Well, for me, philosophically, Burress injured no one but himself, if he had cut himself with a chainsaw or a electric knife, he wouldn't be facing two years in prison, but NYC is what it is, they made an example of him.
he broke numerous gun laws. other run ins with the law (although some see minor). and was unliscenced. Not to mention tried to cover it up with the new york giants. Had he succeeded in covering it up would everyone be ok with it? I don't think they acted outside the law here except they didn't use the discreation of letting him plead out.
Actually...yes...because he would not "gotten away with it" he had that bullet hole in his thigh to ponder, what purpose does it serve to lock him up for 2yrs when his only victim was himself? Mayor Bloomberg publically stated that he wanted an example made of Burress, to me that distorted the whole process, and imho this is a good example of "justice" not being tempered with wisdom and it won't do a thing to quell firearms violence in NYC.
well if he was a gangster carrying around a gun illegally the only victims are themselves. yet the law was made to stop the sell and carrying around of illegal firearms. As well as the carrying around of firearms when one is not liscenced. It has nothing to do with who is or isn't a victim. Because he tried to cover it up. So rather then being nice and letting him plead out, which is at their discretion, they charged him with everythign within the law possible. So again how is this a gross miscarriage of justice.
in my opinion if this was el manning or some other high class white football player.....they would not get 2 years in prison.....that is my opinion.....honestly they are trying to make some big example out of plax and its bull****
I understand the use of gun control laws to control illegal firearms and that Plaxico knew that by having a gun he was asking for trouble (typical cocky athlete) but 2 years is a stiff penalty for the crime (NYC has went a little overboard with the strictness of their gun laws IMO). I feel no extreme sympathy for Plaxico because of the underhanded way he went about weaseling out of the crime and the fact that he should have knew the law and not disregarded it, but still 2 years for this and Stallworth killed someone only to get 30 days is not right (maybe we should take a look at some of the laws in this country). However my final say on all of this is that even if I do think the penalty is way too stiff for the crime, Plaxico still knew the law and even if it is too stiff he should have obeyed it. He brought this on himself and was just in the wrong place at the wrong time (the place being in a NYC Club and the wrong time being shooting himself). People have the responsibilty to follow the laws set for them, even if they are a bit stiff, and with Plaxico's previous actions you can tell he thought he was above the law and finally that cockiness got him. So in the end the penalty is too harsh and unfair but even if it is Plaxico knew the law and disregarded it so he gets punished for doing so.
You ready to throw the Race card Sick? Eli is a very bad example. I bet if it were John Rocker he would still be doing 2 years I am a bit surprised, and I just hope dude has saved some of the money he has made, cause his career is over.
the only argument with stallworth that could be made is if you feel there should be stiffer penalties for dui/dwi. In other words if you feel people who get pulled over for such offenses can/should face stiffer penalties because that was all they could charge stallworth with from my understanding.
why is eli a bad example? as far as i know.....i could be wrong......but do either have past criminal records???
Burress already had Civil lawsuits, Domestic Disturbances, a resteraining order and several driving violations on his record. He is not a career criminal, but he is no Eli Manning either
Maybe I misunderstood but are you saying that all Stallworth could have been charged for was Dui/Dwi and not manslaughter as well? Also I get your argument because essentially a DUI/DWI is essentially a reckless act with a loaded weapon (you and your vehicle) much the same way carrying an actual loaded weapon is. However if you assume both are equal laws then both should carry like sentences not huge discrepancies. Further when you take the cases of Plaxico and Stallworth as individual cases, a DUI/DWI with manslaughter should outweigh a guy accidentally shooting himself (although taking into account he was in the wrong in the first place by having a gun). So for me if the law can be manipulated to where Stallworth gets 30 days for manslaughter and Plaxico gets 2 years for essentially being a cocky idiot that doesn't seem fair. However my argument is still that Plaxico knew the laws and intentionally disregarded them and so he is responsible for that.
Correct, from what I understand in florida, if a person does not use the crosswalk it is on them if they get hit by a car. I am of course assuming it is like the texas law as that is how the texas law is. Well you would have to assume they are equal laws, which I can not say either way they are or are not. I would assume though since a dui/dwi I believe does not always carry a mandatory sentence, then they are not equal laws. So the task you are faced with is this: 1) Make carrying a gun illegally the same as a dui/dwi. In which case you can either get off lightly for not being liscenced, or you can get charged and sentenced alot more for a dui. 2) Make a new law that states if you hit someone while drunk then you can be charged for murder etc, regardless of where the person is crossing. 3) Make the current law that the driver is always at fault. In which case what happens when someone does just run out in front of your car. FYI though plax was charged for two counts of negligence I believe and one for possession. I don't know why two counts, but its not just one charge he faced. Not to mention he also apparently had the safety off his gun.
I actually say combine law 1 and 2 in which DUI/DWI and carrying a weapon carry different penalties (DUI having a stiffer penalty) which escalate if a third party is harmed in the process. For instance carrying a loaded weapon is not smart but your judgment to use that weapon is not impaired. Whereas assuming a vehicle is a weapon when driving drunk then you are impaired and are much more likely to misuse that weapon. Essentially carrying a loaded weapon even without a permit has a lesser chance of ending in a third party being hurt than someone who is impaired driving a vehicle. For example with the Stallworth case, the man did walk illegally but who is to say a sober Stallworth would not have been able to stop sooner or swerve sooner and avoided the man? Because more than likely Stallworth's impaired state slowed his reaction times and so forth. Its a case of impaired vs. not impaired and although their should be gun control laws so people don't go down the street carrying AK-47s typically carrying a gun will lead to less injuries of third parties than driving drunk because carrying a gun does not mean you are impaired and more likely to make mistakes.
Fair enough brother and even with his questionable decisions both with this and in the past, this is a very tough punishment. I wouldn't charge it on Race what-so-ever, I would place part of it on "Shock value" however
