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.

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).

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)

So mitigating circumstances could absolutely have applied to the decision.

I think he was kidding with you.:DL

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

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

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.

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 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.

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

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, please.

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.

Well, there's one thing we agree on.

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.


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?

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.

This ^ :hmmm:

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.





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.

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: