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

[Growler]

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.

[GoldenRivet]

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

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.

[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?

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

[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.

[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.

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

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.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Growler

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

But enough about Bush v. Gore

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

But enough about Bush v. Gore

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

But enough about Bush v. Gore

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Scratch that. I know he was kidding with you.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.