PDA

View Full Version : ***Burress Agrees to 2 Years***



Pages : 1 [2]

Roosevelt
08-21-2009, 02:07 PM
There was no three month plea agreement offered to Plaxico. That's a rumor started here.


there were multiple links to articles RF...not saying its not a rumor, but it was reported by websites way before anyone brought it up here.


Just read this, please. Do you think if Plaxico had been offered a three month custodial sentence that Brafman wouldn't have threatened to shoot him in his other leg if he refused?

You are looking at this from an emotional point of view and that's fine. But I spent 35 years in law enforcement and I am telling you he did better with the plea than had he gone to trial. It is illogical to imagine a lower sentence when the crimes called for and MANDATORY three and a half years.

Plaxico won't serve the full two years<font size="4"> unless he brings his attitude into the prison with him. If he does that and gets into a cscrape with anopther iname or guard, he'll do the full 24 months.</font>

Lawyers who offer their opinions for punlic consumption on radio shows are looking for two things. Notoriety and more clients.


That's an interesting thought. Will Plax be Plax or will he now respect the position he is in? Knowing him, he could end up serving the entire 24 months.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:07 PM
what I hear is complaing about the harshness of the law -

Not the harshness of the application of the laws as they stand in this case

In fact they are talking about how there is no room for discretion with the current law - which further backs up my point



Apparently you don't hear things the same way I hear them, usually when they say things like "Bloomberg certianly didn't help Plax's cause" and "This is a harsh punishment for the crime"

to me that means this case is unusual, meaning it turned out different then it would for the normal person.

I see that as a commentary on the laws as they stand

show me some evidence of someone getting a better deal...surely Braffman could dig up some precedent if it existed and used it as an argument

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:09 PM
show me some evidence of someone getting a better deal...surely Braffman could dig up some precedent if it existed and used it as an argument

I'm sure he did dig up some precedent, and it was ignored, because plax is plax and bloomberg is bloomberg, I'm sorry I don't have access to the information you are asking for...but trust me, it is true.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:10 PM
but other first time offenders are offered pleas with less jail time all the time for exactly the same crime, and that IS a fact...


no it is not a fact

facts have evidence and you have none on this statement

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:11 PM
I see that as a commentary on the laws as they stand

and how the **** to you take, "Bloomberg definitely didn't help" as a commentary on the laws as they stand, you are being ridiculous.

RoanokeFan
08-21-2009, 02:11 PM
There was no three month plea agreement offered to Plaxico. That's a rumor started here.


there were multiple links to articles RF...not saying its not a rumor, but it was reported by websites way before anyone brought it up here.


Just read this, please. Do you think if Plaxico had been offered a three month custodial sentence that Brafman wouldn't have threatened to shoot him in his other leg if he refused?

You are looking at this from an emotional point of view and that's fine. But I spent 35 years in law enforcement and I am telling you he did better with the plea than had he gone to trial. It is illogical to imagine a lower sentence when the crimes called for and MANDATORY three and a half years.

Plaxico won't serve the full two years<font size="4"> unless he brings his attitude into the prison with him. If he does that and gets into a cscrape with anopther iname or guard, he'll do the full 24 months.</font>

Lawyers who offer their opinions for punlic consumption on radio shows are looking for two things. Notoriety and more clients.


That's an interesting thought. Will Plax be Plax or will he now respect the position he is in? Knowing him, he could end up serving the entire 24 months.


I hope not because serving his full sentence won't be the worst that happens to him. He has been foolish but at some point he has to realize the seriousness of his situation and have a change of heart. He committed a crime and he's going to be punished for that. The crap that goes on behind those prison walls can curl your hair.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:11 PM
but other first time offenders are offered pleas with less jail time all the time for exactly the same crime, and that IS a fact...


no it is not a fact

facts have evidence and you have none on this statement



It's definitely happened before, you know that to be true, I'd bet my life on it....my actual life, just because "I'm" unable to find evidence of it doesn't make it false.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:14 PM
I see that as a commentary on the laws as they stand

and how the **** to you take, "Bloomberg definitely didn't help" as a commentary on the laws as they stand, you are being ridiculous.



that is his Defense lawyer making that statement

of course he is going to say that

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:16 PM
but other first time offenders are offered pleas with less jail time all the time for exactly the same crime, and that IS a fact...


no it is not a fact

facts have evidence and you have none on this statement



It's definitely happened before, you know that to be true, I'd bet my life on it....my actual life, just because "I'm" unable to find evidence of it doesn't make it false.


the laws look water tight to me

if you are charged with this crime - the most you can plea down is one class.

that that has its own min sentencing.

I would say that people who happen to get less are probably the exception, not the rule

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:17 PM
The lack of evidence does not prove something false Jints, prove to me noone has ever served less then 2 years after being charged with what Plax was, that noones ever gotten a better plea, I believe it's an ignorant statement to claim that noone has ever gotten a better plea bargin on this charge then plax...I believe it's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:18 PM
the laws look water tight to me

if you are charged with this crime - <font color="#0000ff">the most you can plea down is one class.</font>

that that has its own min sentencing.

I would say that people who happen to get less are probably the exception, not the rule


except the part highlighted in blue is not actually the truth.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:19 PM
just admit that you have no evidence to back up your statement that Plax got treated unfairly in relation to others charged with the same crime and I have shown evidence to the contrary .

I'm right and you are wrong

It's ok - everyone knows its true

and then we can move on

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:19 PM
just admit that you have no evidence to back up your statement that Plax got treated unfairly in relation to others charged with the same crime and I have shown evidence to the contrary .


you have no evidence otherwise either.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:21 PM
The lack of evidence does not prove something false Jints, prove to me noone has ever served less then 2 years after being charged with what Plax was, that noones ever gotten a better plea, I believe it's an ignorant statement to claim that noone has ever gotten a better plea bargin on this charge then plax...I believe it's an absolutely ridiculous statement.

I can't , becaust that statement is not true.

Some people got charged who were innocent or there was not enough evidence to support the charge and they got off

That is not the case with Plax

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:24 PM
just admit that you have no evidence to back up your statement that Plax got treated unfairly in relation to others charged with the same crime and I have shown evidence to the contrary .


you have no evidence otherwise either.


yes I do

I have the statutes as they stand on the books and expert testimony to how they are applied

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:24 PM
I can't , becaust that statement is not true.

Some people got charged who were innocent or there was not enough evidence to support the charge and they got off

That is not the case with Plax



how many got a better plea bargain when the facts were just as easy to prove as in this case though, I'd guess for first offenders the % would be staggering...upwards of 80-90%....but hey that's just a guess from what I've heard from lawyers, you are guessing it's otherwise....it's our opinions I suppose...I guess we can agree to disagree....but I believe popular opinion AND expert opinion is on my side so I don't really care about your opinion in this case anyhow.

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:25 PM
Didn't you already admit that you were wrong on this? It seems you are still fighting the fight you had already lost.

Jint's is saying the article he posted, that proved me wrong, isn't actually true...so....I can start arguing again, if he posts the article as evidence of his position that Plax DID get a 3 month plea offered and that he turned it down and that he's just an idiot, then again, I'll submit, if that's true I'm wrong and he did get treated fairly and was just stupid.

but Jint's is now claiming something different, that 2 years is normal and what you or I would have gotten which I completely disagree with.
</P>


Show me cases where someone discharged and unregistered handgun in a crowded area, and didn't get at least 2 years.</P>


Until then, you have no basis for arguing that his sentence was harsher than normal.</P>

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:25 PM
I can't , becaust that statement is not true.

Some people got charged who were innocent or there was not enough evidence to support the charge and they got off

That is not the case with Plax



how many got a better plea bargain when the facts were just as easy to prove as in this case though, I'd guess for first offenders the % would be staggering...upwards of 80-90%....but hey that's just a guess from what I've heard from lawyers, you are guessing it's otherwise....it's our opinions I suppose...I guess we can agree to disagree....but I believe popular opinion AND expert opinion is on my side so I don't really care about your opinion in this case anyhow.


