http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8882206/?MSNHPHMA
Printable View
I have a hard time seeing how he avoids the mandatory 3.5 year jail term, and the void of his contract (i think i heard about 27 mil remains) so this is far and away the least of his worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Maybe some other players will learn from this!
There are players who have done FAR worse. It's not as if it was an unregistered gun and was involved in a gang fight. He had a license in a different state. The only thing 'illegal' was not having a license in NY. A paperwork error. (well, the coverup is another issue). I'm not sure if the law details that the gun be 'holstered' or not. Either way, he was irresponsible no doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
I view DUI's and spousal abuse and many other things as much worse to be honest. HIs biggest problem is the NYC law mandating a 3.5 year minimum sentence.
I don't necessarily agree with the NY law (although, for New York City itself, I can't really fault the law), but the fact is that it is a law on the books. This is where the phrase "Ignorance is no excuse" comes in to play. He broke the law, whether he did so knowingly or not. So, according to the law, he goes to jail. End of story.
That being said, mandatory sentences are stupid. Let him and his lawyer argue to a judge that it was a "paperwork error", and allow the judge to reduce the sentence. In a case like this, I could easily see a judge saying "You broke our law, but at least you have a permit at all. So, I'm placing you on parole instead of putting you in prison". Then, if he does it again, the prosecutor can really throw the book at him.
Exactly, that makes the most sense. However it's cut & dry in this case. If the jury rules he had the gun, he's guilty of possession. Judge has no choice but to impose the minimum sentence and he goes to jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
It's hard to believe you could go to jail for 3.5 years for that and get a slap on the wrist suspended licence for a DUI and a 6 month work permit to drive.
Hence, the "mandatory minimums are stupid" comment that I made.Quote:
It's hard to believe you could go to jail for 3.5 years for that and get a slap on the wrist suspended licence for a DUI and a 6 month work permit to drive.
This is also the sort of thing that makes Gubernatorial and Presidential pardon powers a good thing as well, by the way. I'm betting that if he goes to trial that he'll get the 3 years, but that NY Governor Paterson will pardon him after 6 months to a year. There's no way that his lawyer will allow this to get to trial though. He'll plead out on a lesser offense.
Depends. Isn't this 'mandatory sentencing' Bloombergs baby? If thats the case, do you really think he's going to be OK with the prosecutor plea bargain for less than he's already guarenteed, effectively weakening the teeth of the law he's enacted. Plea bargains usually go the other way, with the prosecutor meeting in the middle with what he 'wants' to get and what he 'thinks' he can get. If they have him, which it appears they do..it would be a great miscarriage of justice to work a way around it solely because of who he is. I highly doubt I'd have a chance at getting out of the minimum sentence if the situations were exactly the same and I shot my dang leg.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Can the governer pardon him? If so and he did, it seems like it would be a public relations mess and an undermining of your states most significant mayor. Arguably, NYC Mayor has more leverage/power than the NY Governer, it's hard to believe they'd spar on this one.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I see Plax is focked big time.
Perfect, I found it. I knew I had seen it before. Here's a quote by Bloomberg in 07.
Quote:
“Last year, our Administration succeeded in pushing through a law that gives New York the toughest penalty in the country for carrying an illegal loaded handgun,” New York mayor Michael Bloomberg said in July 2007. “Now, if you are convicted, you will serve a minimum of 3-1/2 years behind bars — no exceptions.”
manditory minimums maybe stupid but don't they "level" the playing field so to speak. People complain that if you have money and commit crime A you will get a lesser sentance than a poorer person would simply beause you could afford a better lawyer or a lawyer with connecions enough to get you a deal. Or what about the people that say that race still has a large part to do with what person gets what sentance for the same crime. Ideally, in a perfect world, race, wealth and influence would not play any factor in sentancing, but what do e do until then? what is a viable alternative? for some the answer is manditory punishments...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Good counter....and interesting concept. I have to say I still am not for the mandatory minimums but thats likely because this case is all i'm equating it towards. I'm guessing there are other cases where the minimum concept is a great idea and really benefits the system. I'll reserve judgement and say that in this particular case, it's excessive and doesn't fit the crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
I hope they throw the book at him. Im tired of hearing of these damn players and their clubs they HAVE to go to. And people forget to realize, he really could of hurt somebody or killed them. I would find that Fantasy league for dummys book that Dice gave me and chuck it as hard as I could at Maxipad Burress.
