that wont help you...he wont see court until somewhere between march-may
I still feel this is draconian...it's the equivalent of saying someone with a dimebag is a major grower...it's an unduly harsh punishment
should plax do time?
- Thread starter JAXvillain
- Start date
that wont help you...he wont see court until somewhere between march-may
I still feel this is draconian...it's the equivalent of saying someone with a dimebag is a major grower...it's an unduly harsh punishment
not to mention the food...I'd bust a cap in someone for the quality of food they generally serve
There are laws in NY regarding this type of crime. Are you suggesting that they should not follow these laws for Plax?
Shalimar
Like herpes - just appears
i feel ya.. but that's what they did in the 80's right? with crack?
20rock gotcha 5 years or something crazy.
When I first saw this story I knew right away that he shot himself with a glock.
With that said, he should face charges just like any body else. Sometimes, being retarded is just not punishment enough.
With that said, he should face charges just like any body else. Sometimes, being retarded is just not punishment enough.
My point is that there is a law for this. Unless the law is overturned, it should be followed.
That said, mandatory minimums are bullshit and legislative tampering.
this.
...and also the fact that he is obviously ignorant about firearms.
Put him away for a few years. Let's make a Vick-lesson out of him.
Thug.
While I disagree with the draconian gun "control" laws of New York (City). I still say that Plax should be charged with violating them.
my parallel of charging someone with a dimebag of weed like they are growing fields of green is right on point here...there is no fit for all problems with this sweeping legislation...he was wrong, no doubt...should he be charged the same as someone who purposely brandished the weapon in someone's face? hell no...it's the equivalent of mcdonald's having one combo meal for all customers
Florida is suppose to be...
10 if you pull the gun, 15 if it discharges and 20 if it injures someone. I wonder how that works if you pull and discharge on yourself.
His own stupidity got him exactly what he deserves. Maybe it will teach him a lesson so next time he doesn't accidentally shoot someone else.
10 if you pull the gun, 15 if it discharges and 20 if it injures someone. I wonder how that works if you pull and discharge on yourself.
His own stupidity got him exactly what he deserves. Maybe it will teach him a lesson so next time he doesn't accidentally shoot someone else.
You can't let public figures off with slaps on the wrist and expect the common person not to expect the same for themselves. Therefore they fear the laws less.
missing my point entirely...remove the person and insert no name man on the street...the law is unduly harsh...he didn't commit a crime against anyone and he's being treated the same as if he has
a law is a law is a law. Is the law too much? Maybe, but he should still suffer the consequences of it, no??? Or should everyone else, but he gets off because he has money?
He broke a law which has a manditory consequence, therefore claiming the consequence is too harsh after the fact is kind of dumb, but then so is carrying an unregistered concealed weapon in public.