Plaxico Burress pleads guilty, gets two years in prison

[Rondo2287]

I also don't see how Vick is accessory to killing tons of animals - clearly illegal - and gets about the same amount of time as Plax who hurts nobody.

I also seem to remember something in some document about the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Well there goes that Constitutional right.

What about my right not to get shot by an ignorant fool who walks into a bar with a loaded gun that doesnt have the safety turned on?

Well the law really didnt stop Plexico from doing what he did in the first place.

The law is that you can have a loaded unlisenced gun in NY so the law does do stuff to prevent that

[johnnyrondo]

Two bad they didn't sentence him to prison 2 years ago

[JSD]

Two bad they didn't sentence him to prison 2 years ago

Oh God, I still want to puke thinking back to that night.

[nickagneta]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

[Eja117]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

[Eja117]

I also don't see how Vick is accessory to killing tons of animals - clearly illegal - and gets about the same amount of time as Plax who hurts nobody.

I also seem to remember something in some document about the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

Well there goes that Constitutional right.

What about my right not to get shot by an ignorant fool who walks into a bar with a loaded gun that doesnt have the safety turned on?

Turns out you aren't guaranteed to be as safe as you'd like at all times wherever you go.

[nickagneta]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

So other federal laws and state laws that further restrict the possession of fire arms are unconstitutional? gee that's funny, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would have already ruled against such laws and they haven't.

[yall hate]

Burress is being made into an example not because of the hurt he caused himself but because of how he endangered so many others.



These two cases make no sense to me when taken into any sort of a perspective that is trying to make sense of the legal system in this country.

First, no Burress isnt being made an example of.  He got less time then the mandatory minimum.  If they had prosecuted the case and sought the maximum that would be being made an example of. 

NY is strict with gun laws for this very reason.  crowded places and idiots with guns do not make a good combination.

Second, as for the different cases, different states, different laws.  comparing laws from different states is apples and oranges. 

[yall hate]

Also, as for people wondering when he can get out early.  with good behavior, he will be eligible for early release after 20 months (so only 4 months early)

[nickagneta]

Burress is being made into an example not because of the hurt he caused himself but because of how he endangered so many others.



These two cases make no sense to me when taken into any sort of a perspective that is trying to make sense of the legal system in this country.

First, no Burress isnt being made an example of.  He got less time then the mandatory minimum.  If they had prosecuted the case and sought the maximum that would be being made an example of. 

NY is strict with gun laws for this very reason.  crowded places and idiots with guns do not make a good combination.

Second, as for the different cases, different states, different laws.  comparing laws from different states is apples and oranges. 

I knew all that and you are the second person to bring this to my attention. But, yes, he is being made an example of because it is a high profile case because it is a fairly new law and he is the first famous person to be arrested for it.

The DA's office is making sure this is getting as much publicity as possible and the reason for the leniency is to save the taxpayers money in a long drawn out trial.

As for the different laws for different states I was extremely aware of all that I just think when you take a look at American law in general the cases of Vick, Stallworth, and Burress exemplify exactly how strange and varied justice in America can be. That's the point I was trying to make without going into a long essay.

[Eja117]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

So other federal laws and state laws that further restrict the possession of fire arms are unconstitutional? gee that's funny, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would have already ruled against such laws and they haven't.

People are under a quaint notion that the Supreme Court doesn't trample on the Constitution whenever they feel like it

[nickagneta]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

So other federal laws and state laws that further restrict the possession of fire arms are unconstitutional? gee that's funny, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would have already ruled against such laws and they haven't.

People are under a quaint notion that the Supreme Court doesn't trample on the Constitution whenever they feel like it

So what you are saying is that the only laws that govern this country should be the ones in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments? Nothing else? Kinda crazy notion don't you think?

[yall hate]

I knew all that and you are the second person to bring this to my attention. But, yes, he is being made an example of because it is a high profile case because it is a fairly new law and he is the first famous person to be arrested for it.

The DA's office is making sure this is getting as much publicity as possible and the reason for the leniency is to save the taxpayers money in a long drawn out trial.

As for the different laws for different states I was extremely aware of all that I just think when you take a look at American law in general the cases of Vick, Stallworth, and Burress exemplify exactly how strange and varied justice in America can be. That's the point I was trying to make without going into a long essay.

Sorry but that doesnt make sense.  If you recognize that the penalty was lenient compared to what it could have been, then there is no example.  Anyone that lives in NY knows that law.  Burress being prosecuted doesnt bring the law to peoples attention.

but anyway, you say he is being made an example of because he is famous and was being prosecuted for it...so that means there would have been no way to punish him without making an example of him?  that doesnt make sense. sorry.

Brafman made sure this got a lot of attention, not the DA.  Sure, the DA made public comments, but go back and look at the timelines of them, all of Morgenthau's comments came in response to Brafman comments.  Brafman was trying to influence public opinion, in order to prevent burress from being indicted, thats all.

I must have misinterpreted what your intent was when it came to your comments on the different laws.  It seemed like you were making the same (stupid) argument that people keep making attempting to compare Burress's sentence to that of other athletes like Vick and Stallworth and somehow argue that one got a raw/better deal than another. 

[Eja117]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

So other federal laws and state laws that further restrict the possession of fire arms are unconstitutional? gee that's funny, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would have already ruled against such laws and they haven't.

People are under a quaint notion that the Supreme Court doesn't trample on the Constitution whenever they feel like it

So what you are saying is that the only laws that govern this country should be the ones in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments? Nothing else? Kinda crazy notion don't you think?

Well no. I'm not saying those should be the only laws. The founders knew nothing of the internet or nukes for example. And the Constitution is clear there can be state laws, it's just that the states can't take away your rights in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to bear arms (without an amendment). But the Supreme Court is happy to let some rights be taken away by using words like "reasonable" or making stuff up out of thin air and saying various things are in the Constitution that aren't there, so I guess to be fair sometimes they also give extra rights too.

But to put it a different way I definitely think the only laws should be laws coming from the legislative branch and definitely not the Judicial branch

[Fafnir]

If a remember right several other cases resulted in a lighter plea deal than Plax's. But I don't really mind what happened to him, he was guilty.

It does highlight to me that Stallworth's was very lucky to get off as lightly as he did.