Well, the problem isn't him going to a club, which is a right he has just as much as any other human being. The problem is the fact he apparently thought he was above both state gun regulations and the club's own rules on firearms (none allowed). And, yeah, this could have been a LOT worse. He could have hit someone else...Hell, he could have hit himself in the femoral artery, in which case he might not still be around, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Its his right to go to wherever he wants no doubt, but these stories do get old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
Let me throw a comparison here for ya. The NFL is cracking down on players with character issues more so now than ever before. Take me for example, I have a Class A License. Its a privelege for me to have my license not a right. Same with the NFL. Its a privelege to be a football player not a right.
Ok now say I have some pot on me, but I have no way to smoke it, so I go to a pipe store to buy one and oopsie on my way out the door my bag of pot falls out in front of an officer. Guess what? I lose my license.
Its corny but you can apply this to Plaxico, he goes somewhere thats suspicious, a night club, (be honest, most of the time you can count on illegal activity going on), he has something illegal on him too and obviously gets caught. I think he should be banned from the league.
I dont get second chances for dumb mistakes, NFL players shouldnt either. Once again players have every right to do what they want, but if it isnt the right thing to do, you should really have the judgment to avoid situations that he put himself in. Is it really worth it to go to a club now? Im not really trying to argue with ya arctic, we agree on the basics here, but I feel he should be banned from the league myself.
I can't agree for a ban from the league for this. Look, if he HAD shot someone else, yeah, I would maybe agree with you. And if he does end up getting a mandatory prison sentence, then maybe you'd have a case (and frankly, that would probably end his career anyway). The guy's not a genius, no doubt of that, but so far as I know, he doesn't even HAVE a criminal record until this incident. He's had some team-oriented issues, but he doesn't have a prior rap sheet, and he doesn't even have a prior league conduct rap. He shouldn't be held to a lesser standard because he's an athlete, agreed...he also shouldn't be held to a HIGHER one because he's an athlete. I'm pretty sure that, given the same set of circumstances, the average human being with no priors and no prior history probably isn't going to flush their entire life away because of one incident like this one.
A. It's not his entire life being flushed away. Just his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
B. There are plenty of other professions where ethics standards are written into your contract and if you break them, you're done.
C. Suppose Joe Schmoe is convicted of having sex with an underage girl. Suppose Joe Schmoe works at 7-11. He probably has a chance to continue working at 7-11. Suppose Joe Schmoe is a high school teacher. Probably Joe will have a hard time finding another teaching job.
I hate analogy's sometimes because they are so unfair. This is so different than sex with a minor...its really not worth me commenting on that any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
All the talk about possibly hitting someone else....you can say that about anything. Fact check, ITS LEGAL TO CARRY A GUN! Of course providing you have the license to carry it, and if he had the paperwork it wouldn't have prevented this incident nor would it have prevented someone else getting hit by the stray bullet had that been the case. The gun was registered, and despite one claim on here I've heard no where that it is against team policy to carry guns. I find that hard to believe they would have such policy on off duty time. While at work, different story.
Our nations vice president SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE and didn't do jail time and nobody licensed in an 'accident' usually does. He was licensed in another state, and had this occurred pretty much ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY (with very few exceptions) he would plead ignorance and would not do jailtime. Many lawyers have been on radio shows saying just that all week.
The fact alcohol was involved, that may be an issue for him. Its speculation on our part to assume it was. I have no problem with the Giants terminating his contract. I have no problem with a suspension from the league, especially because of an attempted cover-up. I have no problem with the city of NY enforcing their mandatory sentence though I think its a dumb law. I have no problem if they charged him with the cover-up though I doubt they will because he's been cooperative. I see no way around the mandatory sentence, and think that will likely end his career for the most part, but whatever time he does I DO have a problem with any notion that he can't play again if he wanted to and if someone wanted him.
As for the CDL holder with the pot example. Like Plax, he has to serve the sentence that the courts determine and is set by law. It's no different than your example. Possession of a narcotic of the amount you mentioned as far as I know does not carry a permit suspension of your license. You may be terminated from your current employer, as it looks like Plax is going to be......but you can still work elsewhere once your license is renewed. In other words, you don't lose your career. Its not apples to apples.
Oh believe me Dice, any Drug stigma on your record pretty much eliminates you from driving a truck, kind of like the Scarlet Letter of Truck Drivers.
No....USDOT & FMCSA allows for drivers to go through substance abuse programs and submit to additional testing. However and most importantly the COMPANY can refuse to hire anyone with a history and their records they obtain can go back as far as seven years if i'm not mistaken. *Most* larger companies I work with will not allow the SAP they will terminate for any positive test, but I work with many small companies, specifically home heating fuel haulers that will hire providing the proper paperwork is provided.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Regardless, I have nothing to worry about. But it is much more difficult to obtain a driving job if that is on your record than if it wasnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay