So I must state for the record that I don’t think the criminal justice system is helpful treatment for addicts, and I don’t think it’s a good tool to combat drug addiction. I think that having a government entity policing people’s treatment is a terrible idea for lots of reasons.
But given the charges here, it seems that he is not being charged for being an addict, but for lying. What TriPolar posted is “using and addicted,” but does the law make a distinction between the two? If he was using drugs when he bought the gun, then (1) he lied on the form, and (2) he shouldn’t have the gun. Addiction is irrelevant — Biden may have used the word of himself, but as far as I can see this law makes no distinction between using once, recreationally, vs. being addicted.
Sure, but when you say “using drugs”, are you referring to it literally. As in, he used drugs and then, while under their influence, bought a gun?
Because a person who has previously used drugs, and who may use them again, can nevertheless honestly say that they aren’t using drugs when they buy a gun.
Otherwise, if the lie was that he was just “a user”, but the government has no particular time or place in which they can prove that he was using (other than a general claim that he had this habit), then an argument can be made that he’s being punished for his status, as opposed to some act he did. That would be improper.
Being a drunk or druggie is a different thing than being “drunk” or “on drugs”.
No, of course not, because I can’t imagine that a seller would complete the sale in that case.
My understanding is that the government’s perception of drug use is zero tolerance, so that anyone who has used drugs in the past is considered a drug user, much like one is either a smoker or a non-smoker but you’re not a non-smoker just because you’re between cigarettes. I’m not willing to take this position myself, but that’s how I understand theirs. I don’t know if there’s a certain amount of time of non-use that resets the system.
All but one had previous felony convictions, which is a gun crime that is typically taken seriously.
The outlier was arrested in a case where both drugs and guns were found during a raid, and he faced drug charges as well as gun charges. I still haven’t found another case where the gun crime was the only crime charged. As far as I can tell, Hunter Biden has never been charged with any sort of drug offense, which may make the charge more difficult to prove.
Which leads me to another point and maybe a lawyer could weigh in. In high profile cases especially, aren’t prosecutors expected to “show their work”, as it were, by pointing to other cases with similar attributes that justify their charging decision?
And if this case goes to trial, isn’t it on the prosecution to prove that not only that Hunter Biden abused drugs, but that he did so in the 11 day period when he owned the gun? I don’t think claiming he was an addict would be enough because he could claim that he didn’t consider himself to be addicted at that time.
And it is official: Republican primary voters rather see Garland go to jail than Trump.
He fucked the pooch by being so fucking slow and he and Smith will pay with their heads. If your opponent’s only hope is to delay the courts until the next election it doesn’t pay to be thorough: it pays to be fast.
Your only hope is that the hamberders get him before the MAGA’s anoint him their god empower.
But please carry on with the fart threads.
That will be your goddamn president for life unless you fucking do something about it.
Your daddy Garland is not coming to save you: He’s too fucking late.
I’m quite fearful myself. I heard someone on the news tonight talking about the different cases against trump and in his opinion, the best case is the one that judge cannon is slow walking so there’s no chance it’ll be heard before the election and if trump wins, it won’t be heard at all.
I think the suggestion is that had he been charged earlier, the various trials would be over by now and he would be behind bars, making an election run difficult bordering on impossible.
Of course, the flip side to that is that it doesn’t matter if one person thinks he’s “obviously” guilty and a trial (and subsequent appeals) would somehow speedily be resolved.
The fact it took so long for the charges to be brought up in Georgia (Garland wouldn’t even be involved in this one) and in New York for the shady business dealings and the pending cases of dozens of Jan 6 defendants should have been indicative of the falsity of that position. Over here in the real world, it takes time to collect evidence and build a sufficient case before you formally make these types of charges and make them stick.
But some people would rather their unrealistic scapegoat than hard reality
Nope nuh-uh it’s 100% because people are feckless and not trying. Nothing will ever change that position.
I will say that when The Librarian is saying that it’s over and we’re doomed, that helps ease my worries quite a bit. It’s like when Skip Bayless says your team sucks.
Especially if you wait for the Jan. 6 Commitee to do all their work, hold their hearings, assemble their findings and make their case before you think about an investigation.
Jeebus, the deal unfolded before our eyes, and the DOJ wasted time, this is a fact.
