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

Big gummint at work.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-man-...2287484&page=1

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

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

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.

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.

It is a crime, but you will not get a conviction that stands if you prosecute under the wrong laws.

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?

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:

But enough about Bush v. Gore

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.

LOL...

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

http://gizmodo.com/5704184/police-sp...ly-a-movie-set

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

Here was the problem:

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

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

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.

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 followed the law, the criminal is entirely at fault.
The "reason" offered was pure bull

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?

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?

Lies all lies! :stare:

About which you seem to know absolutely nothing. But had to say it anyway.

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.