I would guess that there are very few first offenders who get caught walking around with handguns in NYC

I'm sure 99% of them have a rap sheet

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:27 PM
just admit that you have no evidence to back up your statement that Plax got treated unfairly in relation to others charged with the same crime and I have shown evidence to the contrary .


you have no evidence otherwise either.


yes I do

I have the statutes as they stand on the books and expert testimony to how they are applied



That's irrelevant, I agree that what plax was CONVICTED of has a minimum sentence of 2 years, so what, he was convicted of "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Hand gun" or something like that when it's CLEAR he WAS in possession of an illegal hand gun, the DA can offer whatever the **** they want for the plea...they choose to offer a very HARSH crime because Blooberg put pressure on them....this is popular opinion and expert opinion so your knowledge of how long the sentence of a particular convition is (knowledge that I already knew before you even brought it up and knew that is was irrelevent then too) is not evidence that plax was treated fairly at all.

you have not supported your opinon any better then I have...far from it.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:27 PM
I would guess that there are very few first offenders walking around with handguns in NYC

I'm sure 99% of them have a rap sheet



Nice side step.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:28 PM
Show me cases where someone discharged and unregistered handgun in a crowded area, and didn't get at least 2 years.


Until then, you have no basis for arguing that his sentence was harsher than normal.</p>

Show me where that's what Plax was charged with otherwise you clearly have no idea what you are even discussing.

what he did doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with what he is charged with, what he is charged with doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the plea he's offered....that's how the law works....that's why you hire lawyers.....you are looking at this far too simply morehead.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:31 PM
, the DA can offer whatever the **** they want for the plea...


sigh...

no the DA can not

once he is charged with the original crime, he can only go down one level

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:31 PM
just admit that you have no evidence to back up your statement that Plax got treated unfairly in relation to others charged with the same crime and I have shown evidence to the contrary .


you have no evidence otherwise either.


yes I do

I have the statutes as they stand on the books and expert testimony to how they are applied



That's irrelevant, I agree that what plax was CONVICTED of has a minimum sentence of 2 years, so what, he was convicted of "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Hand gun" or something like that when it's CLEAR he WAS in possession of an illegal hand gun, the DA can offer whatever the **** they want for the plea...they choose to offer a very HARSH crime because Blooberg put pressure on them....this is popular opinion and expert opinion so your knowledge of how long the sentence of a particular convition is (knowledge that I already knew before you even brought it up and knew that is was irrelevent then too) is not evidence that plax was treated fairly at all.

you have not supported your opinon any better then I have...far from it.
</P>


Just as judges consider mitigation when handing down sentences, they can also consider the wrecklessness of this defendants behavior.</P>


This was an agreed upon sentence by both parties. If they thought they could get a better result from a trial, they had that option.</P>


2 years is nothing for what he did....especially in NYC where there is such a 0 tolerance for illegal gun possession.</P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:31 PM
, the DA can offer whatever the **** they want for the plea...


sigh...

no the DA can not

once he is charged with the original crime, he can only go down one level



that's simply not true.

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:33 PM
Show me cases where someone discharged and unregistered handgun in a crowded area, and didn't get at least 2 years.


Until then, you have no basis for arguing that his sentence was harsher than normal.</P>




Show me where that's what Plax was charged with otherwise you clearly have no idea what you are even discussing.

what he did doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with what he is charged with, what he is charged with doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the plea he's offered....that's how the law works....that's why you hire lawyers.....you are looking at this far too simply morehead.
</P>


As I just said, a judge can consider the wrecklessness of his actions when laying down a sentence. Obviously, Plaxico and his lawyer didn't like their odds in that scenario.</P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:34 PM
Just as judges consider mitigation when handing down sentences, they can also consider the wrecklessness of this defendants behavior.

AGREED but considering this was taken out of the judges hands with the offer of a plea only to charges with minimum sentences morehead, the judge never got to consider ANYTHING.




This was an agreed upon sentence by both parties. If they thought they could get a better result from a trial, they had that option.</p>

OF COURSE they couldn't get better from a trial, and the only reason it was agreed upon from both sides is because Plax and his lawyer finally realized there was nothing they could do to get a fair shake and that they were being forced to take a raw deal of 2 years.
</p>



2 years is nothing for what he did....especially in NYC where there is such a 0 tolerance for illegal gun possession.</p>


</p>

2 years is far too much considering what you or I would have gotten for the same thing is much less.
</p>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:35 PM
As I just said, a judge can consider the wrecklessness of his actions when laying down a sentence. Obviously, Plaxico and his lawyer didn't like their odds in that scenario.</p>

As I said the judge never got a chance to consider anything during this case, there was a minimum sentence he was forced to give because the DA refuse to offer a lesser plea.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:41 PM
, the DA can offer whatever the **** they want for the plea...


sigh...

no the DA can not

once he is charged with the original crime, he can only go down one level



that's simply not true.


yes it is.

