should plax do time?

So what's it like to be wrong about Plexico? Do you really think the law should be erased for him? What outcome are you looking for?

I said a dozen times, it could be anyone...I think in this instance the mandatory sentencing is wrong...just my .02
 
and I was unhappy he left my steelers.. go figure.

I was glad to see him go. Last year was the first time he did not disappear during the playoffs for the Steelers or Giants.

Except where beer, shotguns, country fields, and skeet/trap shooting are involved.

Then it's okay.

Only the stupid do this.
 
Last edited:
you are still pushing the "him" angle which has nothing to do with what I'm saying

I understand what you're trying to do here but really it can't apply in the sense you want it to.

Bloomberg wants to throw the book at Burges because he is a public figure who kids do look up to. When you are a type of role model for children your actions do matter and it does set you to a standard above the regular joe.
So the issue of Plaxico not being Plaxico, the point is moot because he is who he is, and a major player in the NFL, you can't expect him to be treated like a regular person because he isn't.

Now, in the case of a regular person concleal carrying and DISCHARGING an unregistered, ILLEGAL firearm in a crowd... of course that demands punishment to the fullest extent of the law. That's like saying a guy with a blood alcohol content of .25 who plows into a telephone pole, but doesn't hurt anyone, shouldn't be held liable for his actions. The law is the law is the law, and that is just the way it is.

Now, in terms of this being a intelligent discussion, lots of people are conveying ideas here, but all you're doing to stimulate the topic is saying, "No, that's not what I'm saying" so might I suggest you finally tell us what you ARE saying rather than telling us what you AREN'T saying? Otherwise this is a completely dead thread.
 
I understand what you're trying to do here but really it can't apply in the sense you want it to.

Bloomberg wants to throw the book at Burges because he is a public figure who kids do look up to. When you are a type of role model for children your actions do matter and it does set you to a standard above the regular joe.
So the issue of Plaxico not being Plaxico, the point is moot because he is who he is, and a major player in the NFL, you can't expect him to be treated like a regular person because he isn't.

Now, in the case of a regular person concleal carrying and DISCHARGING an unregistered, ILLEGAL firearm in a crowd... of course that demands punishment to the fullest extent of the law. That's like saying a guy with a blood alcohol content of .25 who plows into a telephone pole, but doesn't hurt anyone, shouldn't be held liable for his actions. The law is the law is the law, and that is just the way it is.

Now, in terms of this being a intelligent discussion, lots of people are conveying ideas here, but all you're doing to stimulate the topic is saying, "No, that's not what I'm saying" so might I suggest you finally tell us what you ARE saying rather than telling us what you AREN'T saying? Otherwise this is a completely dead thread.

I've said it a number of times...mandatory minimum sentencing is too severe in this case because he had no intention of hurting anyone...he's getting sentenced the same as someone who stuck a pistol in a 90 year old woman's face...clearly you can see a difference between the two...it's like pre meditated murder vs. manslaughter
 
I've said it a number of times...mandatory minimum sentencing is too severe in this case because he had no intention of hurting anyone...he's getting sentenced the same as someone who stuck a pistol in a 90 year old woman's face...clearly you can see a difference between the two...it's like pre meditated murder vs. manslaughter

but it's the key points here:


1. unregistered firearm

... he had an illegally acquired firearm, no license, no permit, no screening process, nothing... exactly what part of that is okay and only deserves a slap on the wrist? Gun control only works on law abiding citizens, case in point.

2. concealed firearm

... he had a concealed firearm on his person in a public place. This is not legal, period. It doesn't matter if he was pointing it or not, he had it on his person, hidden from view, and that's not allowed.

3. discharge of firearm in a public place

... sure he only shot himself, but what if he had a skanky bitch on his lap at the time and she was pregnant with Giuliani's baby?


I mean, these are pretty severe offenses, I don't get how you can look at them and excuse any part of them. This is exactly the reason such laws are in effect, and if you say... oh it's okay because he didn't intend to hurt anyone... then that completely nullifies the whole gun control thing to begin with. All a thug has to say is... oh I didn't mean to hurt anyone... and then boom.

I don't honestly think you think these things out completely before forming your opinions.
 
i was wondering when americas next bout of news would come along

the bailout didn't nearly have enough explosions