It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuxFestinus
reply to post by apodictic
 

There is a conspiracy/agenda here. I am reminded of this quote from Ayan Rand:



Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957) [WMail Issue #23]



I don't know who that is, but I agree. For example, having to wear a seat belt, of course they claim it's to keep you safe(lol). Or, lol, my username. I just can't help, but laugh. I could beat this case with a jury trial easily, but with my good friend NDAA could be a formidable obstacle. That still wouldn't matter though. Poor people, I say this time and time again,"STOP INCRIMINATING YOURSELVES." I don't go to the bank and tell him I'm holding and I definitely am. I mean come on guys.
edit on 3-1-2012 by PatriotAct because: typos





posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Point of contention with the article headline: this guy is a FORMER marine, he is no longer on active duty.


Point of contention......Once a Marine, always a Marine!




Hard to feel sympathy for an idiot.

agreed.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
NY city (5 boroughs) gun laws are different from NY state and Long island (nassau and suffolk county).

In the 5 boroughs (Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan and Staten island) you need a permit to own a long gun (rifle or shtgun) anywhere else in NY, you only need a driver's license to purchase.

Amazing how NY City is allowed to have DIFFERENT laws than NY state. Are they not part of the state of NY?

That's why I hate this Cesspool. NY it's politicians and it's contraditing, self manipulating, manmade laws suck. Especially the corrupt cops and UNJUST justice system

Can't wait to get the EFF out of this state and city. No place to raise children.
edit on 3/1/2012 by Revealation because: Just acknowledged that Mirthful Me already covered the fact.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
It's not a Federal Law the Marine broke.


He can use the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act and put off the trial since he's in the Federal Military. The Marines will keep him in until the Statute of Limitations expires.


That is if the Marine has a NCO or Commanding Office over him worth a grain of salt.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Not a chance... Even if he was active duty which he is not. The armed services will throw you to the civilian wolves over a jaywalking citation in the name of political correctness...

His goose is cooked unless he is "no billed."



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


there are no curse words strong enough to describe your flawed logic and heartless attitude.

god willing you experience what its like to be done by laws you didn't know existed...
and maybe it'll open your snippin' eyes.

I used to think ats was a haven from reading comments made by people passing judgement on things they know nothing about and have nothing to do with & seeing how many people agreed with their ignorant brainspew but I guess that's not the case anymore..

thoroughly disgusted,
-TF



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThoughtForms
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


there are no curse words strong enough to describe your flawed logic and heartless attitude.

god willing you experience what its like to be done by laws you didn't know existed...
and maybe it'll open your snippin' eyes.


Ignorance of the law. YOUR FAULT.

And leave God out of this.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


IGNORANCE OF REALITY YOUR FAULT!! YELLING!! SHOUTING!!! AHHHHHH!

grow up. I'd love to see you maintain your cold demeanor with regards to this topic if it were your mother father son or daughter who'd accidentally broken some absurd irrelevant and/or poorly legislated law.

you do realise some very very innocent people wind up in jail due to poor wording of laws? you could end up in jail due to a phrasing error. that threat is very real and very unjust in a lot of cases. though I doubt you can release the tight grip on your point of view long enough to consider that some of these laws hurt innocent people for no good reason. in fact, you'd probably think that simply breaking a law is a good enough reason to be punished yes? you're a fool & your beliefs allow you to cheer for the abuser. I feel sorry for you.

-TF



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThoughtForms
reply to post by Annee
 


IGNORANCE OF REALITY YOUR FAULT!! YELLING!! SHOUTING!!! AHHHHHH!

grow up. I'd love to see you maintain your cold demeanor with regards to this topic if it were your mother father son or daughter who'd accidentally broken some absurd irrelevant and/or poorly legislated law.


Grow up? Dude - I'm 65. And I know that Ignorance of the law is never an acceptable excuse.

Emotions don't affect law.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


65...

some phrase about not being able to teach something or other new tricks something something comes to mind.

I'm going to make this very very easy for you even though I've wasted enough time on this already.

Hypothetical GO! -

Your daughter is driving home alone and crashes her car into a tree injuring her leg. Upon coming to she see's that she has crashed into a tree on the council strip in front of her own property. Because she is so close to home, its the weekend & 4am she knows the local hospital will be understaffed and decides to patch herself up at her house and take herself to the hospital in the morning. upon patching herself up she has lost some blood after a long night out with friends and is too woozy to do anything but sleep so thats what she does, sleeps like a log until afternoon the next day.

During the night the police are called to the scene by neighbours. her blood is found in the car, the car is towed and an investigation opened.

she reports the crash to the police the day after next... monday when the local station opens for business again.

She waits for them to be open as with an injured leg she cannot drive and has no car any more. she cannot work with her leg and was on thin ice with boss and is fired. she buses to the police on the monday. She could have caught the bus the following day to a station another hour away but needed medical attention and assumed it would be okay as the other stations jurisdiction falls outside of where she had the car accident.

She is charged with hit and run carrying a minimum of 5 years jail time. Why? accident was unreported at the time police became aware of it, a person was injured, driver was not present & attempting to provide aid to the injured person when police arrived on the scene.

guess what! according to the law the police were able to justify charging her with hit and run for one reason and one reason only. There was never any differenciation made between the 'driver' and 'injured person'. nevermind the fact that depending on the injury, and if the injured person was the driver or not will determine whether aid can be offered by the driver to the injured person, if they are the same person and have a hole in their throat they may find it difficult to call the police, ambulance and apply first aid to themselves until they arrive. unfortunately for her because she had a serious enough injury to require hospital care, but not enough to stop her limping to her house 50m away, she has just left the scene of a car accident in which she was the driver and injured a 'person'.

A hit and run law that was designed to catch drunken hoon drivers and prevent them killing other people has now been used unjustly to charge your daughter with the same hit & run law carrying a 5 year minimum sentence and all because the cops were pissy to get called out that weekend and thought they'd send a message to the community. It is unfortunate for your daughter that the area she lived was well known by police as a hoon area.

The police prosecutor never met her or had anything directly to do with the case and everyone trying to put her away assumes she's a hoon until they meet her in court.

She cannot afford a good standard of legal representation due to having lost her job...
She gets locked up for 5 years despite protest of logic, circumstance & character.

character being another word to describe a persons personality and public/social standing... which is largely subjective to the way an individual feels about someone....feelings being emotions...

But thats ok with you right? you don't mind that these arguments were ignored and your innocent daughter locked up for 5 years for something she literally did not do because emotions don't come into it.... right?

if you still don't get what I'm trying to say to you there is no getting through to you.

-TF

P.S) the law means more to you then it does to those who enforce them. If you can't see how that is wrong then you have made some corrupt powerful bastards out there very safe and happy people. congratulations.
edit on 4-1-2012 by ThoughtForms because: forgot to add: consequence of losing job, and fact that she was alone when the accident happened.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ThoughtForms
 


You may as well be talking to a fence post and I wager I am not the first person to say that about this poster.
The great thing about the universe that I live in is, karma is a GREAT teacher and time is a wonderful teaching tool. This poster WILL find out first hand what you are trying so patiently to explain.

Let karma sort it all out my friend.

P.S. When did 65 year olds start using the word "Dude"?
That just doesn't sit right with me,lol.
edit on 4-1-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


lol, yeah I realised that about halfway through writing, my grandma for one would never say dude.

still that hypothetical is as close as I can get to a perfect example of what I'm trying to explain and hopefully someone out there will read it and go "huh! never thought it about it like that before!" and my frustration fuelled posts will have been worth it


cheers for the reply


Peace,
-TF



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Annee
 


That's what the article claims he did.


The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is.

Read more: dailycaller.com...


Besides, as Ive already said checking is irrelevant. You think if you get bunk info from a city clerk, cop or lawyer suddenly all the charges will just go away? Bloomberg himself could have told this guy he was okay to carry and if he got stopped he'd still be screwed.


Ignorance of law is never an excuse.

There is accurate information online. You have to make sure you go to an official government site.

Can he show on a government internet site where he was mislead by confusing or inaccurate information?

I doubt it.



What you say is very true.

He also would have known that it was illegal to carry concealed in another state. All concealed weapons permit classes repeat this fact many time during the class.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I don't agree with it, but ignorance isn't an excuse.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Gator
This is so stupid. If the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments all apply equally to all the citizens in all states, why not the 2nd?

I didn't know about the 911 incident. If these are acts of civil disobedience, my hat is off to them.
edit on 3-1-2012 by Doc Gator because: (no reason given)


Well... In case You missed it, the 4th is applicable to no One here in the States since the NDAA...

Just sayin'.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Ignorance of the law. YOUR FAULT.

And leave God out of this.


We went over this.

How the hell is ignorance of the law not[/t] an excuse? Especially when there has been no harm caused or victim?

Just because the people who write and enforce these garbage laws constantly repeat the mantra "ignorance is no excuse" to cover the fact that their laws are bunk, bull, artificial and pointless it doesnt mean that somehow the reality of logic is trumped by human hubris.

When there is no harm caused. No victim identified. No violation or crime or any natural order has been committed. How on earth could any reasonable human being believe that ignorance of some text pulled clear out of some legislators ass with no bearing whatsoever on the reality in which we live is not an excuse?

Life is, or at least was before tyranny became the norm, dictated by the presumption of liberty whereas the lack of harm, the lack of a victim, concludes no crime has occurred.

Here we are in the great nation of the USfreakingA all high and mighty land of the free where it is not the presumption of liberty we operate under but the presumption of tyranny. And people like you appear to be not only happy about this erroneous way or life but to relish in it and wield it as a tool to degenerate your fellow man.

Do you not wish a better world for your loved ones? For your family? For yourself?

Should your husband or wife be facing jail time and felony convictions for running afoul of some nonsensical legislation which you or he had never heard of you'd sit happily by and mock him for his ignorance?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

Ignorance of the law. YOUR FAULT.

And leave God out of this.


We went over this.

How the hell is ignorance of the law not[/t] an excuse? Especially when there has been no harm caused or victim?


Because if there were exceptions it would be abused.
People could just "oh office i didn't know.... I swear."
It sucks but its true.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


you underestimate the abilities of a court room to spot a liar. The reality is that sometimes people would use that excuse, maybe it may become the most common lie told, but there would still be people who were telling the truth and cases where the crime was minor enough (such as this one) that an exception should be made.

zero tolerance never works. you need to allow exceptions. otherwise you're just cherry picking which facts can be used as facts and which have to be disregarded entirely just in case they turn out not to be somehow... it would be like disregarding dna evidence just because of the 1% chance of error; it should still hold some kind of weight, its silly to throw things out all together.

-TF
edit on 5-1-2012 by ThoughtForms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThoughtForms
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


you underestimate the abilities of a court room to spot a liar. The reality is that sometimes people would use that excuse, maybe it may become the most common lie told, but there would still be people who were telling the truth and cases where the crime was minor enough (such as this one) that an exception should be made.



So let it be settled in the courtroom.

Ignorance of Law still stands.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
you don't even make sense.

-TF




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join