It may work that way for other crimes but since bloomy put these tough laws on the books, it doesn't work for this crime.

of these 40 -50 experts back you say back you this subject - surely at least one offered anecdotal evidence to support this?

funny, I haven't seen one example

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Just as judges consider mitigation when handing down sentences, they can also consider the wrecklessness of this defendants behavior.

AGREED but considering this was taken out of the judges hands with the offer of a plea only to charges with minimum sentences morehead, the judge never got to consider ANYTHING.




This was an agreed upon sentence by both parties. If they thought they could get a better result from a trial, they had that option.</P>


OF COURSE they couldn't get better from a trial, and the only reason it was agreed upon from both sides is because Plax and his lawyer finally realized there was nothing they could do to get a fair shake and that they were being forced to take a raw deal of 2 years.
</P>



2 years is nothing for what he did....especially in NYC where there is such a 0 tolerance for illegal gun possession.</P>



</P>


2 years is far too much considering what you or I would have gotten for the same thing is much less.
</P>


</P>


Its complete nonsense to suggest that after you AGREE to accept a sentence, you then complain that it was too harsh. I get your point that they may have thought that they wouldn't get a fair shake in a trial, but that is PURE speculation on your part. This had more to do with his conversation with Goodell then it does with his expectations in court. RG told him if he pleaded not guilty he would be suspended for a year. This was about expedience for him and his career.</P>


Thats MY speculation.</P>


The guy shot a friggin unregistered gun in a crowded nightclub. Right now I'd say he's a lucky piece of ****.</P>

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:42 PM
As I just said, a judge can consider the wrecklessness of his actions when laying down a sentence. Obviously, Plaxico and his lawyer didn't like their odds in that scenario.</p>

As I said the judge never got a chance to consider anything during this case, there was a minimum sentence he was forced to give because the DA refuse to offer a lesser plea.


which he couldn't

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:43 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:44 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...


yes it is

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:48 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...


here is my evidence



[P]erhaps more important than the question of whether Burress ever
plays for the Giants again is the question of whether his future will
include time in prison. [L]egislation ... signed into law in November
2006 by then-Governor George E. Pataki ... eliminated a provision that
gave judges the option of not imposing jail time on people found guilty
of illegally possessing a loaded firearm. </p>

Instead, the three-and-a-half year minimum sentence was
established. As a result, legal experts said Tuesday, Burress may have
little wiggle room as he tries to avoid prison time. “Even if he pleads
down, he can only plead down one count and he would still face a
minimum of two years in prison,” said Robert C. Gottlieb, a New
York-based criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor in the
Manhattan district attorney’s office. “The other wiggle room is that he
could try and prevent the district attorney’s office from charging him
with this crime and charge him with a lesser crime.” </p>


where is yours?

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:49 PM
Its complete nonsense to suggest that after you AGREE to accept a sentence, you then complain that it was too harsh.

Why? he has no choice, he either agree's to 2 years, or gets to gamble with 3.5 years to 15 years, he had no choice....doesn't mean he has to like it.



I get your point that they may have thought that they wouldn't get a fair shake in a trial, but that is PURE speculation on your part.</p>

Not just my part but many lawyers and law experts have said the same on the radio, but Jints doesn't believe me cause I didn't record each and everyone and post it on some website for him to listen to lol.
</p>


This had more to do with his conversation with Goodell then it does with his expectations in court.</p>

Goodell has nothing to do with the legal system in NY.
</p>


RG told him if he pleaded not guilty he would be suspended for a year. This was about expedience for him and his career.</p>

he is going to jail for 2 years, and goodell has his suspention running concurrent with his jail time, 1 year or 2 year suspension from the NFL would not have mattered anyhow.
</p>



Thats MY speculation.</p>

Ok, but, seriously, when he's looking at going to jail for 2 years you think he's worried about not being able to play in the NFL for 1 year (while he's in jail and can't play anyhow?)
</p>



The guy shot a friggin unregistered gun in a crowded nightclub. Right now I'd say he's a lucky piece of ****.</p>

that's not what he was charged with, and had it been you or me we'd have gotten less time, I'd say he's unlucky.
</p>

dezzzR
08-21-2009, 02:51 PM
http://www.itsfortytwo.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/homer-eating-popcorn.jpg

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:51 PM
here is my evidence

you also posted an article claiming that Plax was offered a 3 month plea...which was proven untrue, why should I believe this one...? you are telling me there is no loop hole in this system come on, don't be so naive Jints.

