Like you and me, only better
I bet if I tried to take a gun on an airplane, they’d presume I did it intentionally.
22 Responses to “Like you and me, only better”
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)
November 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“Some animals are more equal then others.” Usually refering to pigs there, heh.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“I bet if I tried to take a gun on an airplane, they’d presume I did it intentionally.”
Markie Marxist sez: “Of course, unless you’re a de facto Marxist who gets his paycheck from the government. In that case, you can count on the prosecutor to get all confused and drop the charges. We like to give our de facto Marxists all the perks we can, such as the scarce right to keep and bear arms and immunity from prosecution if they mess up while keeping and bearing. Private sector folks get to go to jail for gun possession.
You have to understand that America is not a nation of laws; it’s a nation of political correctness as determined by Marxist values. As such, people who violate firearms laws tend to be prosecuted or not prosecuted according to
their political correctness. Law doesn’t have much to do with it.
Of course, we tell the jury that the private sector person has to be convicted because he violated the law, but we don’t tell the jury about our people who violated the law and didn’t get prosecuted. They might think it unfair.
Cops in Albany, New York don’t even get a reprimand for illegal, full auto weapons, while private citizen Wayne Fincher goes to prison. Wayne’s real crime was not being a de facto Marxist. That was the determining factor in his conviction. If you’re with us, we look the other way; if you’re against us, we throw you in the meat grinder.
We Marxists own this country, and as such, we use or ignore laws, at our convenience.”
November 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Don’t forget, 2 legs better than 4 legs.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Just another member of the ‘do you know who I am’ class getting a pass by her peers.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Anybody carrying a gun, that forgets that they are carrying a gun, has absolutely no business carrying a gun.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
James was stopped after a gun was spotted in her purse during a routine baggage check in the McNamara Terminal. She was on her way to a lawyers conference in Atlanta and told airport police she simply forgot about the gun.
“I have a (concealed weapons) permit and carry a weapon because of threats that have been made on my life,” James said in the statement obtained by The Detroit News. “In my haste to catch a flight I forgot to remove the weapon from my purse.”
Like hell she “forgot”! Judges putting themselves above the law and covering for fellow judges who break laws and they wonder why the general public dos’nt trust them.
Gee, I wonder if I could get away with that excuse? Oh wait, I aint a judge, a cop, wealthy, or a politico.
November 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
They are creating a “Royalty Class”, without giving themselves the title the Constitution forbids.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Pull system.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I don’t buy that line of crap for a second and neither should the prosecutor – if he were the least bit concerned with the Rule of Law, which, well it’s obvious he wasn’t in this case…).
Let’s see, her car keys were probably in her purse. Her plane ticket was probably in her purse. Her wallet (with ID) was probably in her purse.
All items which she would presumably need to get to the airport and on the plane. How could she not see or notice an almost 2 pound handgun while going through her purse?
Yeah…. right…
November 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Err, no. Criminal defendants are presumed guilty until proven innocent. That’s not a special rule for criminal defendants who happen to be judges. It sounds like what you’re really advocating here is “like you and me, only worse.”
November 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
i did not say presume me guilty. i said they’d presume i did it intentionally and, from there, make their case.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Intent is an element of the crime. No element can be presumed. Every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The alternative is a Napoleonic presumption of guilt rather than innocence.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
it has to be presumed by someone or there’d be no prosecutions.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Not so. Prosecutors have to prove the stuff to win in court. If they know they won’t be able to do that, they drop the charges.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
yes, to win. but to pursue charging someone, they generally have to presume whether there’s a case or not.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I just want to know where this assistant prosecutor got this education:
“There is insufficient proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. James knowingly possessed …”
I guess we now use proof to prove things.
I’d also like to know, exactly, how it is that one could prove beyond reasonable doubt that anyone ever “knowingly” did anything. Wouldn’t that require mind reading ability?
Oh, and since I’ve been carrying a pistol every day for many years now, you all might like to know that it is to me much like the Leatherman on my hip, or, lets say, the trinket on the end of your keychain or the folding knife in your pocket– you scarcely think about it unless you have some reason to think about it. In my case I have a reason to think about it when going to an airport because I know I will not be given the benefit of the doubt that a judge would receive (they are superior entities). Our judge, it would seem, had no reason to worry so much, ipso facto, QED.
Point is, I KNOW I have a pistol IF I think about it. I do not go around all day every day thinking to myself, “I got a gun, I got a gun, I got a gun, I got a gun…” like some sort of obsessed, blithering idiot.
And: Should we really be so worried that one person, just one person, didn’t have her Constitutional Rights violated too terribly?
