Constructive possession
A man who can’t use his arms was in a car with others. The police pulled them over. The police found a gun in the car. And are charging the man who can’t use his arms with possession.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 17th, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Always go after those who can’t shoot back. Going after the REAL criminals is too dangerous these days.
December 17th, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Oh, is the right to KEEP arms different than possession??
December 17th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
With his bail now reduced to $35,000 he only needs $3500 to make bail. Where can I send money towards that?
stay safe.
December 17th, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Meanwhile, a person in ACTUAL possession of illegal items (Gregory) that he himself is campaigning to jail people for possessing is let go because charging him would not be in the public interest.
December 17th, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Well, you will recall that guy with no arms, who could load the mag and operate an auto pistol with his feet.
December 17th, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Hands up, don’t shoot!!!
December 17th, 2014 at 6:41 pm
Maybe they can find some blind peeping toms to charge while they are at it..
December 17th, 2014 at 7:14 pm
Had a sorta similar case. My client (who had arms, BTW) was a passenger. Drugs and guns in the trunk. When they were found, no one would claim possession. Officer charged everyone.
Long story short, case dismissed. Officer conceded that he had no evidence of actual possession. Being in the company of others who may be committing crimes is not evidence of a crime, folks.
December 17th, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Interesting…
December 18th, 2014 at 12:14 am
Oh, if an accomplice has a gun you are also in constructive possession of the gun during the commission of the crime, if you are engaged in a common purpose. If five guys rob a bank and only one is armed all five are guilty of armed robbery. But that does not seem to be the case here. There’s an argument for unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of guilt and/or burden of proof shifting.
December 18th, 2014 at 2:19 am
Welcome to the modern justice system.
Don’t worry, he will get a trial, and the judge will dismiss the charges, sometime in the next 18 months or so. So he will not have to serve any time for a crime, as he did not commit any criminal act. In the mean time he will be a guest of the state and locked up until the trial eventually happens. That is how the modern justice system works. This is New Jersey Justice.
IMO the DA wants him locked up, hoping he will snitch on the guilty occupant of the car. Because if no one snitches, they are all going to go free.
December 18th, 2014 at 7:55 am
Sounds about right, rd. Although most speedy trial statutes these days are six months or less, especially for incarcerated defendants. The other irony is that if the search can be tossed out for a Fourth Amendment violation, it will be only for the owner of the car. He’s the only one with standing to complain about the search of the trunk. Irony, because he’s also the most likely to be guilty.
December 18th, 2014 at 10:42 am
The Exorcist Rule – Possession is 9/10 of the law!
gfa
December 18th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Didn’t Andy Griffith’s character cover this “unarmed man” thing in Spy Hard?
December 18th, 2014 at 5:18 pm
I am waiting to see what Chris Christie does this time.