INTENT

[bonedawg]

@thaak said:

Acknowledging that a situation exists, and taking it into account when I form my opinions, does not mean that I am ok, agree, or complacent with/about the situation.

I'm not saying you agree with it man, it is a charged issue for sure as we can tell even from this forum. My frustration is how this kind of stuff gets treated with nonchalant responses and Rogers can get away with an excuse like "I forgot." It's kind of a big deal to bring a loaded gun into an airport post 9/11 even with a conceal/carry license.

[nobuo]

Whether it was loaded or not wouldn't matter. He could have had an empty gun that was obviously disarmed in his bag and he'd be facing the same situation. What's the point of having the gun if it's not loaded anyway? Guns aren't happy go lucky toys. They're for one purpose and one purpose only: shooting something. If you own a gun without the intent to shoot something, then you're wasting your time and money, unless it's like an old time collector's item or because of sentimental value.

The fact is he was outright irresponsible to bring a gun to the airport, let alone through the security checkpoint. The fact that he did it is proof to me that he had no intent of using it. It would take a pretty ignorant person to expect to bring a gun through an airport check point and not get caught. I think that's really what it boils down to, the fact that he was irresponsible. The gun didn't go off, he didn't pull it out to shoot someone, he didn't take it on the plane and he's a multimillionaire football player. He has literally nothing to gain from bringing the gun to the airport.

I can't see him getting more than probation or a small amount of jail time, a fine and perhaps the loss of his conceal/carry license. Now from the NFL, I'd expect at least a game or two of suspension and an additional fine. I don't think Holmgren will toss him out on the street though.

[ballpeen]

@the-gipper said:

I think it is a fair question. He is a public person, and the reporter has the right to ask the question.

Why do you need a gun? Why did you need to cheat on your wife? Why did you need to drive drunk?

Why did you need to commit any kind of crime...or perceived offense.

We ask these poignant questions of celebrities every day. There are whole programs dedicated to asking these questions.

They are fair in today's society for celebrities. They are especially fair if his actions may send him to prison.

He may have the right to refuse to answer, but the questions are fair

.

I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".

It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.

You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.

There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.

He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .

[ruban2]

@choco said:

Yup....singlehandedly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Yeah you are probably right. He must be just dumb as a load of rocks.

[Riffer X]

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/sports/s...ml?pagewanted=1

What if he was this guy?

PRO FOOTBALL

Switzer Arrested on Gun Charge

By MIKE FREEMAN

Published: August 5, 1997

* Sign In to E-Mail

* Print

It had been a quiet training camp for the Dallas Cowboys so far this summer, but it seems that no matter how hard they try to clean up their image, someone on the team ends up in trouble. This time, surprisingly, it was their coach.

Barry Switzer was arrested yesterday morning after a loaded .38-caliber revolver was found in his carry-on baggage at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.

The incident raises questions about Switzer's long-term future as coach. According to one person in the organization who insisted on anonymity, Jerry Jones, the Cowboys' owner, is furious with Switzer.

It is unlikely there will be any coaching change now, but at the end of the season it is possible that Jones will take a hard look at Switzer's tenure.

Jones was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: ''It's a very serious matter. This is not something that Barry intended to do; however, the oversight cannot be ignored.

''It's a very disappointing mistake on Barry's part relative to what we are trying to accomplish.''

When asked whether the incident put Switzer's job in jeopardy, Jones said, ''That's not something that I'm going to comment on at this time.''

A spokeswoman for the Dallas airport, Angel Biasatti, said security personnel confiscated the weapon and that Switzer was detained for almost two hours before being released on his own recognizance.

Switzer was returning to the team's training facility in Austin, one day after a 34-27 exhibition loss to the Oakland Raiders at Texas Stadium in the Dallas suburb of Irving. He was with two players and an assistant coach at the time of the arrest.

Biasatti said that there was apparently no criminal intent on the part of Switzer. She said that over three dozen handguns have been confiscated by airport officials here this year.

At a news conference yesterday, Switzer said he was ''embarrassed for Jerry Jones and the Cowboys organization.'' He said that he forgot to remove the weapon -- Texas authorities said he did not have a permit for it -- from his bag before he left for the airport.

Switzer said there were children at his Dallas home Saturday and that when he saw the gun on his bed he put it in his bag to hide it from the children. He said he accidentally took the bag to the airport without removing the gun. At the airport the weapon was detected when his bag went through a security scanner. At that point, the police were called.

''All of sudden I realized, 'My God, I didn't take the pistol out of my bag,' '' Switzer said.

''It was an honest mistake,'' he added.

Carrying a weapon into an airport is a third-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 10 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. It was unclear whether law enforcement officials would prosecute Switzer.

But his worries will not end there. Employees of the National Football League, its member clubs and players and coaches are forbidden from carrying weapons while traveling on league-related business, as Switzer was. So the coach could possibly face discipline from the league.

A league spokesman said the league does not have a comment because ''we do not know details at this time. We will discuss it with the Cowboys.''

Jones and the organization have worked hard in recent months to clean up the team's image in the wake of several well-publicized brushes with the law and drug suspensions for some its players.

The coach has forbidden players from attending several nightclubs in the Austin area as well as the Cowboys Cafe, which is near the team's regular practice facility.

He has also ordered the installation of security cameras in the dorm rooms where the players stay in order to detect curfew violations.

Players, such as wide receiver Michael Irvin, among several others, have promised they will stay out of trouble.

So has Switzer set back all of those efforts with his arrest? Already there is massive speculation within the organization that Jones is probably angry with Switzer for the embarrassing situation and may try to dump the coach at the end of the season.

Switzer is the third head coach in the organization's history. Under him the Cowboys won the Super Bowl title two seasons ago by beating the Pittsburgh Steelers. Switzer has a 34-14 record in three seasons as coach.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Don't matter "which guy" it was, it is still a crime. End of story. Time to get intelligent and realize wtf you are doing athletes/coaches/anyone.

[The Gipper]

@ballpeen said:

I think you misunderstand the context in which I use "fair".

It isn't fair in the context I use because there is no answer he could give which would satisfy people who would ask the question in the first place.

You do it in your own reply, equating carrying a gun to cheating on your wife or driving drunk.

There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun while there clearly is with the others.

He is in trouble for his cavalier attitude about the weapon .

There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.

And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".

I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.

[The Gipper]

By the way, whatever happened to Switzer as a result of his actions? I don't recall any truly serious implications happening to him.

I will say this: I think that the Switzer incident and the Rogers incident are very nearly the same exact situations....and that they should both probably be treated similarly. Of course, the big unknown right now is that Switzer's situation occurred pre 9/11 and things may have really tightened up since then, and consequences may now be much harsher than when Switzer goofed.

[miktoxic]

[quote name='Thaak' date='Apr 6 2010, 12:44 PM' post='166218'

Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete.

pleez. tell me who knows rogers outside of a football fan? the family behind him in the security line probably thought he was the spokesperson for jumboburger. no matter what anyone thinks racial profiling exists and it exists across the board except for white people (and probably asians). it's morally and socially wrong BUT and don't hate me for saying this, it's helped the crime rate in this city for one.

[Thaak]

@miktoxic said:

[quote name='Thaak' date='Apr 6 2010, 12:44 PM' post='166218'

Now, I would also say, that no matter what race, if it is a well known athlete, they would not be considered a terrorist. Why? Because they are a well-known athlete.

pleez. tell me who knows rogers outside of a football fan? the family behind him in the security line probably thought he was the spokesperson for jumboburger. no matter what anyone thinks racial profiling exists and it exists across the board except for white people (and probably asians). it's morally and socially wrong BUT and don't hate me for saying this, it's helped the crime rate in this city for one.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist for white people.

I’ve been a victim of profiling and I’m definitely Caucasian.

East side of down town Columbus is the hood. I went to the Ohio State University for 3 years. I was driving a stripper home from her gig at a club down Broadway on the west side to her home in one of the east suburbs. She wanted to stop by a friends house on the East side of downtown. I was pulled over by a cop. His excuse is that one of my break lights wasn’t working. He was correct in that.

But he straight up told me, that the only reason a white guy with a white girl would be driving in that neighborhood is trolling for drugs or prostitutes. He had nothing to hold me on, so let me go and drive away. But I was profiled based on the circumstances.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

@thaak said:

Don’t tell me it doesn’t exist for white people.

I’ve been a victim of profiling and I’m definitely Caucasian.

