.



Lies all lies! :stare:

[Sailor Steve]

But enough about Bush v. Gore
About which you seem to know absolutely nothing. But had to say it anyway.

[Tribesman]

Lies all lies!
Indeed.
Can you show how in any way the judge didn't follow the law?
Can you show how the attempted lame excuse of a defence was in any way even remotely believable or applicable?
Face it he can only have really had one possible line of defence, and that line was simply untrue no matter how much leeway and stretch was given to the facts of the matter.

It is an interesting demonstration though on how some can reverse their usual complaints on certain issues.

[Growler]

The ones he was sent to prison for after getting convicted.


CAPS LOCK strikes.
You have already said the article doesn't tell the full story:haha:


So he was breaking the law and did get the mandatory punishment for breaking the law as set down in law.



Ah the article again:haha:
Obviously the article isn't telling the full story is it...damn that liberal media.


He claims he had looked up the laws, so either he didn't look them up or he was just chancing his arm with the hope of not getting caught.


Do you think denying a search will deny a search?

Capslock didn't strike, it was intentional for emphasis.

The defendant had the choice of denying the LEOs' request to search the vehicle, leaving them two options: Obtain the proper warrant, for which they would need to state a cause, or let the matter lie.

If he had done his research on the law and misinterpreted it, fine, his mistake. Or maybe he thought he wouldn't get caught, fine, his mistake, he got caught.

Let me restate my point, as it appears to remain unclear: The LEOs had no cause to search the vehicle, as there had been no crime committed to their knowledge at the time prior to the search. Until they searched the vehicle and discovered the questionable items, they had no knowledge of a law violation. Sure, once they discovered it, they acted in accordance with the law. I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is the manner in which the violation was discovered, and the manner in which the issue was handled.

Taking the piss over the article doesn't resolve the discussion. We know the article's flawed; "damning the liberal media" is a little much, especially since the article's angle, to me, seemed pro-gun, usually considered a trait of the conservative right.

I'm curious, Tribesman - your location shows Galway - are you an expat or transplanted American?

I get what you're saying: He broke the law, got caught, and must pay the sentence. In principle, I agree. In practice, I have found that "justice" is often applied inconsistently, even in the case of mandatory sentences, and calls into question the entire mandatory sentence program. This is one of those cases, where an (apparently) otherwise law-abiding citizen has erred in a manner that threatened no one, and will end up doing a longer stint in lockup than someone who peddled narcotics to kids.

The firearms violation appears to be a second-degree violation, while the narcotics offense appears to be a third-degree (lesser) violation, with a minimum sentence of up to five years (Source (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3000/2762_R2.PDF)).

Also, per NJ Criminal Code:
2C:43-2b. Except as provided in subsection a. of this section and subject to the applicable provisions of the code, the court may suspend the imposition of sentence on a person who has been convicted of an offense... (Source (http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-the-new-jersey-code-of-criminal-justice/43-2.html))

So mitigating circumstances could absolutely have applied to the decision.

[Growler]

Indeed.
Can you show how in any way the judge didn't follow the law?
Can you show how the attempted lame excuse of a defence was in any way even remotely believable or applicable?
Face it he can only have really had one possible line of defence, and that line was simply untrue no matter how much leeway and stretch was given to the facts of the matter.

It is an interesting demonstration though on how some can reverse their usual complaints on certain issues.

I think he was kidding with you.:DL

Scratch that. I know he was kidding with you. :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Indeed.
Can you show how in any way the judge didn't follow the law?
Can you show how the attempted lame excuse of a defence was in any way even remotely believable or applicable?
Face it he can only have really had one possible line of defence, and that line was simply untrue no matter how much leeway and stretch was given to the facts of the matter.

It is an interesting demonstration though on how some can reverse their usual complaints on certain issues.

No. I posted that to get a rise out of you. It worked. :03::O:

[Tribesman]

Capslock didn't strike, it was intentional for emphasis.

As is quite usual it was used for emphasis where it simply wasn't true and so certainly shouldn't be emphasised, that is what I mean by CAPSLOCK strikes.

The defendant had the choice of denying the LEOs' request to search the vehicle, leaving them two options: Obtain the proper warrant, for which they would need to state a cause, or let the matter lie.

You really should check that:know:
Would you like the actual law from NJ which deals with the police having to search a vehicle for firearms or ammunition?

The LEOs had no cause to search the vehicle, as there had been no crime committed to their knowledge at the time prior to the search.
The cause comes from the report made by the parents that their son had gone off in his car and they thought he was going to do something silly as he was very upset.

"damning the liberal media" is a little much, especially since the article's angle, to me, seemed pro-gun, usually considered a trait of the conservative right.

But its the mainstream media, so it must be a liberal conspiracy right?

I get what you're saying: He broke the law, got caught, and must pay the sentence.
Yes.

In practice, I have found that "justice" is often applied inconsistently, even in the case of mandatory sentences, and calls into question the entire mandatory sentence program.
Tell those that complain about judges going soft and those that insist on tough no nonsense sentencing to put out a clear message to criminals.

So mitigating circumstances could absolutely have applied to the decision.

