PDA

View Full Version : Plex to Jail for 2 years


Vis
08-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Sirius had report. He pled guilty.

Vis
08-20-2009, 10:38 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4411373

NEW YORK -- Former New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a weapons charge and agrees to a two-year prison term.

The deal also calls for two years of post-release supervision.

Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 22.

SteelersinCA
08-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Good-bye NFL career

The_WARDen
08-20-2009, 10:45 AM
just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

:confused:

Vis
08-20-2009, 10:46 AM
He admitted what really happened. Apparently his friend tossed him the gun. After he managed to catch it, he spiked it without being touched.

Vis
08-20-2009, 10:47 AM
just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

:confused:

Who the bullet hit doesn't matter. It was just as stupid when it hit him as it would have been had it killed someone else.

The_WARDen
08-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Who the bullet hit doesn't matter. It was just as stupid when it hit him as it would have been had it killed someone else.

Again, I will state that Stallworth actually killed a human being. He didn't hypothetically kill anyone, it happened.

Burress did not actually kill anyone. Hypotheticallym he could have...but he didn't.

23 DAYS to 2 YEARS

Edman
08-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Uh oh. Who will Eli heave up the ball to now?

stlrtruck
08-20-2009, 10:52 AM
just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

:confused:

Not that I agree with it but I guess that's the difference between someone who was remorseful for their actions and someone who tried to hide their actions.

You're also looking at two different states.

Godfather
08-20-2009, 10:53 AM
Wow. First he accidentally shoots himself, then he turns down a plea deal that would have meant 3 months in jail during the offseason.

If Plax scored higher than a 2 on the Wonderlic, they should just throw away the test.

Vis
08-20-2009, 10:53 AM
Again, I will state that Stallworth actually killed a human being. He didn't hypothetically kill anyone, it happened.

Burress did not actually kill anyone. Hypotheticallym he could have...but he didn't.

23 DAYS to 2 YEARS

If he had he'd be in for life. 2 years is nothing.

revefsreleets
08-20-2009, 10:59 AM
In two years, there will be at least 10 threads here about the Steelers being interested in Plex...and about 25% of the posters here will take it seriously.

nojobny
08-20-2009, 10:59 AM
Uh oh. Who will Eli heave up the ball to now?

The Giants had already cut him April. Even if there had been some sort of legal miracle, he wasn't playing for big blue any more.

SteelTalons
08-20-2009, 11:09 AM
just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

:confused:

Plex had his chance to get off the hook easy. But he pissed on it not wanting any time apparently and they took him to the cleaners.

fansince'76
08-20-2009, 11:12 AM
In two years, there will be at least 10 threads here about the Steelers being interested in Plex...and about 25% of the posters here will take it seriously.

Well, I'm sure Twitter will be much bigger by then and will be abuzz with stories about how the Steelers are a "perfect fit" for him. :rolleyes:

EDIT: And I'll take ketchup with my crow - I never thought he'd see the inside of a jail cell.

FacemeIke
08-20-2009, 11:13 AM
I didn't hear about him turning down an earlier deal. The two years makes a little more sense if thats true. But, I agree, 2 years for accidently shooting yourself is too much. There are people who intentionally harm others that don't get that much time.

MasterOfPuppets
08-20-2009, 11:13 AM
Not that I agree with it but I guess that's the difference between someone who was remorseful for their actions and someone who tried to hide their actions.

You're also looking at two different states.
no here's the difference....

Burress, 31, is charged with criminal possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon in Manhattan - a crime which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 3-1/2 years.

