Seems to me we've been reading many articles that document how they screw around.
Are we talking about the same Feds?
#DrunkJudge denied purchase of a shotgun
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
Seems to me we've been reading many articles that document how they screw around.
Are we talking about the same Feds?
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
this is the New Yorkistan judicial system doing EVERYTHING in their power to keep this POS on the bench. They will give her every opportunity to keep her. But the FED's may not be so forgiving.
The State Court of Appeals is the only court that can punish or remove an elected Judge. The SCofA just gave astocio a reason not to show up for "work"
The State Court of Appeals is the only court that can punish or remove an elected Judge. The SCofA just gave astocio a reason not to show up for "work"
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Worst evil, the corruption of the mind, And it is pervasive. No more right and wrong one you reach a certain tier within this shit hole.
Robin
Robin
Gotta love lawyers. Her lawyer "had argued that "dangerous weapon" is a highly ambiguous phrase. He asked the jury to use critical thinking and common sense when determining if an unloaded shotgun can be a dangerous weapon."
Do they sell loaded shotguns at stores these days? Is that what common sense, critical thinking is?
One juror was removed for falling asleep. My guess is the jurors wanted to go to start their weekend early.
Fresh off her acquittal, she will run for office back in Rochester and become the toast of the city. She'll fit right in with the characters like david gantz and adam mcfadden.
Do they sell loaded shotguns at stores these days? Is that what common sense, critical thinking is?
One juror was removed for falling asleep. My guess is the jurors wanted to go to start their weekend early.
Fresh off her acquittal, she will run for office back in Rochester and become the toast of the city. She'll fit right in with the characters like david gantz and adam mcfadden.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
Hate to say it, but this is potentially a 2A win, for as much as I'd like to see her behind bars.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
exactly what I was thinking, if that shotgun was considered "not loaded" , the next time I get pulled over and have an "unloaded gun" in my truck but they say it IS LOADED, now we have a case to set precedence.
So *they* may have just screwed themselves
ManrisFrack
.223 Rem
This is just a jury verdict in a criminal case. I don't think it carries any weight as far as precedent goes.
Try doing the same thing she did as a white guy with no notoriety. I'd bet money that you don't get a 'not guilty' verdict - even with the same attorney, using the same arguments.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Nailed it
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
But #whitemaleprivilege lmao.
byron
.308 Win
Democratic do I need to day more ?
@thewheels
.308 Win
Blimey
.450/400 Nitro Ex
The fuck is this.
I told ya'll a couple days ago, she'll run for office and be elected. Thankfully I do a truly remarkable job of spending almost no time in the shithole that is Rochester, despite living only several miles away.
Deplorable Me
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Carlos Hathcock
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Carlos Hathcock.308 Win
Watching with interest. My prediction: wrist slap at best.
Anyone need stock tips or Powerball numbers?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's funny how people here want someone to burn for trying to buy a shotgun. Imagine someone in the old West getting locked up in the drunk tank and upon release getting his guns back. Would you guys think the authorities were wrong then?
Bunch of hypocrites.
Bunch of hypocrites.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
Come on now, you know thats not a real question.
camper4lyfe
.308 Win
It’s not the gun thing solely. It’s her entire story that has people pissed off.
Personally as much as I want to see her locked up for a whole bunch of reasons I actually hope she is (was?) cleared of any gun charges...
Sorry quoted wrong post see above...
thegatman
.308 Win
Not guilty
Ah, confirms the (was?) lol...
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
McFadden is heading to prison at the moment...
Partially good news. He'll be back and with more street cred than before.
I'd say this is a win for good lawyering more than anything else. And possibly a loss for prosecutorial over-reach. Lemme tell you why............
As I understand it - admittedly from media reports - the relevant (to this issue) term of her probation was that she was prohibited from possessing "dangerous weapons", not specifically firearms or shotguns or any other defined term.
That is where her lawyer's charge of ambiguity came from since there IS no definition of "dangerous weapon" in NYS Penal Law. There are references to dangerous weapons but there is no specific definition of "dangerous weapon". Look it up. Section 265.00 Definitions.
So, by making the point that an unloaded weapon (shotgun) is not inherently dangerous, he was able to argue that merely briefly holding an unloaded shotgun is a store setting does not amount to possessing a dangerous weapon. Therefore, no violation of the terms of her probation.
But, more importantly, the DA charged her with felonies ----- Attempted (Section 110.00 E Felony) Criminal Purchase or Disposal of a Weapon (Section 265.17 D Felony).......
