Judge denies motion to dismiss case against Philly mom arrested for legal gun in NJ

It's really this simple, New Jersey is saying if we're willing to do this to a mother of 3, imagine what we'll do to you if you bring a gun here. Guys if you don't live here you don't know just how toxic NJ is towards gun owners.

Now the sad part is if she was in a gang and did a drive-by she'd probably get 6 months and probation. :P
 
^^^NJgunowner, that's all well and good if the NJ authorities broadcast an announcement on the Philly TV stations so it becomes well known, but they haven't done that. And she's nowhere near the first 'outsider' caught with a gun in NJ. Numerous people from the suburban Philly area have been caught in NJ and you don't hear a thing. And since there's nothing the anti-gun crowd can gain from this, the lamestream TV news is hush-hush about the whole story.

From DNS:
"Nothing is mandated in the law saying she should be given anything less. If it happens, that is great, but that isn't some sort of obligation of the state to do so. It is a shame that she isn't, but the state doesn't really make allowances because she is a loving mother of three."

I believe it's mandated that she gets a minimum of 3 1/2 years to a max of 10 years. Since the prosecutor denied her the pre-trial intervention program, the judge must sentence her to a min of 3 1/2 years, unless the jury finds her not guilty.
 
We can argue about it all day I guess, but in the end ignorance of the law is not protection from the law. There's a very good chance she's going to get the 3.5 years in jail, at which point Christie will probably step in after a couple of months and commute the sentence.
 
From DNS:
"Nothing is mandated in the law saying she should be given anything less. If it happens, that is great, but that isn't some sort of obligation of the state to do so. It is a shame that she isn't, but the state doesn't really make allowances because she is a loving mother of three."

I believe it's mandated that she gets a minimum of 3 1/2 years to a max of 10 years. Since the prosecutor denied her the pre-trial intervention program, the judge must sentence her to a min of 3 1/2 years, unless the jury finds her not guilty.
Click to expand...

Yep, that is the law. Nothing says they have to let her go. Nothing says they have to let her take PTI. Nothing says they have to dismiss the charges. She broke the law and now gets due process and she is going to get to have her day in court.
 
DNS --

I agree that, according to the facts as we know them, she broke the law. The question in my mind is the lack of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors use discretion every day in deciding whether to prosecute and how to prosecute. Sending this woman to prison for three and a half years is, IMO, a poor way to expend governmental resources.

There are three justifications for imprisoning someone: deterrence, prevention, and punishment in order to appease victims so they will not seek justice on their own.

Here, there are no victims. What she did is not an act which is "malum in se" or one which is inherently wrong. It therefore does not cry out for punishment. Throwing her in prison will not prevent her from committing other crimes because she is an otherwise law abiding citizen. There is arguably some deterrent value for imprisoning her but it is weak. It is unlikely to deter other out of state residents with no clue about New Jersey law.

Against this, weigh the cost of prosecution and imprisonment. Consider the hardship it will have on this woman's children. Also consider the disrespect it engenders for the law and for authority. Fully prosecuting this woman makes no sense unless she is being offered as a sacrifice on the alter of gun grabber political correctness. Those hungry wolves are never satisfied.
 
KyJim, that is all well and good, but how you feel and how I feel about what is or is not justice and how the law should be applied really isn't the issue here. Yes, the prosecution can use discretion, but it does not mean they have to use it. Like I said, it is a shame she isn't being given a break, nobody has to give her a break.

I think she should have gotten PTI from everything I read, but PTI does not have to be given.

Hey, even Shaneen admits that she broke the law, that she respects the law and takes responsibility for her mistakes, and she says this was a mistake. That is good. As a person who takes responsibility for her mistakes and who breaks the law in the process, she seems bent on not taking responsibility for this so-called mistake.

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/rec...y-charges-for-philadelphia-mom/#axzz3AD7eLx9c (see first video, starting at about 1:30 and the 2 minutes. )

I respect the law ... I take the responsibility of my mistake and that is exactly what it was, an honest mistake.
Click to expand...

Her lawyer needs to stop her from talking in public to reporters.


Either you take responsibility or you don't. She
 
but how you feel and how I feel about what is or is not justice and how the law should be applied really isn't the issue here. Yes, the prosecution can use discretion, but it does not mean they have to use it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all that -- better than you probably give me credit for. But public attitudes toward a law or a given situation do matter, more so coming from the local folks but publicity and buzz nationally have often helped right an injustice.

Her lawyer needs to stop her from talking in public to reporters.
Click to expand...
I again disagree. She has no defense except the court of public opinion and her regrets sound more sincere coming from her than from her lawyer.
 
KyJim said:
...She has no defense except the court of public opinion and her regrets sound more sincere coming from her than from her lawyer.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's pretty much all she has.

There's a saying among lawyers:"If the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If they're both against you pound the table."

And in some situations, like this one, raising a ruckus won't be as useful as trying to generate sympathy because of the harshness and injustice of the application of the law here. We've discussed the difficulty of generating sympathy for pro-gun issues. This might be one case where sympathy migh get some traction.
 
Well KyJim, if she is the honest person as claimed, willing to take responsibility for her actions as she claims, along with her respect for the law, then she should have pleaded guilty, but apparently she doesn't want to take such responsibility and feels the law she respects should not apply to her.
 
One thing to keep in mind through all this is that there seems to be an undercurrent opinion in this thread that the general public in NJ would support leniency for Ms. Allen.

Remember, that the people of NJ voted for the legislators that passed the law in question and continue to vote for legislators who support such laws. The strong implication is that a significant percentage (if not the majority) of the people in NJ WANT laws like the one that tripped up Ms. Allen and they want the authorities to enforce those laws and actively prosecute offenders.
 
DNS said:
KyJim, that is all well and good, but how you feel and how I feel about what is or is not justice and how the law should be applied really isn't the issue here. Yes, the prosecution can use discretion, but it does not mean they have to use it. Like I said, it is a shame she isn't being given a break, nobody has to give her a break.
Click to expand...
Justice, essentially, should be meting out punishment commensurate with the crime. In that sense, the very notion of prosecutorial discretion is contrary to the concept of justice, because it is supposed to be judges and/or juries to decide guilt and punishment, not prosecutors.

However, the fact that prosecutorial discretion does exist and is practiced suggests that it should be practiced fairly and with some consistency. The fact that this same prosecutor allowed a public figure to enter the PTI program over a much more serious crime tells us that this prosecutor is abusing his discretion.

Unless the prosecutor has a change of heart and drops the charges (or allows PTI), I think we'll have to hope for jury nullification. If there was ever a case that cried out for nullification, here it is.
 
I have to wonder, Did she not intend to break the law, or did she not intend to get caught?

I am traveling at the end of October, going through several different states and into Canada, I want to keep my handgun with me, but because of various laws and locations, will be unable to do so.
 
see link in post 44

I have to wonder, Did she not intend to break the law, or did she not intend to get caught?
 
Well considering she volunteered information about carrying to a cop, I don't think she intended to break any laws. But like I said, ignorance of the law is not protection from the law.
 
publius42 said:
NJgunowner, what makes you think Christie will commute the sentence?

He could stop this right now.
Click to expand...
How could he stop it now? I don't think governors have any authority to stop, bar, or interfere in on-going investigations and prosecutions. His authority is to commute a sentence or to grant a pardon. I believe neither can occur unless/until the person has been found guilty.
 
Right, nothing in the NJ constitution or law allows the governor to interfere with the judicial branch of government operations for an accused before a conviction and once convicted, not for treason or impeachment.
 
I'd say rather than the people of NJ actively wanting these types of laws, the people have become apathetic and simply pull the Democratic lever for other reasons. The politicians they vote for keep coming up with this garbage unfortunately, and simply "accept" it.
 
I'd say rather than the people of NJ actively wanting these types of laws, the people have become apathetic and simply pull the Democratic lever for other reasons.
Click to expand...

Uh, no!!! Sometimes NJ voters elect politicians from the other party too. They are usually anti-gunners. Case in point: Christie.

According to a poll taken in January, 2014; 76 percent of NJ voters want stricter gun control. Gunowners are a small minority in NJ: Only about 16 percent of residents own guns.

Three-quarters (76%) of registered voters in the Garden State favor greater restrictions on guns and ammunition.

The only proposal offered to reduce gun violence in society that garners more support is instituting more proactive mental illness measures (93%). Rounding out the list of measures with majority support is reducing the level of violence in movies and video games (61%).
Click to expand...

A majority of NJ gunowners want stricter gun control.

Just 16% of New Jerseyans say they or someone in their household owns a handgun or other firearm. As for the effect that owning a firearm has on an individual’s attitudes toward gun control, gun owners are far less likely to endorse more restrictions. A slight majority of gun owners (53%) support more restrictions, while four out of five non-gun owners offer a similar response (81%).
Click to expand...

http://nj1015.com/nj-voters-want-crackdown-on-gun-violence-pollaudio/

Another poll:

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/NJ-Gun-Control-224377501.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top