We’re only hearing his side of the story.
I’m not going to defend either practice, but you really don’t see a difference between this and this?
One thing of note, when I watch shows like Live PD and someone mentions that their SO hit them, one of the first questions is ‘open fist of closed fist’. I don’t know how much that plays into things, but it clearly makes a difference or they wouldn’t be asking.
Also, I’m not suggestions slapping is okay, or that just because someone only slapped their SO that it’s no big deal. I’m just pointing out that it’s different. Like the difference between me getting angry at you and throwing a playground ball at your face (we all know that doesn’t feel good) vs me getting angry and throwing a rock at your face. Neither is okay, but they are different.
Suddenly all the Reichwing dudes who like to scream, “LOCK HER UP!” on the word of a Nazi conman are passionate believers in the rights of the accused.
As long as it’s a man accusing a woman.
yes, and that is all the information we have. everything else is conjecture.
none of this has anything to do with what we’re discussing.
y’know what? fuck this place. if we’re going to descend into the same rigid, black/white with-us-or-against-us crap the republicans and russians want us to, then you can have it. I’m out of here.
Given that the person in question never tried to correct the record, even after being arrested and charged, lends credence to the fact that he’s not telling the whole story or too stupid to own firearms anyway.
Nm
So, not stupid at all, is what you’re saying?
The logic is that someone was convicted of robbing a liquor store, but never actually did so. They were only convicted because corrupt officials lied/cheated/whatever.
Clearer?
If only there was an accepted judicial avenue to challenge convictions that are viewed as unjust. What does the Innocence Project use, jailbreaks?
There is due process, in the initial case. Firearm prohibition is simply a guaranteed addition to whatever other punishment is decided on.
Given that roughly 1 in 7 victims of domestic violence even report the crime, it’s not unheard of for abusers to never face charges.
Thousands of women killed by their partners each year disagree with your “outrage”.
Aside from, ya know, a domestic violence conviction.
Rather than getting tied up in knots about hypotheticals about liquor stores, or accusing people of being too tied up with the letter of the law, i think the better explanation for what happened here is that you should never plead guilty to an offence without getting legal advice about all of the implications of a guilty plea, such as firearms prohibitions. Once you plead guilty and have a criminal record, that’s the significant fact. Whether you might have had a defence based on the other person’s actions is irrelevant.
This kind of thing happens to cops as well as military members.
The thing I don’t like about the law is the word “misdemeanor”. An act that removes someones civil rights permanently should be a felony. Lautenberg, in my opinion, was just another way to make more and more people ineligible to own firearms. Next it will be someone convicted of OWI, then shoplifting, etc…
BUT…it is the law right now even if we hate it, and FoieGrasIsEvil intentionally lied on a federal form and possessed a firearm when he had prior knowledge he was prohibited from having one. ANY conviction of DV, including Disorderly Conduct DV, does invalidate ones legal ability to own a firearm. The burden of knowing whether or not one can own one is upon each of us, not a BATFE agent knocking at our door.
All the anti-gun zealots on these boards clamoring for more and more gun laws ought to be appalled at his actions. Hell, look at all the shit I got for posting I’d more than likely not give a fellow officer a citation for a minor traffic offense. This is 2 felonies were talking about (actually 4 as he could be charged both state and federally).
Then, to be so stupid as to post this stuff online. Duh!:smack:
I used to like reading some of FoieGrasIsEvil posts. But I’ve completely lost respect for them. And for any gun control advocate that isn’t giving him grief!
People take the fall for things all the time just to get them done and over with. Often people will admit to something (or not defend themselves against a charge) because they’re under the impression that taking their (or, rather not their) lumps means the whole thing is over today instead of spending months in court and who knows how much in legal fees.
As for buying the gun(s), I can’t speak to that.
Yes, that does make more sense, but it’s backwards. What you’re saying, if I’m reading it right is that someone was wrongfully convicted (or even faced fabricated charges) for robbing a liquor store that they never robbed, by a corrupt official. Saintly Loser said “it’s okay to rob a liquor store if you’re the victim of corrupt officials.”, which, the way I’m reading it, is saying if you’re the victim of a corrupt official, you can then go rob a liquor store. As I stated earlier, I simply can’t follow the logic on that.
Regardless of the corrupt official part, in your case, the suspect did not rob a liquor store, in SL’s hypothetical, they did. In either case, we’re still butting up against the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right. Both issues have to be dealt with separately. You can’t commit a crime because a crime was committed against you (moreso when it involves an uninvolved 3rd party).
He never said that. His/her quote:
In SaintlyLoser’s hypothetical, someone has been CONVICTED of robbing a liquor store. Never was it stated that the criminal ACTUALLY robbed a liquor store. You’ve read FAR more into it than the original statement.
And as it stands, he’s been convicted of domestic violence, no matter what his reasons for accepting that. Full stop. That is the only certain fact we know about the situation.
Do people plead down and give up for mundane shit? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean we don’t let them off with only part of their punishment.
What’s the appreciable difference in a crime that results in a 11 month sentence and a 12 month one, besides the label given to it? How about all domestic violence crimes are automatically felonies, full stop? Would that assuage your oh-so-serious concern?
Given that Lautenberg has been law for over 20 years, and we haven’t even started to slide down that slippery slope, I hope you didn’t buy stock in sleds.
“All these people that were upset that I pick and choose which laws can be broken because they’re my friends should be OUTRAGED because REASONS.”
What should we do in MPSIMS? Rage and call him names and all take warnings for your righteous indignation? He knows he’s a fucking idiot, what he did was absolutely wrong, and he barely escaped a much harsher situation. We COULD pit him for it, but I guess your unease isn’t enough for you to do it yourself, only for you to chide and chastise the rest of us.
That doesn’t sound like something MsRobyn would do in the first place…
NM
I think it’d be naive to discount the possibility that some people feel they can declare it because FGE is a man and he hit a woman, and that, to them, no other information is relevant. It’s hardly an uncommon stance in wider society.
Gun control advocates can have nuanced views might not map with what you expect.