INTENT
-
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 .
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.
-
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.
-
[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.
-
[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.
[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.
-
[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.
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.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
[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.
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!
-
switzer did not have a permit....
not even an analogous situation.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
-
By the way, here is that link to that law dictionary. You can look it up yourself:
http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/
That may not actually work as it is only a come on, buy our product site. See this instead:
-
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.
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.
Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...
One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...
You came up with the Federal Statute...
My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?
Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.
But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.
I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.
-
Some of the dimwits in here seem to think if you have a "concealed carry" permit in Ohio, that means you can carry a weapon into an International Airport. Wrong. I think he will probably be slapped on his fat assed wrist, but if it were you, with the Ohio Concealed Carry permit, it wouldn't mean squat before the Federal Magistrate. Grow the fook up.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.
Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.
Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.
Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.
I agree....the Feds aren't going to give it legs past the local level unless some bombshell is uncovered. Federal prosecutors are pretty good at spotting a potential terrorist who needs to feel the weight of the court, and the town goof.
-
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.
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.
Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*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.
But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.
I will finish with this
Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.
Like Granny always said- "If you can't be good...Be good at It."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login