A person is guilty of criminal purchase or disposal of a weapon when:
1. Knowing that he or she is prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm, rifle or shotgun because of a prior conviction or because of
some other disability which would render him or her ineligible to
lawfully possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in this state, such person
purchases a firearm, rifle or shotgun from another person;
Here the DA says, "Ah ha, gotcha" because the probation agreement prohibited her from possessing "dangerous weapons" and here she was attempting to purchase a shotgun on two separate occasions when she was disabled from doing so by the terms of her probation.
Or did she?
As they say it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. And, because the Dick's employees refused the sales, there was no physical evidence of an attempted purchase. She did not fill out a 4473, she did not place cash or credit card on the counter. So was an attempt to purchase actually made? Or was it all just talk?
If I walked into Dick's or Bass Pro or Gander or any of those big box stores and told the clerk I wanted to buy a gun for home defense and asked to see a Maverick 88 would I be attempting to purchase it?
Someone standing at the counter observing my interaction with the clerk could possibly come to that conclusion, that I was attempting to purchase it. But they would be wrong. I would never go into one of those stores with the intent to purchase a gun.
Indeed, my intent would be to handle the gun in question, to get a feel for it, to help me decide whether or not I really wanted to buy it --- FROM SOME OTHER VENDOR WHO WOULD SELL IT FOR A WHOLE HELLUVA LOT LESS. Something many, many people on this forum have admitted to doing in the past.
Call it the Affirmative Dick's Defense -- nobody actually BUYS guns from Dick's (cuz they're dicks) - they just fondle them and then go someplace else.
The DA could not prove intent in this case because there was no overt action taken to complete the sale, just talk.
Her lawyer exploited the lacking elements of the crime the DA charged her with (probably knowing he was lacking but trying to get by with it anyhow or taking the approach of "I know I can't get a conviction but I can cost you a ton of money for a lawyer").
That's what I would want my lawyer to do if I were in need.
As I understand it - admittedly from media reports - the relevant (to this issue) term of her probation was that she was prohibited from possessing "dangerous weapons", not specifically firearms or shotguns or any other defined term.
That is where her lawyer's charge of ambiguity came from since there IS no definition of "dangerous weapon" in NYS Penal Law. There are references to dangerous weapons but there is no specific definition of "dangerous weapon". Look it up. Section 265.00 Definitions.
So, by making the point that an unloaded weapon (shotgun) is not inherently dangerous, he was able to argue that merely briefly holding an unloaded shotgun is a store setting does not amount to possessing a dangerous weapon. Therefore, no violation of the terms of her probation.
But, more importantly, the DA charged her with felonies ----- Attempted (Section 110.00 E Felony) Criminal Purchase or Disposal of a Weapon (Section 265.17 D Felony).......
A person is guilty of criminal purchase or disposal of a weapon when:
1. Knowing that he or she is prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm, rifle or shotgun because of a prior conviction or because of
some other disability which would render him or her ineligible to
lawfully possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in this state, such person
purchases a firearm, rifle or shotgun from another person;
Here the DA says, "Ah ha, gotcha" because the probation agreement prohibited her from possessing "dangerous weapons" and here she was attempting to purchase a shotgun on two separate occasions when she was disabled from doing so by the terms of her probation.
Or did she?
As they say it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. And, because the Dick's employees refused the sales, there was no physical evidence of an attempted purchase. She did not fill out a 4473, she did not place cash or credit card on the counter. So was an attempt to purchase actually made? Or was it all just talk?
If I walked into Dick's or Bass Pro or Gander or any of those big box stores and told the clerk I wanted to buy a gun for home defense and asked to see a Maverick 88 would I be attempting to purchase it?
Someone standing at the counter observing my interaction with the clerk could possibly come to that conclusion, that I was attempting to purchase it. But they would be wrong. I would never go into one of those stores with the intent to purchase a gun.
Indeed, my intent would be to handle the gun in question, to get a feel for it, to help me decide whether or not I really wanted to buy it --- FROM SOME OTHER VENDOR WHO WOULD SELL IT FOR A WHOLE HELLUVA LOT LESS. Something many, many people on this forum have admitted to doing in the past.
Call it the Affirmative Dick's Defense -- nobody actually BUYS guns from Dick's (cuz they're dicks) - they just fondle them and then go someplace else.
The DA could not prove intent in this case because there was no overt action taken to complete the sale, just talk.
Her lawyer exploited the lacking elements of the crime the DA charged her with (probably knowing he was lacking but trying to get by with it anyhow or taking the approach of "I know I can't get a conviction but I can cost you a ton of money for a lawyer").
That's what I would want my lawyer to do if I were in need.