[Edit] and APPARENTLY after reading further in your own quote, he had the possibility of being charged with a lesser crime..which would allow him to plea to something less... there is the loop hole.

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:53 PM
Its complete nonsense to suggest that after you AGREE to accept a sentence, you then complain that it was too harsh.

Why? he has no choice, he either agree's to 2 years, or gets to gamble with 3.5 years to 15 years, he had no choice....doesn't mean he has to like it.




I get your point that they may have thought that they wouldn't get a fair shake in a trial, but that is PURE speculation on your part.</P>


Not just my part but many lawyers and law experts have said the same on the radio, but Jints doesn't believe me cause I didn't record each and everyone and post it on some website for him to listen to lol.
</P>



This had more to do with his conversation with Goodell then it does with his expectations in court.</P>


Goodell has nothing to do with the legal system in NY.
</P>



RG told him if he pleaded not guilty he would be suspended for a year. This was about expedience for him and his career.</P>


he is going to jail for 2 years, and goodell has his suspention running concurrent with his jail time, 1 year or 2 year suspension from the NFL would not have mattered anyhow.
</P>



Thats MY speculation.</P>


Ok, but, seriously, when he's looking at going to jail for 2 years you think he's worried about not being able to play in the NFL for 1 year (while he's in jail and can't play anyhow?)
</P>



The guy shot a friggin unregistered gun in a crowded nightclub. Right now I'd say he's a lucky piece of ****.</P>


that's not what he was charged with, and had it been you or me we'd have gotten less time, I'd say he's unlucky.
</P>


</P>


Goodell had everything to do with Plaxico's decision to take the plea. If he was suspende for a year, during which he would have had the trial, and then got two (or more) years, that would have probably ended his career.</P>


After he serves his two years, undoubtedly he will get the same or better treatment than Vick did.</P>


Accept the plea and play football in 2 years.</P>


Plead not guilty and stay out for at least 3 years.</P>


You do the math.</P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:56 PM
After he serves his two years, undoubtedly he will get the same or better treatment than Vick did.</p>

Goodell already has said his suspension will run DURING his jail sentence as opposed to Vick who had his suspension imposed AFTER his jail sentence, that's my point, he's in for 2 years and his suspesion is only 1 year....he's not even really being punished by RG because he can't play while in jail anyhow.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 02:56 PM
here is my evidence

you also posted an article claiming that Plax was offered a 3 month plea...which was proven untrue, why should I believe this one...? you are telling me there is no loop hole in this system come on, don't be so naive Jints.



I'm sure there is.

But that would be the exception, not the rule.

Plax got the minimum sentence for a charge one level down from the crime he actually committed.

I believe that would be in the fat part of the bell curve as far as weapons charges in NYC goes.

He didn't get railroaded as you think he did.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 02:57 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...


here is my evidence



[P]erhaps more important than the question of whether Burress ever
plays for the Giants again is the question of whether his future will
include time in prison. [L]egislation ... signed into law in November
2006 by then-Governor George E. Pataki ... eliminated a provision that
gave judges the option of not imposing jail time on people found guilty
of illegally possessing a loaded firearm. </p>

Instead, the three-and-a-half year minimum sentence was
established. As a result, legal experts said Tuesday, Burress may have
little wiggle room as he tries to avoid prison time. “Even if he pleads
down, he can only plead down one count and he would still face a
minimum of two years in prison,” said Robert C. Gottlieb, a New
York-based criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor in the
Manhattan district attorney’s office. <font color="#0000ff" size="5">“The other wiggle room is that he
could try and prevent the district attorney’s office from charging him
with this crime and charge him with a lesser crime.” </font></p>


where is yours?



there's always wiggle room jints...always.

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 02:57 PM
Its complete nonsense to suggest that after you AGREE to accept a sentence, you then complain that it was too harsh.

Why? he has no choice, he either agree's to 2 years, or gets to gamble with 3.5 years to 15 years, he had no choice....doesn't mean he has to like it.