Stallworth, a receiver with the Cleveland Browns, was also facing a possible 15 years when he was arrested and charged with DUI manslaughter after he killed Mario Reyes while driving drunk

note the highlighted words .... MANDATORY and POSSIBLE. ...in burress's crime his destiny was preordained...in stallworths crime his destiny was determined by what kind of mood the judge was in that day. screwed up laws ??? damn right they are. if they REALLY want to deter crimes, ALL laws would have mandatory sentences, how good your lawyer is, or what judge you get, or what kind of mood he is in or does the states attourney "owe" the lawyer a "favor"...it shouldn't be playing a part in punishments..EVERYBODY should get the same reguardless of who you are or how wealthy you are.

another thing to roll over is, was the guy that got hit by stallworth at least partially at fault here ??? from what i gather he wasn't exactly in a pedestian cross walk. maybe had stallworth not been drinking, the results STILL might have been the same.who's to say the alchohol was the determining factor ? people DO have automobile accidents without being under the influence.

steelreserve
08-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Holy crap! It's not too often that your April Fool's joke actually comes true:

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=34968


Also, what a moron for turning down that plea deal. He could've already been out of jail by now and playing for the Cowboys or the RRRAAAAAAAAAAIDERRRRRRS.

MasterOfPuppets
08-20-2009, 12:24 PM
haha...the jokes on plax ....:laughing:

Preacher
08-20-2009, 12:34 PM
I think 2 years for that is ignorant. It is all about anti-gun laws. What a shame. Now if it was "discharging a firing arm in an unsafe place not in self-defense" or something like that... I say, "Great. I understand that law."

And no, There IS a major difference between This and Donte Stallworth.

Had Stallworth been sober, there is STILL a very good chance the death happens. The guy ran out illegally into the street. Stallworth reacted, but not in time.

Plax's issue was ALL PLAX. Not one iota of responsibility can fall to anyone else.

But 2 years for a gun... Get real.

X-Terminator
08-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Gotta agree with Preacher and TheWARDen on this one. How Plax got 2 years in the sin bin while Stallworth got less than a month is just insane. If Joe Six Pack kills that pedestrian, he may as well kiss his ass goodbye for at least 5 years. Our laws are so friggin screwed up, it's pathetic.

Edman
08-20-2009, 12:52 PM
Adios. Plaxicos.

NJarhead
08-20-2009, 01:06 PM
no here's the difference....





note the highlighted words .... MANDATORY and POSSIBLE. ...in burress's crime his destiny was preordained...in stallworths crime his destiny was determined by what kind of mood the judge was in that day. screwed up laws ??? damn right they are. if they REALLY want to deter crimes, ALL laws would have mandatory sentences, how good your lawyer is, or what judge you get, or what kind of mood he is in or does the states attourney "owe" the lawyer a "favor"...it shouldn't be playing a part in punishments..EVERYBODY should get the same reguardless of who you are or how wealthy you are.

another thing to roll over is, was the guy that got hit by stallworth at least partially at fault here ??? from what i gather he wasn't exactly in a pedestian cross walk. maybe had stallworth not been drinking, the results STILL might have been the same.who's to say the alchohol was the determining factor ? people DO have automobile accidents without being under the influence.

Exactly! Different states. Different laws. Different "crimes". Different circumstances.

steelreserve
08-20-2009, 01:31 PM
I think 2 years for that is ignorant. It is all about anti-gun laws.

Well, that and mandatory minimum sentences. Not that those are usually a good idea either.

Is two years too much for this case? I don't know the answer to that. It's harsh, that's for sure. But if it was some dickhead gang member or drug dealer carrying around a gun in public and being careless about it, or more likely using it to send a threatening message, I don't think I'd want a 30-day catch-and-release. That's who the law was really written for.

Which goes back to the point that mandatory minimum sentences are dumb because they don't let the judge ... you know ... JUDGE the case. Burress was an idiot and he should've gotten punished for this. But this case is obviously at a different end of the spectrum from the intended recipients of the mandatory sentence. One-size-fits-all justice usually results in an extreme verdict one way or the other.

MasterOfPuppets
08-20-2009, 01:50 PM
Well, that and mandatory minimum sentences. Not that those are usually a good idea either.

Is two years too much for this case? I don't know the answer to that. It's harsh, that's for sure. But if it was some dickhead gang member or drug dealer carrying around a gun in public and being careless about it, or more likely using it to send a threatening message, I don't think I'd want a 30-day catch-and-release. That's who the law was really written for.

