General Categories > Newsworthy
Gun restriction laws always come with negative consequences
GreyGeek:
https://freedomoutpost.com/armed-pregnant-mother-blows-away-intruder-but-shes-facing-24-years-in-prison/
"A mother is facing 24 years in prison after she shot and killed an intruder who broke into her apartment and attacked her while she was 11 weeks pregnant.
...
Authorities determined that her use of force was indeed justified, but the reason she is facing up to 24 years in prison is because she previously pled guilty to felony marijuana charges.
...
Noble and her friends were stopped during a routine traffic stop and the marijuana and other paraphernalia were discovered. No one claimed ownership, so all faced the same criminal charges.
The trick here? Noble was facing time in jail. So, she made a plea bargain, and that suspended her sentence and barred her from possessing a gun, again, something that sounds ludicrous because we're talking about possession of a plant, and for that you have to give up the right to defend yourself? Is anyone in Arkansas with a brain thinking about what would have happened to this woman or her baby, which they claim to care about, had she not had that pistol to stop her attacker?"
sidearm1:
Illegal is illegal. She wasn't in possession of a plant, she pleaded to possession of an illegal substance. Why did she not simply say "it belongs to the driver". When you participate in illegal activity you need to realize the consequences for the future. I am sorry that she was put in this situation, but she did it, no one else.
GreyGeek:
--- Quote from: sidearm1 on September 25, 2018, 03:36:32 PM ---Illegal is illegal. She wasn't in possession of a plant, she pleaded to possession of an illegal substance. Why did she not simply say "it belongs to the driver". When you participate in illegal activity you need to realize the consequences for the future. I am sorry that she was put in this situation, but she did it, no one else.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Noble and her friends were stopped during a routine traffic stop and the marijuana and other paraphernalia were discovered. No one claimed ownership, so all faced the same criminal charges.
--- End quote ---
What is a "routine" traffic stop? Random? Targeted?
You are assuming, of course, that she did know. And if she didn't how could she say "it belongs to the driver"?
Any other occupant could have removed the drug from their person, without any other person in the car knowing they had it.
The problem is deeper than outdated drug laws. It goes to the assertion that someone who is convicted of a crime and pays the sentence still must continue to pay for the rest of their life by loss of their basic Constitutionally guaranteed liberties:
--- Quote ---That Noble would face a felony from such an incident speaks to the absurdity of the continued war on drugs. ...
The second is how over criminalization leads to a dangerous loss of basic individual rights. In the case of Noble, the gun used to defend herself was owned by her husband, who serves in the Arkansas National Guard. In the eyes of the Arkansas “Justice” system, Noble being caught with marijuana last December meant she had no right to use her husband’s firearm to defend herself from a brutal attacker. The law would leave her a defenseless victim.
--- End quote ---
So, when you ride in someone else's car you previously checked the glove box, under the seats, the window wells, the back seat, the over head visors, the trunk, the hub caps, and under the car for any forbidden substance? I hope for your sake that your political position doesn't come back to byte you hard and that you never get victimized by a speed trap, or a TSA check point, or a VIPR squad.
Here is a comic written by a lawyer that describes "strict liability" as used in our justice system today: "Guilt without fault"
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008
He gets to the heart of the matter beginning here:
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031
A century ago the number of cataloged crimes carrying fines and jail terms was knowable and few. Today, however, that number is UNCOUNTABLE and unknowable. Attempts to count them have failed, so folks are reduced to using "estimates". They believe that the number of federal statutory crimes is above 5,000, with over 500,000 regulatory ones. So, what is actually against the law is unknowable. Making matters worse, laws are written so vaguely that they are used by some zealous prosecutors to punish people who were never meant to be punished. The result is that the law is now routinely mocked and ridiculed. Compounding the situation is Congressional "authorization" giving bureaucrats the right to create their own laws, laws which Congress should have introduced, debated and voted on. We are, for all essential purposes, controlled by nameless, faceless bureaucrats, unelected and unaccountable for their actions. And, their Federal Union has "won" them the right to be essentially immune from being fired. Hence, you have IRS bureaucrats deciding to not approve Conservative applications for 501(c)3 & 4 applications. They did this before the 2012 election, which aided Obama in getting his second term. Ben Sasse spent $16.37 per vote getting elected to the Senate. Without tax deductible campaign donations he wouldn't have had that much money for ads and campaign staff and would have lost to Domina, a Leftist Democrat.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/StrictLiability08.png
Mntnman:
--- Quote from: sidearm1 on September 25, 2018, 03:36:32 PM ---Illegal is illegal. She wasn't in possession of a plant, she pleaded to possession of an illegal substance. Why did she not simply say "it belongs to the driver". When you participate in illegal activity you need to realize the consequences for the future. I am sorry that she was put in this situation, but she did it, no one else.
--- End quote ---
You participate in a group that has the stated goal to preserve rights and this is your position? Because she made a mistake in her life, her rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are gone?
Mali:
--- Quote from: sidearm1 on September 25, 2018, 03:36:32 PM ---Illegal is illegal. She wasn't in possession of a plant, she pleaded to possession of an illegal substance. Why did she not simply say "it belongs to the driver". When you participate in illegal activity you need to realize the consequences for the future. I am sorry that she was put in this situation, but she did it, no one else.
--- End quote ---
She made mistakes in the past. It sounds like this was not necessarily something she chose but since they couldn't nail the culprit, and they others in the car weren't going to give up the guilty party, the legal system nailed them all with it. Right or wrong, it shouldn't define her future.
Fortunately, there is forgiveness. In addition whether she had the right to the firearm in this case it should be about the monster that tried to attack her instead of the woman who defended herself.
let us not become a society that is so focused on what we want that we forget what others need. In this case, mercy and grace.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version