I get your point that they may have thought that they wouldn't get a fair shake in a trial, but that is PURE speculation on your part.</P>


Not just my part but many lawyers and law experts have said the same on the radio, but Jints doesn't believe me cause I didn't record each and everyone and post it on some website for him to listen to lol.
</P>



This had more to do with his conversation with Goodell then it does with his expectations in court.</P>


Goodell has nothing to do with the legal system in NY.
</P>



RG told him if he pleaded not guilty he would be suspended for a year. This was about expedience for him and his career.</P>


he is going to jail for 2 years, and goodell has his suspention running concurrent with his jail time, 1 year or 2 year suspension from the NFL would not have mattered anyhow.
</P>



Thats MY speculation.</P>


Ok, but, seriously, when he's looking at going to jail for 2 years you think he's worried about not being able to play in the NFL for 1 year (while he's in jail and can't play anyhow?)
</P>



The guy shot a friggin unregistered gun in a crowded nightclub. Right now I'd say he's a lucky piece of ****.</P>


that's not what he was charged with, and had it been you or me we'd have gotten less time, I'd say he's unlucky.
</P>


</P>


Daven, Plaxico was charged with a lot more than you are indicating. The DA ALLOWED him to plea to a lesser charge.</P>


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/20/burress.guilty.plea/</P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Daven, Plaxico was charged with a lot more than you are indicating. The DA ALLOWED him to plea to a lesser charge.</p>


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/20/burress.guilty.plea/</p>

Yes... the DA almost always allows first time offenders to plea to a lesser charge, that's nothing unusual, actually it's extremely common, the question is..."<font color="#0000ff">was the plea the DA allowed plax to plea guilty to the same they would have allowed us to plea guilty to</font>" the answer, in my opinion, is no, we would have been offered something with a lower penalty had we done the same thing, because bloomberg wouldn't be trying to be making an example of us and wouldn't be putting extra pressure on the DA...to in his words "Prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law" something usually reserved for hardened criminals not first time offenders morehead.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:02 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...


here is my evidence



[P]erhaps more important than the question of whether Burress ever
plays for the Giants again is the question of whether his future will
include time in prison. [L]egislation ... signed into law in November
2006 by then-Governor George E. Pataki ... eliminated a provision that
gave judges the option of not imposing jail time on people found guilty
of illegally possessing a loaded firearm. </p>

Instead, the three-and-a-half year minimum sentence was
established. As a result, legal experts said Tuesday, Burress may have
little wiggle room as he tries to avoid prison time. “Even if he pleads
down, he can only plead down one count and he would still face a
minimum of two years in prison,” said Robert C. Gottlieb, a New
York-based criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor in the
Manhattan district attorney’s office. <font size="5" color="#0000ff">“The other wiggle room is that he
could try and prevent the district attorney’s office from charging him
with this crime and charge him with a lesser crime.” </font></p>


where is yours?



there's always wiggle room jints...always.


yes ...but that would be very difficult to justify in THIS case

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:04 PM
yes ...but that would be very difficult to justify in THIS case

yeah because Plax is famous so everyone would see it happen, and bloomberg wouldn't let it happen.

RoanokeFan
08-21-2009, 03:13 PM
which he couldn't

That's simply not true...


here is my evidence



[P]erhaps more important than the question of whether Burress ever
plays for the Giants again is the question of whether his future will
include time in prison. [L]egislation ... signed into law in November
2006 by then-Governor George E. Pataki ... eliminated a provision that
gave judges the option of not imposing jail time on people found guilty
of illegally possessing a loaded firearm. </p>

Instead, the three-and-a-half year minimum sentence was
established. As a result, legal experts said Tuesday, Burress may have
little wiggle room as he tries to avoid prison time. “Even if he pleads
down, he can only plead down one count and he would still face a
minimum of two years in prison,” said Robert C. Gottlieb, a New
York-based criminal defense lawyer and a former prosecutor in the
Manhattan district attorney’s office. <font size="5" color="#0000ff">“The other wiggle room is that he
could try and prevent the district attorney’s office from charging him
with this crime and charge him with a lesser crime.” </font></p>


where is yours?



there's always wiggle room jints...always.


Daven, you keep saying "that's not what he was charged with". What do you think he was charged with and indicted for?

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:14 PM
yes ...but that would be very difficult to justify in THIS case

yeah because Plax is famous so everyone would see it happen, and bloomberg wouldn't let it happen.


more likely the DA would risk getting disbarred

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:22 PM
Daven, you keep saying "that's not what he was charged with". What do you think he was charged with and indicted for?


the original charge was, 2 counts of criminal possession of and illegal weapon....

Not..."Accidentally shooting a gun in a night club" as many like to point out around here.