Which goes back to the point that mandatory minimum sentences are dumb because they don't let the judge ... you know ... JUDGE the case. Burress was an idiot and he should've gotten punished for this. But this case is obviously at a different end of the spectrum from the intended recipients of the mandatory sentence. One-size-fits-all justice usually results in an extreme verdict one way or the other. are you kidding me ? why should one person go to prison for years, and another person get 30 days for committing the same crime ,just because they drew a different judge ? hell in my local newspaper just yesterday, there was an article on a found guilty child molester who got ZERO days behind bars !!! the point in punishment shouldn't be just to punish offenders, but to deter future would be offenders.... how many people do you think would stop drinking and driving if they knew they'd get 10 years in prison if they got caught ? i know i wouldn't roll those dice. if you don't wanna do the time...don't do the crime .

AllD
08-20-2009, 02:18 PM
It sucks he got railroaded. The law is the law, but he still got too much time. Maybe they will release him early.

steelreserve
08-20-2009, 02:19 PM
are you kidding me ? why should one person go to prison for years, and another person get 30 days for committing the same crime ,just because they drew a different judge ?

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

Psyychoward86
08-20-2009, 02:27 PM
just so I'm clear..

Stallworth kills someone and gets 23 DAYS in jail.
Plexiglass shoots himself and gets 2 YEARS in jail.

:confused:

lol

MasterOfPuppets
08-20-2009, 02:27 PM
That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

i guess thats why they have different degree's for major offenses, i guess they would just have to expand on that. oh and by the way, pleading ignorance to the law is an unacceptable excuse... i tried that one a few years ago on a seatbelt violation in another state ...and the cop told me "thats your bad" ....:laughing:

stlrtruck
08-20-2009, 02:50 PM
That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm talking about giving the judge some ability to make a distinction between all the various possibilities that can get categorized as a crime under the same law.

Like this one, for example. Say on the one hand, you have a guy who just moved to New York and has an unloaded gun among his stuff, not knowing there's a law against it. While he's unpacking his van, someone comes up and tries to rob him, but he pulls out the gun and scares the thief away. On the other hand, you have a street thug who sells crack, carries a gun out in the open, and menaces people with it on a daily basis because he's looking for trouble. Should they get the same sentence? According to the law, they're both guilty of the same thing. But I don't think you need me to tell you it's really two different crimes and two different sets of circumstances.

I really don't think you can boil it down to by-the-book justice. From every crime from drunk driving to murder, there are going to be things like intent, circumstances and levels of severity that tell you how bad the crime really is. Those are things that really ought to be considered in any criminal case, but mandatory minimums take that away and make those decisions in advance at the political level, based on assumptions that all cases are the same.

Is THAT really what you're arguing in support of?

The other thing that you're not mentioning is that Plex was carrying an unregistered gun.

Fire Haley
08-20-2009, 03:03 PM
Yep. Plax would have been better off killing someone while driving under the influence. No doubt he was a fool to pack that weapon the way he did and shoot himself, but I bet there are NYC felons who commited burglaries and robberies and got far less jailtime.

This is all politically motivated - the mayor is pimping his re-election bid. Any other NFL city and he would probably have gotten off with a much lighter charge, if any. Burress paid a fairly heavy price to find out what it feels like to get shot.

Mandatory minimum sentences are unconstitutional!

steelreserve
08-20-2009, 03:08 PM
i guess thats why they have different degree's for major offenses, i guess they would just have to expand on that. oh and by the way, pleading ignorance to the law is an unacceptable excuse... i tried that one a few years ago on a seatbelt violation in another state ...and the cop told me "thats your bad" ....:laughing:

Well, yeah, there are all kinds of different guidelines about enhancements for certain situations, mitigating circumstances for others, and a thousand other situations, to help judges and juries hand out appropriate sentences. Most of them are good ideas, too. I think the problem with mandatory minimums is that they come into conflict with that, and bring it back toward a one-size-fits-all punishment no matter what the guidelines originally said.