East side of down town Columbus is the hood. I went to the Ohio State University for 3 years. I was driving a stripper home from her gig at a club down Broadway on the west side to her home in one of the east suburbs. She wanted to stop by a friends house on the East side of downtown. I was pulled over by a cop. His excuse is that one of my break lights wasn’t working. He was correct in that.

But he straight up told me, that the only reason a white guy with a white girl would be driving in that neighborhood is trolling for drugs or prostitutes. He had nothing to hold me on, so let me go and drive away. But I was profiled based on the circumstances.

Such a nice guy to give that stripper a ride home. I would do the same though, nice guy that I am.

[miktoxic]

@thaak said:

But he straight up told me, that the only reason a white guy with a white girl would be driving in that neighborhood is trolling for drugs or prostitutes. He had nothing to hold me on, so let me go and drive away. But I was profiled based on the circumstances.

i agree with that. like they say nothing good happens at the clubs after midnight. driving a stripper in the hood at 3 in the morning............you could say the same. i live in a village above nyc and it's a well-to-do commuter town right on the hidson river and man, you could be white driving drunk down the wrong side of the road and nothing. but let you be black or pr and your music is too loud....they call out the calvary. -yikes!

[choco]

switzer did not have a permit....

not even an analogous situation.

[Thaak]

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Such a nice guy to give that stripper a ride home. I would do the same though, nice guy that I am.

I know, I'm quite generous that way.

[Thaak]

@choco said:

switzer did not have a permit....

not even an analogous situation.

I'm curious, does a Michigan Conceal/Carry permit translate to Ohio?

[The Gipper]

@choco said:

switzer did not have a permit....

not even an analogous situation.

Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.

[Thaak]

@the-gipper said:

Sure it is. They both tried to go through airport security with a gun. Having a permit is completely irrelevent in that situation. Whatever consequences Rogers faces will not be mitigated one bit by the fact that he had a permit, nor enhanced one bit because had he not had one.

It might be no different insofar as being charged with trying to take a gun through airport security. It might also cause the prosecutor to charge him with a lesser charge because he does have a permit.

But they won't be able to charge him for having a concealed gun, or having one illegally, because with a permit, you can legally own and conceal/carry a gun. My primary question to this, though, which might make this point moot, does a Michigan conceal/carry permit the same in Ohio? If not, then he wasn't even legally carrying/concealing the gun.

[The Gipper]

@thaak said:

It might be no different insofar as being charged with trying to take a gun through airport security. It might also cause the prosecutor to charge him with a lesser charge because he does have a permit.

But they won't be able to charge him for having a concealed gun, or having one illegally, because with a permit, you can legally own and conceal/carry a gun. My primary question to this, though, which might make this point moot, does a Michigan conceal/carry permit the same in Ohio? If not, then he wasn't even legally carrying/concealing the gun.

You are totally missing the damn point. It is my understanding that the airport is a federal facility. Attempting to carry a gun onto an aircraft, intentional or not, may in fact be a Federal offense. The Feds don't give a rat's ass about your state issued permit whether it is issued in Ohio, Michigan, or BumFrak Arkansas. The Feds have primacy. You might also get hit with a state charge, but the Feds don't care if you do or you don't.

That is why I say, with the Patriot Act which was not in effect when Switzer did his thing, it could be a whole different ballgame for Rogers.

The only thing that may mitigate the situation is that he clearly had no malicious intent, and the gun didn't go off, like it did with idjit Plaxixo Burress. But, it being cocked and loaded, that could be a factor against him.

[choco]

then your understanding is wrong.....

the secure side...ie, past the security checkpoint, is federal territory. the landside terminal is not federal jurisdiction, and perfectly legal to carry a firearm with the proper permit as per state laws.

so, no...rogers was NOT in federal jurisdiction. now, if he got thru security with the firearm and it was THEN discovered in his possession, he'd be in jail immediately.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...752672054_x.htm

so, i am under the impression that you do not understand gun laws, let alone the patriot act. how about condemning the guy after you understand just which tree you are barking up.

[The Gipper]

OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:

§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft

(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.

( General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual—

(1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;

(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or

(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.

Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(d) Nonapplication.— Subsection ((1) of this section does not apply to—

(1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;

(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or

(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.

(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection ( or , and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection.

OK, some notes here:

1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.

2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.

3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.

4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.

5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.