Eventually he plead to "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Weapon" or something to the effect.

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 03:24 PM
yes ...but that would be very difficult to justify in THIS case

yeah because Plax is famous so everyone would see it happen, and bloomberg wouldn't let it happen.
</P>


All any of us is doing is speculating without much to base it on. Plaxico was indicted by a grand jury on 3 counts. He pleaded to the lesser of the three. So he WAS charged for wreckless endangerment (discharging the handgun). The DA just tossed it to allow him to plea it out.</P>


No one can know whether or not the Mayor's position influenced the DA. We also cannot know how the excellent representation Plaxico had (due to his wealth and fame) influenced the case either.</P>


Its all very nebulous, and none of us can say with any certainly what the result would be for a normal citizen.</P>

Morehead State
08-21-2009, 03:28 PM
Daven, you keep saying "that's not what he was charged with". What do you think he was charged with and indicted for?


the original charge was, 2 counts of criminal possession of and illegal weapon....

Not..."Accidentally shooting a gun in a night club" as many like to point out around here.

Eventually he plead to "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Weapon" or something to the effect.
</P>


The third count was wreckless endangerment. Which was obviously the act of discharging the weapon. So yes, he WAS charged with "accidentally shooting a gun in a nightclub."</P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Daven, you keep saying "that's not what he was charged with". What do you think he was charged with and indicted for?


the original charge was, 2 counts of criminal possession of and illegal weapon....

Not..."Accidentally shooting a gun in a night club" as many like to point out around here.

Eventually he plead to "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Weapon" or something to the effect.
</p>


The third count was wreckless endangerment. Which was obviously the act of discharging the weapon. So yes, he WAS charged with "accidentally shooting a gun in a nightclub."</p>

No he was charged with reckless endangerment...not "Accidentally shooting a gun in a nightclub"

my point is people keep screaming there heads off "HEY WAS IN A NIGHTCLUB" or, whatever you said earlier, that's an emotional response (while everyone here say &gt;I'm&lt; reacting emotionally) stop saying **** like that, use the actual names of what he's charged with or try to use something close because it is complicated, because what actually occurred matters very little until it makes it to the judge...which it never did.

clearly what actually happens very little, he plead to attempted possession when he HAD clear possession.

RoanokeFan
08-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Daven, you keep saying "that's not what he was charged with". What do you think he was charged with and indicted for?


the original charge was, 2 counts of criminal possession of and illegal weapon....

Not..."Accidentally shooting a gun in a night club" as many like to point out around here.

Eventually he plead to "Attempted Possession of an Illegal Weapon" or something to the effect.


He was arrested for two Class C felonies for carrying a concealed weapon. The Grand Jury indicted him for both of those and added, I believe, Reckless Endangerment. So that's what he would have gone to trial on. These two Class C felonies carry mandatory sentencing guidelines which call for, upon conviction, three and one ha;f years in prison. The sentencing guidelines also all the prosecutor to drop down one level on a plea BECAUSE OF THE MANDATORY SENTENCING guidelines.

I'm not aware of what he was "allowed to plead" to and that's not the point. That's just the vehicle used to reduce the sentence.

Bloomberg really doesn't hold the kind of power over the judiciary as you and others would like to believe. He was a huge proponent of the mandatory sentencing legislation that created the law. Naturally he would expect the law to be followed. In the end, the law was followed and it's now case law.

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:34 PM
He was arrested for two Class C felonies for carrying a concealed weapon. The Grand Jury indicted him for both of those and added, I believe, Reckless Endangerment. So that's what he would have gone to trial on. These two Class C felonies carry mandatory sentencing guidelines which call for, upon conviction, three and one ha;f years in prison. The sentencing guidelines also all the prosecutor to drop down one level on a plea BECAUSE OF THE MANDATORY SENTENCING guidelines.

I'm not aware of what he was "allowed to plead" to and that's not the point. That's just the vehicle used to reduce the sentence.

Bloomberg really doesn't hold the kind of power over the judiciary as you and others would like to believe. He was a huge proponent of the mandatory sentencing legislation that created the law. Naturally he would expect the law to be followed. In the end, the law was followed and it's now case law.


all good points RF that I surprisingly enough already understand/understood....

None of that refutes any of my points though.

one thing though you say.



I'm not aware of what he was "allowed to
plead" to and that's not the point. That's just the vehicle used to
reduce the sentence.


I disagree, that is the ONLY point, that's the ONLY thing that matters to me really, I believe he wasn't offered a fair plea compared to the average joe due to his fame.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:39 PM
I disagree, that is the ONLY point, that's the ONLY thing that matters to me really, I believe he wasn't offered a fair plea compared to the average joe due to his fame.


but you have no evidence to support that claim

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:40 PM
I disagree, that is the ONLY point, that's the ONLY thing that matters to me really, I believe he wasn't offered a fair plea compared to the average joe due to his fame.


but you have no evidence to support that claim



and you have no evidence to dispel the claim either.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:42 PM
I disagree, that is the ONLY point, that's the ONLY thing that matters to me really, I believe he wasn't offered a fair plea compared to the average joe due to his fame.


but you have no evidence to support that claim



and you have no evidence to dispel the claim either.


I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

I have an article written back in December saying the least he could get is two years

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:43 PM
I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

we both have that, I just didn't think about keeping a link to the discussion, I don't need to provide you a link to make it exist though, it did happen, multiple times, I'm not hearing things...whether you heard it or not does not matter.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:46 PM
I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

we both have that, I just didn't think about keeping a link to the discussion, I don't need to provide you a link to make it exist though, it did happen, multiple times, I'm not hearing things...whether you heard it or not does not matter.


no it didn't

you are making it up

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:46 PM
I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

we both have that, I just didn't think about keeping a link to the discussion, I don't need to provide you a link to make it exist though, it did happen, multiple times, I'm not hearing things...whether you heard it or not does not matter.


no it didn't

you are making it up



lol ok, you do know other people listen to the radio aswell around here, I don't really care whether YOU heard it or not, I know others have.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:49 PM
I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

we both have that, I just didn't think about keeping a link to the discussion, I don't need to provide you a link to make it exist though, it did happen, multiple times, I'm not hearing things...whether you heard it or not does not matter.


no it didn't

you are making it up



lol ok, you do know other people listen to the radio aswell around here, I don't really care whether YOU heard it or not, I know others have.
\

like your imaginary friend Edward?
Or your girfriend up in the Niagra Falls area?

lol

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:52 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/21/pftv-looks-at-whether-justice-was-done-in-plaxico-case/

this is the COMMON response I hear on every show from every lawyer asked this question....besides the one you brought here.

our team owner seems to agree as well.

"Had this been Joe the plumber, would he have gotten two years (http://www.newsday.com/columnists/bob-glauber/giants-co-owner-mara-burress-threw-it-all-away-1.1383857)?" Mara said, per Bob Glauber of Newsday. "I'm not so sure about that."

GMENAGAIN
08-21-2009, 03:53 PM
I have an expert who was asked that exact question saying the average joe would have gotten the same deal

we both have that, I just didn't think about keeping a link to the discussion, I don't need to provide you a link to make it exist though, it did happen, multiple times, I'm not hearing things...whether you heard it or not does not matter.


no it didn't

you are making it up

</P>


DavenIII has a history of making things up when he is losing an argument . . . . </P>

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 03:55 PM
DavenIII has a history of making things up when he is losing an argument . . . .

no people have a history of not believing me when I can't find a link...two completely separate things, I get ALOT of my info from talk radio be it NFL Network or 1050 or 660 here in new york...you can't always find links to this stuff.

Jint Fan 73
08-21-2009, 03:57 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/08/21/pftv-looks-at-whether-justice-was-done-in-plaxico-case/

this is the COMMON response I hear on every show from every lawyer asked this question....besides the one you brought here.

our team owner seems to agree as well.

"Had this been Joe the plumber, would he have gotten two years (http://www.newsday.com/columnists/bob-glauber/giants-co-owner-mara-burress-threw-it-all-away-1.1383857)?" Mara said, per Bob Glauber of Newsday. "I'm not so sure about that."



Mara and some Bozo on NBC sports?

those are hardly experts on the NYC gun laws

rocky325
08-21-2009, 04:00 PM
What ends first?



This thread or Plaxico's prison term?

DavenIII
08-21-2009, 04:01 PM
What ends first?



This thread or Plaxico's prison term?

This thread [:P] but the Oct. 11 thread will still be going strong.

rocky325
08-21-2009, 04:08 PM
What ends first?



This thread or Plaxico's prison term?

This thread [:P] but the Oct. 11 thread will still be going strong.




There you go...lol