I get your point about how if you put it ALL in the hands of the judge, you could end up with mistakes being made. But getting rid of human judgment entirely is probably going to make just as many mistakes.

And don't even get me started about ignorance of the law; I've had my run-in with that too. My experience was when I was driving through Oregon and running low on gas ... so I pulled into a station, got out and started pumping. About 10 seconds later, the attendant came running out screaming "What the hell are you DOING?" and just stood there staring at me like I had two dicks. Turns out Oregon has a law against pumping your own gas; you HAVE to have the station attendant do it for you. Anyway, right then a cop showed up (whether by chance or because the attendant called them I don't know) and asked what was going on ... when I tried to explain I was from California and never heard of such a crazy law, he just sort of chuckled and sneered at me -- apparently, in Oregon, they have a certain contempt for Californians and their overpopulated big-city lifestyles.

So he gave me a notice to appear in court instead of a regular ticket -- basically to be a dick, because it meant I'd have to drive all the way up to Oregon again. But the joke was on them because I never showed up, betting the DA would never waste his time filing charges over something so stupid, which turned out to be correct.

Fire Haley
08-20-2009, 03:20 PM
But the joke was on them because I never showed up

So you're a....

FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE - [federal] Any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding. 18 U.S.C.

One who, having committed a crime within a jurisdiction, goes into another in order to evade the law and avoid its punishment.



Do you have to dye your hair and wear wigs now?

revefsreleets
08-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Didn't the mayor say right off the bat that he was going to come down hard on Plex and throw the book at him?

Godfather
08-20-2009, 03:50 PM
The other thing that you're not mentioning is that Plex was carrying an unregistered gun.

Two years is still excessive.

In spite of his dumbassery, at the end of the day he's going to jail for having a gun. That's disturbing.

Fire Haley
08-20-2009, 03:58 PM
Didn't the mayor say right off the bat that he was going to come down hard on Plex and throw the book at him?

Why yes he did

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 12-2-08

Mayor Bloomberg fuming over Plaxico shooting: "Throw the book at him."

An irate Mayor Bloomberg Monday demanded that prosecutors throw the book at Giants star Plaxico Burress for bringing a loaded handgun into a crowded midtown nightclub and accidentally shooting himself in the leg.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/12/02/alg_bloomberg.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/12/01/2008-12-01_mayor_bloomberg_fuming_over_plaxico_shoo-3.html

TackleMeBen
08-20-2009, 04:03 PM
plex will get off for good behavior and pierce is very lucky he isnt doing time with plex in the hokey.

RoethlisBURGHer
08-20-2009, 04:05 PM
I don't feel bad for Plaxico at all.

He was offered a plea deal with just 3 months in prison. He turned it down.

Now he realized that he broke a few laws and will end up with at least 3 years if it goes to trial.

And as for mandatory minimum sentences, I don't have a problem with them.

New York has strong gun laws for a reason.

Plax had been living in New York for a few years. He can't say he just moved there and had not yet had a chance to register his gun. He thought he was being "gangsta" carrying an unregistered loaded gun into a night club.

I still wanna know, if you're gonna be packing heat....why the hell would you wear sweatpants? You should be wearing jeans.

St33lersguy
08-20-2009, 04:08 PM
I thought he was going to get at most a week considering this is a big name guy.
Now the eagles get to sign him when he's reinstated :chuckle:

RoethlisBURGHer
08-20-2009, 04:13 PM
Two years is still excessive.

In spite of his dumbassery, at the end of the day he's going to jail for having a gun. That's disturbing.

How is it disturbing? He should have registered it, and then maybe he wouldn't be in so much heat. Maybe he should have gotten his license to conceal a firearm in the state of New York, then there would be even less heat on him.

While we all have a right to bare arms, there are certain laws to have to follow to do so in a legal manner, otherwise anyone can run around with a gun without any legal ramifications for doing so.

Plaxico Burress doesn't have the excuse that he couldn't afford to register his gun or get his license to conceal, he was just to damn lazy and/or felt he was above the law due to playing pro football.

He found out wrong. Shot himself in the leg, and then in the foot when he turned down a plea deal that would have forced him to serve only three months.

stlrtruck
08-20-2009, 04:17 PM
Two years is still excessive.

In spite of his dumbassery, at the end of the day he's going to jail for having a gun. That's disturbing.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you (or the other sentiments thrown around in this thread) I'm just saying, the law was out there and he got busted.

It's kind of like if I get caught speeding in PA. There are signs that tell me the amout of my speeding fine if caught. I know speeding and firing a gun are two different things I'm just saying, the law was out there and Plex was an idiot.

T&B fan
08-20-2009, 05:27 PM
hahaha :rofl::rofl: LMAO hes a dam fool should have goten the 3 1/2 yrs ... :laughing::laughing:

Fire Haley
08-20-2009, 05:33 PM
Where is Tony Dungy now?

Indo
08-20-2009, 05:35 PM
haha...the jokes on plax ....:laughing:

No. Plax IS the joke :laughing:

Dino 6 Rings
08-20-2009, 05:46 PM
I think its a bit much to give this guy 2 years. I understand the laws in NY, but you have to also understand the reason for those laws. They were designed to prevent people from using Handguns in the Commission of a Crime. The Minimum sentance was to Deter people who were Thinking About using a Gun in an unlawful way from actually carrying one around with them because if found on their possession, bang, 2 years.

Plax wasn't going out to shoot anyone, or rob a store, or car jack some fool. He had it on him because one of his fellow players had just been robbed at gun point, and he felt like he could have been a target. He takes the gun to the night club, then accidentally shoots himself.

Then the Mayor, in a Fury and a PR Grab declares "no quarter" and uses Plax as an example.

Tell you what, if the Giants Miss the playoffs, and the people of NY think "If we only had Plax" well the Mayor can kiss his re-election bid good bye.

Very Uncalled For ruling. Should have been fined and maybe some house arrest. INTENTION of CRIME was the reasoning behind the Gun Laws in NYC. Now we just throw that part of it out and throw this guy to the wolves so some slap happy Mayor can get some Press.

Totally Dumb.

RoethlisBURGHer
08-20-2009, 06:54 PM
I think its a bit much to give this guy 2 years. I understand the laws in NY, but you have to also understand the reason for those laws. They were designed to prevent people from using Handguns in the Commission of a Crime. The Minimum sentance was to Deter people who were Thinking About using a Gun in an unlawful way from actually carrying one around with them because if found on their possession, bang, 2 years.

Plax wasn't going out to shoot anyone, or rob a store, or car jack some fool. He had it on him because one of his fellow players had just been robbed at gun point, and he felt like he could have been a target. He takes the gun to the night club, then accidentally shoots himself.

Then the Mayor, in a Fury and a PR Grab declares "no quarter" and uses Plax as an example.

Tell you what, if the Giants Miss the playoffs, and the people of NY think "If we only had Plax" well the Mayor can kiss his re-election bid good bye.

Very Uncalled For ruling. Should have been fined and maybe some house arrest. INTENTION of CRIME was the reasoning behind the Gun Laws in NYC. Now we just throw that part of it out and throw this guy to the wolves so some slap happy Mayor can get some Press.

Totally Dumb.

But Plax already had the gun when he became a New York Giant. He didn't run out and buy it that day or the day before.

He had YEARS to register the gun and get a license to conceal it in the state of New York. He never did, leaving himself open to get charged with this stuff if ever caught with it.

He would be getting charged with the same things if he used the gun in self defense.

The law is the law. It is against the law to own an unregistered gun. It is against the law to conceal a gun without the proper license. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. It doesn't matter for what reasons you have it, to legally have it in the state of New York it has to be registered and you must have a license to carry a concealed gun.

Plax didn't. He also had a chance to take a plea deal that would have given him just three months in jail. He said no and now he's stuck with the two year deal they offered after the grand jury decided to indict.

This is nobody's fault but Plaxico's. He deserves the two years, IMHO.

Dino 6 Rings
08-21-2009, 12:13 PM
See, again, I disagree.

