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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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

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
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!

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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


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
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).

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.

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
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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Yes, please.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes.

Well, there's one thing we agree on.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?