Ask yourself; If some people have their rights violated, would you be happier if everyone’s rights were violated, just to make it fair? Personally, I’d want to use this case to show that people can be trusted. If a judge can be trusted with a gun, why not a doctor? If a judge and a doctor can be trusted or at least given the benefit of the “doubt” (wait; what doubt—did anyone actually think there was criminal intent?), why not a carpenter, or a fast food clerk, or a gun accessories designer?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Uncle:
No, they don’t. If a prosecutor does not have a good faith belief that an element of the crime is met, pursuing the charge anyway would be unethical. if the prosecutor does believe the element was met in fact, but also knows he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of proving it, he shouldn’t waste the court’s time with a case he knows will go nowhere.
Lyle:
Hardly. Intent can be inferred based on the circumstances. How do you think refs in football distinguish incomplete passes from intentional grounding? Hell, even a dog can tell the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Xrlq:
Sure, if you throw a football where there’s no possible receiver, we don’t need to read your mind. We all know the rules of the game and we all saw your behavior. If you have a gun in your bag at an airport, and you have a carry permit, yes, we’d need to read your mind to know if you “knew” you had the gun in your bag and brought it anyway, or if you just had it there because it had been there for a long time. There’s absolutely no way to clinch that one.
There are tons of such cases: You run a red light. The cop who stops you will never, ever be able to know if you did it intentionally (assuming it mattered) or if you were being absent-minded, unless you slip up and give him a clue or unless there was a witness who overheard you say, “Watch me beat this light”, or some such. You can try to infer intent in some cases where it is simply impossible, and people do, but that doesn’t make it right.
Do you know where each and every one of your possessions is at this and every moment? No. Are you therefore intentionally “forgetting” something? No. Can we tell which is which? Rarely.
Go ahead and have the last word, ‘cause I’m done.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:05 am
“And: Should we really be so worried that one person, just one person, didn’t have her Constitutional Rights violated too terribly?”
No one has a constitutional right to break the law.
What pisses me off about this is that someone who’s suppossed to be upholding the law broke it and is getting off scot free. If John Q. Average did the same thing he’d be cooling his heels in jail now with a massive bail set and looking at the very real possibility of a loooooong prison sentence.
This is eliteism, period.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Lyle:
Most traffic offenses, including the running of red lights, are strict liability offenses, meaning that intent is not an element of the crime. If there were a crime called “intentional running of red lights,” prosecutions under that crime would be relatively rare, and presumably, the punishment much stiffer.
Presumably, if the offense were intentional there would be other evidence of that. I don’t know how to get a gun past a metal detector, or even if it is possible to do so, but I’m sure anyone attempting that would do something a little more clever than simply drop the gun into a purse she knew was going to be x-rayed. Nor do I believe any semi-rational adult would deliberately smuggle a gun onto a plane just for smuggling a gun onto a plane’s sake. More likely, there’d have been some other evil plot, e.g., a plan to hijack the plane, and other stuff would have been found on her to corroborate that.
CJ:
What law did she break?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
That would seem to be a non sequitur. Any statute that violates the Constitution is not “the law”, regardless of how many people, including cops and prosecutors, claim that it is. A statute that violates the Constitution imposes no obligation and confers no privilege on anyone.
The special treatment she received was _not_ that she was not prosecuted for breaking the (non)law, the special treatment was that her rights were respected to a greater degree than most people could expect.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Ask yourself; If some people have their rights violated, would you be happier if everyone’s rights were violated, just to make it fair? Personally, I’d want to use this case to show that people can be trusted. If a judge can be trusted with a gun, why not a doctor? If a judge and a doctor can be trusted or at least given the benefit of the “doubt” (wait; what doubt—did anyone actually think there was criminal intent?), why not a carpenter, or a fast food clerk, or a gun accessories designer?”-Lyle.
Here’s where your scenario breaks down. A carpenter, a fast food clerk, or a gun accessory designer will not be given that trust you speak of, because the judge, doctor, politician consider themselves to be superior people on every level. So long as the rules are applied to them with the greatest leniency or not applied to them at all, they have no incentive to identify with those of us they consider rabble and who must be controlled to a greater degree than their trustworthy selves.
Hence, they have no downside to inflicting upon us rules and restrictions they are not subject to. In fact, it works in just the opposite fashion and reaffirms their superiority. They develop the herdsman’s mentality. We are the livestock who exist, in their philosophy, to provide them with their desires and needs and our lives are subjugated to their will for their own personal satisfaction.
Whereas, were they required to undergo the same vicissitudes visited upon the rest of us by unjust law, they would soon identify with us and realize the illegitimacy of such strictures against a peaceful constitutionally law-abiding citizen. They would no longer think they had to herd us and control us for “our own good”, but would recognize that meme for the camouflage of tyranny that it is. Narcississism is a terrible malady that most people treated with deference are not strong enough to resist. Thus, they begin to believe others are beneath them. Sharing a jail cell with some of those others might just make them realize how corruptly and wrongly the system is being manipulated. But never so long as they are, themselves involved in that manipulation.
If you doubt the above, I challenge you to find one instance in all of history where the good of the general population was advanced without the spectre of treatment for the rulers or leaders commensurate with what they had previously done to those people.