He had it registered in Florida right? So it isn't like he was a criminal to start with. He did the right thing initially with the gun. Your argument actually backs up mine. He didn't just run out and buy the gun that day, to commit a crime, he had the gun with zero incidents for years. The Law was designed to Punish Criminals who use guns or may use guns in the commission of a crime.

This is a clear case of a Law being used to punish someone it shouldn't be punishing. Sure, drug dealer gang bangers with guns in their hips should go to jail for carrying for 2 years. A guy who had a liscense in a different state, and didn't use the gun any other time, and simply didn't realize he needed to re-register the gun in NY, now goes to jail for 2 years?

Nothing but a snot nosed Mayor trying to make a name for himself and get re-elected after his TERM LIMITS are already over.

Bloomberg is a Snake and this case is a clear case of him abusing the law for his own personal gain.

steelreserve
08-21-2009, 12:46 PM
The Minimum sentance was to Deter people who were Thinking About using a Gun in an unlawful way from actually carrying one around with them because if found on their possession, bang, 2 years.

Very Uncalled For ruling. Should have been fined and maybe some house arrest. INTENTION of CRIME was the reasoning behind the Gun Laws in NYC. Now we just throw that part of it out and throw this guy to the wolves so some slap happy Mayor can get some Press.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Mandatory minimum sentences are stupid because they're a blanket decision made at the political level, which acts as if all crimes are exactly the same as long as they fit a certain set of guidelines. Here in the real world, that's far from true.

Stupid as I think Burress is for this, it's is obviously a law that was intended for people like gang members and crack dealers, which is not what was going on here. It's pretty comical that the city officials are actually PROUD to announce that they're applying the law to the wrong situation and basically overriding common sense in order to go by the book. And even more comical that some people see that as a good thing. Something should've happened to Burress, but not this.

RoethlisBURGHer
08-21-2009, 02:39 PM
See, again, I disagree.

He had it registered in Florida right? So it isn't like he was a criminal to start with. He did the right thing initially with the gun. Your argument actually backs up mine. He didn't just run out and buy the gun that day, to commit a crime, he had the gun with zero incidents for years. The Law was designed to Punish Criminals who use guns or may use guns in the commission of a crime.

This is a clear case of a Law being used to punish someone it shouldn't be punishing. Sure, drug dealer gang bangers with guns in their hips should go to jail for carrying for 2 years. A guy who had a liscense in a different state, and didn't use the gun any other time, and simply didn't realize he needed to re-register the gun in NY, now goes to jail for 2 years?

Nothing but a snot nosed Mayor trying to make a name for himself and get re-elected after his TERM LIMITS are already over.

Bloomberg is a Snake and this case is a clear case of him abusing the law for his own personal gain.

And then he chose not to register it in the state of New York, or get a license to conceal it in New York. Why he chose not to do so, I don't know.

Also, he had a chance to take a deal where he would have serves three months in jail. He would have probably served less than two months total. He turns that plea deal down banking on the case getting dropped or the grand jury not indicting him on the charges.

Surprise! They don't drop the case and the grand jury indicts. If convicted, he will get a minimum of 3 1/2 years in jail so he grabs the 2 year plea deal on the table.

IMHO, he deserves the two years for his total stupidity. Stupidity by not registering the gun and getting a license to conceal in the state of New York. Stupidity for toting the gun in a pair of sweat pants. Stupidity for not taking the 3 month plea deal.

He had to have known that in New York gun laws are very strict. He chose to ignore them or to never see what they were. He felt his status as a star football player for the Giants put him above the laws of the place he lived.

steelreserve
08-21-2009, 02:55 PM
Also, he had a chance to take a deal where he would have serves three months in jail. He would have probably served less than two months total. He turns that plea deal down banking on the case getting dropped or the grand jury not indicting him on the charges.

Yeah, now THAT'S the stupid part.

You know, what they offered actually seems about right for the severity of what happened. I wonder if the DA routinely offers plea deals like that when 3 1/2 years obviously doesn't fit the situation. Kind of a way to circumvent the mandatory minimum sentence and give those people what they actually deserve. In that context, Burress would have no one to blame but himself.

RoethlisBURGHer
08-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Yeah, now THAT'S the stupid part.

You know, what they offered actually seems about right for the severity of what happened. I wonder if the DA routinely offers plea deals like that when 3 1/2 years obviously doesn't fit the situation. Kind of a way to circumvent the mandatory minimum sentence and give those people what they actually deserve. In that context, Burress would have no one to blame but himself.

Plax has nobody but himself for the entire mess.

He should have registered the gun in at least New York if not also New Jersey. He should have obtained a license to carry a concealed gun.

He should have worn a pair of pants that night that were better for carrying a gun in the waistband. What I have read said he was wear sweat pants. What dumbass carries a gun in the waitband of sweat pants? Also, when getting the gun out of his pants, he shouldn't have ever grabbed it in a way that would cause it to go off.

Finally, he should have taken the three month jail term deal. I do believe that while two years is excessive, if he would have taken the legal route to carrying the gun a lot of this situation could have been avoided.

I am not anti-gun. I am pro-gun, as long as the people take the legal routes to gun ownership and carrying. That means registering the gun(s), getting a license to carry concealed if you're going to do so, and knowing the gun laws in your area. I am all for responsible gun ownership. Plaxico Burress was not a responsible gun owner in the state of New York.

MasterOfPuppets
08-21-2009, 06:41 PM
so if the bullet misses him and hits and kills someone else, you guys would want to see him hang for it. everybody thinks stallworth got off way to easy, and i agree. but none the less , there's no way to say he wouldn't have hit and killed that guy even if he had not been drinking, BUT he was, and with total disreguard of the laws in place. burress also knowing disreguarded standing laws, and by doing so put other peoples lives in jeopardy. sure he wasn't out to murder anyone, but he sure as hell wasn't planning on shooting himself either but it happend !!! i think he deserves every freakin day of that sentence.

T&B fan
08-21-2009, 08:55 PM
so if the bullet misses him and hits and kills someone else, you guys would want to see him hang for it. everybody thinks stallworth got off way to easy, and i agree. but none the less , there's no way to say he wouldn't have hit and killed that guy even if he had not been drinking, BUT he was, and with total disreguard of the laws in place. burress also knowing disreguarded standing laws, and by doing so put other peoples lives in jeopardy. sure he wasn't out to murder anyone, but he sure as hell wasn't planning on shooting himself either but it happend !!! i think he deserves every freakin day of that sentence.

and more .....

everyone is saying stallworth got off easy so sould plax , when everyone should be saying how come stallworth got off so easy , when he should have gotten more time .

MasterOfPuppets
08-21-2009, 10:00 PM
and more .....

everyone is saying stallworth got off easy so sould plax , when everyone should be saying how come stallworth got off so easy , when he should have gotten more time . well like i said before ..i think the guy stallworth mowed down played a bit of part in the accident. its not like stallworth drove up onto a sidewalk or ran a redlight and hit him in a crosswalk. had he not had alchohol in his system, he wouldn't have been held responcible for the accident at all. yeah they can say the alchohol impaired his reaction time but there's no way to prove if it was a determining factor. i like how they throw out the breathalizer numbers for shock value...like "twice the legal limit" ... considering just 1 beer can put most people over the legal limit depending on your size , then 2 beers could put you 2x over the legal limit...yet they make it sound like you were trashed.
burress's gun going off in a public place was 100 % his own fault . you can't argue the fact that had he not been illegally carrying it around it WOULDN'T have put peoples lives in jeopardy.

HometownGal
08-21-2009, 10:12 PM
He should get another 5 years for being a DUMB ASS.

Different states, different laws, different sentencing guidelines.

I, too, believe Stallworth should be incarcerated for longer than 23 days, but has been noted before, the deceased victim bore at least part of the blame for what happened. In Plax's case - he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and his crime involved not only a gun, but a sheer lack of brain cells.