They could have, if his defence wasn't such utter bull.
He tried a lame attempt at convincing the court he really was in transit between States when that simply wasn't the case, if he had pleaded that it was a simple oversight perhaps the court would have made that a mitigating factor.

[Growler]

As is quite usual it was used for emphasis where it simply wasn't true and so certainly shouldn't be emphasised, that is what I mean by CAPSLOCK strikes.
Sorry, I must be out of date on the rules of style. Consider me duly chastised for not following your arbitrary definition of emphasis and true.

You really should check that:know:
Would you like the actual law from NJ which deals with the police having to search a vehicle for firearms or ammunition? Yes, please.

But its the mainstream media, so it must be a liberal conspiracy right? According to...? I made no such statements, so I'm curious as to this angle you're pursuing. You seem to have a particular axe to grind on this point.

Yes. Well, there's one thing we agree on.

Tell those that complain about judges going soft and those that insist on tough no nonsense sentencing to put out a clear message to criminals. Um. Context? OJ walked in criminal court, and was fined in civil. That wasn't a misapplication of justice? I never said the guy should walk; my feeling is that the sentence far outweighed the nature of the offense and the offender, and that some discretion should have been applied, as was the judge's right to choose.


They could have, if his defence wasn't such utter bull.
He tried a lame attempt at convincing the court he really was in transit between States when that simply wasn't the case, if he had pleaded that it was a simple oversight perhaps the court would have made that a mitigating factor.
Your statement that "he was really in transit... wasn't the case" is predicated on what, exactly? Most moves - especially interstate - isn't usually a simple jaunt down the road with a lorry full of your goods, even in the best of circumstance. This fellow drove well over 1500 miles to move. That's a lot of logistics to handle. I know moving an hour from my previous domicile was tedious and left my car with assorted bits of my stuff for weeks. And that was an "orderly" move in which I was moving at my pace, not a divorce case and all the associated chaos that attends such things.

You seem to have a pretty black-and-white take on all matters justice. I'm curious, though. Written laws aside, if you had an otherwise upright, just, honorable mate who was going through this exact situation, you wouldn't be at all bothered by a seven-year sentence for such a fellow? Even when he's doing time with people who killed, robbed, dealt drugs, etc.? Supervised probation or even house arrest would not have been a better choice?

[Platapus]

In reading this article and some others, it appears that there is a good chance this will be thrown out in appeal. There were procedural errors on the parts of the police and the judge.

Too bad this guy has to wait in prison for the appeal.

Thanks Mom. Next time think before you call.

[Growler]

Thanks Mom. Next time think before you call.

This ^ :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Consider me duly chastised for not following your arbitrary definition of emphasis and true.


Nothing arbitary about it at all, true is a simple word and the evidence that shows it is contained in the article even though its an incomplete story, so that makes your emphasised claim about there being NO EVIDENCE false.

According to...?
It is a common theme, especialy with those calling for more and tougher law and order and complaining about lenient judges applying discretion.

Your statement that "he was really in transit... wasn't the case" is predicated on what, exactly?
The fact that he wasn't in transit, showing that he still had a house for sale in Colorado while living in NJ doesn't show that he was in transit between the two and since his journey started and ended at the same place and he hadn't been to a range or out hunting it means he was simply breaking the law.

know moving an hour from my previous domicile was tedious and left my car with assorted bits of my stuff for weeks.
Yes , and if you knew the law because you had read the law wouldn't you make sure that any assorted bits which could become illegal were a priority?

Yes, please.

Well he fails under Federal coverage on two parts which triggers the state laws
So he then gets hit with 2c393f and as he cannot be claiming to avail of the exceptions under 26-39f6 covering transport he is screwed.
As for the search there is no warrant needed as all the police need were reasonable suspicion(which comes from the parents call) followed by reasonable inquiries to establish the fact(which covers looking in the car for a gun) which then gives probable cause(they foung the guns and ammunition) which leads to arrest and charge, then that becomes the establishment of a crime which means a conviction for that crime and punishment as set down by law.

You seem to have a pretty black-and-white take on all matters justice.
Not in the slightest, people who have a black and white view are in favour of such things as mandatory terms, zero tolerance, 3 strikes.....
To me that is just a silly escapist view which is detatched from reality but is held very dear by some who claim to be of a "conservative" nature as being tough on crime.

Sorry Growler but you appear to have been taken in by a sob story by parents on a guilt trip who are having difficulty coming to terms with it.





Thanks Mom. Next time think before you call.
True, she thought after she had started.
Then again how often do we hear of people having a bad time and feeling down about their circumstances deciding to "calm down" by going for a drive then going postal.
All too often you hear the complaint of "why didn't someone report that he was depressed and had a gun"?

Come to think of it if his depressive episodes over his relationship failing amounted to a mental imbalance shouldn't there have been restrictions on him having guns anyway?
I suppose thats where the honour system fails, criminals and the insane lose some of their gun rights but are expected to act themselves to give up their weapons and not buy any more.

[Growler]

I leave the topic with this thought:

"[Mercy] does not destroy justice, but is a certain kind of fulfillment of justice. ..Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; (and) justice without mercy is cruelty." ~Thomas Aquinas

That's my point, and the thought on which I depart for the day to handle legal matters of my own.

Been interesting having this discussion with you, Tribesman. :()1: