Outbreak Ordnance Case

Old Bill Dibble ....There were many accusation floated but the ended up going down over the charges that could be proved.
Click to expand...
More likely they had an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to this charge rather than face trial over all the charges.
 
True, but the whole point of a plea deal is that the defense attorney realizes that the prosecutor can prove certain things in court easily. To keep from getting an "average" sentence he has his client plead guilty for much less. It is likely he could have proved more.

If the defense thinks they can win in court they will go to court.
 
They weren't convicted of anything. They pleaded guilty to avoid further prosecution. And yes it was a NFA violation:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/p...rs-plead-guilty-national-firearms-act-charges

Jarvis Nelson Osorio, 36, of Miami Lakes, Thomas Joseph Willi, 52, of Key West, and Outbreak Ordnance, LLC, a federally licensed firearms dealer located in Big Pine Key, each pled guilty to one count of knowingly receiving and possessing an unregistered .38 caliber “cane gun,” a weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Sections 5841, 5861(d), and 5871. As part of the defendants’ guilty pleas, Osorio, Willi, and Outbreak Ordnance, LLC must surrender their federal firearms licenses, which are required in order to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.
Click to expand...

They could have faced 35 years of hard time. 2 Years was a gift.
 
Old Bill Dibble said:
They weren't convicted of anything. They pleaded guilty to avoid further prosecution.
Click to expand...
If they pled guilty & were sentenced, they were convicted. They may not have been tried, but they were convicted.
 
Yeah, you don't want to mess around with NFA violations! That law has teeth and the general public is not very supportive of "dangerous and unusual" firearms.
 
Old Bill Dibble said:
You are correct, it is semantics in my mind.
Click to expand...
When I hear the word "semantics," it often carries with it a sense that the matter at hand is trivial. Perhaps that's what you intended, perhaps not. In any event, I'd call the difference between "weren't convicted" and "were convicted" to be a significant difference. Especially to the defendant.

Precision in language is very important when dealing with the law. Law does not lend itself well to "close enough" uses of language, in the way that conversational language does.

I believe it was Mark Twain who once said, "the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top