Jackson mayor pleads to firearms charges

So Bama, do you have an opinion about this? Or are you just reporting the news?... In which case, why should I not close this thread?
 
That is a pretty lame charge. Of course, what is good for the Goose and all. He looks like he was pretty aggressive in punishing other folks for breaking the law. He must have really annoyed that DA.
 
He got off easy......

....where he was carrying is off limits to non-LEO's....atleast here in Virginia....question I have is, did he have a valid CCW?
 
No real opinion about it, just thought it was an interesting article. A pretty aggressive mayor thats tough on crime, yet ends up becoming a criminal himself for perhaps unknowingly carrying a weapon into restricted areas. Felt I'd share it, thats all. -BamaXD
 
The only thing that disgust me is he pleaded out.

Why are regular citizens banned from carrying and law enforcement allowed? This goes against the basic meaning of the 2nd ammendment and I bet Florida's constitution too. He being a high profile person should have challanged this.
 
Come on!

"So Bama, do you have an opinion about this? Or are you just reporting the news?... In which case, why should I not close this thread?":rolleyes:

Look! The "news" he conveyed to us is legal, political, and firearms related! Maybe he wants to hear OUR opinion on the subject! So please, pull the crab from your rectum and take a chill pill!

My thoughts on the subject... this guy broke the law and got caught. It's as simple as that. He probably thought he could do whatever he wanted because he used to be a cop. He got somewhat special treatment because he was a man in a relatively high position. My favorite part is where the prosecutors said that they lowered the charges because he could have been removed from office for being convicted of a felony!:rolleyes: He broke the law right? That's the punishment right? OH! He is a rich politician/cop! Nevermind!:barf:
 
That's what's great about plea bargaining. It gives the attorneys, and the judge, a chance to discuss all factors in the case. If it's a scumbag with a 40 page rap sheet, and it's for cashing a 600 dollar bad check, and it's his third strike, the bargaining situation is different.

If it's a school teacher, protecting children, with no priors, it's a different bargain, as are the facts in this case. Course I'd like to hear the terms of probation. Suspect he can't even have a firearm in the house, which means, he's fair game now for criminals...

Kind of neat to see the 'law and order' folks get that helpless feeling, when they can't protect themselves with firearms...

S
 
I never understood the prohibition of carrying in a church anyway. Isn't that more of a decision for the pastor and the congregation? :confused:

Of course, I don't think carrying legal should be banned from anywhere to begin with, but ......
 
In S.C. you can carry in a church but must have the

'leaders' of the church's permission first. Kind of like going into someone's home, you have to have their permission first.

Most of the rules about carrying are just plane foolish. I can see the discussion now in committee when they are passing these laws... well some nut shot up a church so we can't let folks carry in church.

As we know the obvious point is a nut will shoot up anywhere, more to the point they like to go to places where law abiding folks can't carry.

It's against the law to kill inocent people... they've got all kinds of laws on the books that state this.. hasn't stopped anyone who is determined to do it yet....
 
That's what's great about plea bargaining. It gives the attorneys, and the judge, a chance to discuss all factors in the case. If it's a scumbag with a 40 page rap sheet, and it's for cashing a 600 dollar bad check, and it's his third strike, the bargaining situation is different.

If it's a school teacher, protecting children, with no priors, it's a different bargain, as are the facts in this case. Course I'd like to hear the terms of probation. Suspect he can't even have a firearm in the house, which means, he's fair game now for criminals...

Kind of neat to see the 'law and order' folks get that helpless feeling, when they can't protect themselves with firearms...
Click to expand...


With all due respect, a plea bargain simply allows for special treatment for one segment of our society, and in my opinion is totally Unconstitutional, since the Constitution itself, in Amendment VI, states that all criminal "prosecutions" shall be by jury, in public.

There are two reasons the Founders intended no "star chamber" or plea bargain deals were to be struck between an accused and a judge alone. One, is to protect society from special deals, just like this one. And two, was to preserve the right of the people to make certain fairness is dealt to their own in such a case, by our "vote" as jurors, as a check and balance against stupid and unfair court rulings and laws.
 
Last edited:
"There are two reasons the Founders intended no "star chamber" or plea bargain deals were to be struck between an accused and a judge alone."

The plea bargain isn't made between accused and judge. It is made between accused and prosecutor, and then presented to the judge. Presumably the prosecutor looks after the peoples' interest, while the judge makes sure that justice is served.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top