Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pizza Bob

Jackpot!!!!

Recommended Posts

From today's Trentonian: During a traffic stop for erratic driving, in Burlington Twp, the policeman spotted a handgun in the car. The suspect took off and the police gave chase. When all was said and done, here's a list of the charges:

 

1) Unlawful possession of a handgun

2) Possession of a stolen handgun

3) Possession of a handgun by certain persons not to possess a firearm

4) Possession of a firearm during a CDS violation

5) Possession of hollowpoint ammunition

6) Possession of a high-capacity magazine

7) Resisting arrest

8) Eluding

9) Possession of a CDS with intent to distribute

 

Bail was set at $150K - of course I look for this to get plea-bargained down to a disorderly persons offense :icon_mrgreen:

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bail was set at $150K

That's it?!?! Anyone who is prohibited from owning a firearm, and is in possession of a stolen handgun, hollowpoints, and a "high capacity magazine" OBVIOUSLY does not have good intentions. This scumbag's bail should be 10x higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's even cooler when they do that to actual CRIMINALS instead of doing it to someone who was nailed by a technicality.

 

 

eh it's still bs to me..

 

there are only so many ways you can say "guy had a gun that shouldn't have had it"

 

all the rest of that nonsense is an illustration of exactly what is wrong with the world..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only repetition I see is:

 

Unlawful possession of a handgun

Possession of a handgun by certain persons not to possess a firearm

 

Everything else seems to be a different charge than the next.

 

The first charge is because he's not within the stated exemptions.

The second is because he's a prohibited person.

 

I agree with Vlad here. It's ridiculous. I realize this is how the law works, but it strikes me as dirty. The charge that holds the greatest penalty should supersede the rest. I understand it's done this way so as to maximize sentences so that even the most liberal criminal apologist judge can't get the guy off and to make a plea much more likely. I'm pragmatic about it, I just don't agree with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first SIX charges revolve around having a gun he should not have had while doing **** he should not have been doing..

 

I am ALL for quick swift justice... but creating a legal system that is filled to the brim with BS does not appear IMO at least to be the quickest most direct path to justice... disagree if you like.. I just dislike bs..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no sympathy for this guy. I have no problem with him being hit with multiple charges and it all being plea bargained down. How far down is the question. The court system would be backed up for years if it weren't for plea bargaining.

 

It's cool how they can charge you with multiple variations of the same crime..

 

Whats even neater is how under the conspiracy statutes you can be charged with a crime you had no part in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me most about this is that it's quite likely this will all be plead down to something like "Possession of CDS with intent to distribute" and all the other charges will be dropped/ignored.

 

IMO, there are certain charges that should not be permitted to be plead down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just to be clear.. I am all for getting the scum off the street.. but I fail to see the advantage of the smoke and mirrors carni side show that is the US justice system...

 

make REAL direct simple charges that carry REAL genuine sentences.. as opposed to this whole blow up your departments stats by piling on all these ridiculous charges... and allowing the court to waste tax payer time and money pleading them down..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats even neater is how under the conspiracy statutes you can be charged with a crime you had no part in.

That's because you were part of the planning of that particular crime. Once you are part of the planning, you are guilty of whatever happens during the commission of the crime, unless you (someone correct me if I'm wrong) perform reasonable enough actions to prevent the crime from happening, i.e. try to STOP the crime in some way, or call the police before the commission of the crime. Simply not participating in the crime will not make you innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because you were part of the planning of that particular crime. Once you are part of the planning, you are guilty of whatever happens during the commission of the crime, unless you (someone correct me if I'm wrong) perform reasonable enough actions to prevent the crime from happening, i.e. try to STOP the crime in some way, or call the police before the commission of the crime. Simply not participating in the crime will not make you innocent.

 

As I don't know the laws relating to this, could...or rather, would you be charged if for instance

 

a) You are talking with a 'friend' who mentions stealing something from someone while you two are drinking, you, not being serious, nor thinking he is serious, suggest he should do it because that person is a dirt bag. He ends up actually doing with it and tells the cops you said he should. You were joking, and assumed he was too.

 

b) A 'friend' mentions he is thinking about committing some crime. You tell him that is a bad idea, but whatever do what you want. He does commit it, and tells the cops you knew he was planning on it.

 

c) A 'friend' mentions in passing something about committing some crime. You don't really pay much attention to it as you don't realize he is being serious. He commits said crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't say with 100% certainty, so I hope that someone else chimes in. I will however give my limited understanding and educated guess.

 

If you did nothing to plan the crime, you are not part of the conspiracy. You literally need to PLAN the commission of the crime in order for it to be a conspiracy. I honestly do not think that "I mentioned it to him, and he said it was a good idea" could be seriously considered as a conspiracy. I sincerely don't think you would be guilty of conspiracy in any of those situations. I also don't think you would be guilty of any other crime as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors. Standing alone, a conspiracy does no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort. ''A civil conspiracy, however atrocious, does not per se give rise to a cause of action unless a civil wrong has been committed resulting in damage.'' 'A bare agreement among two or more persons to harm a third person cannot injure the latter unless and until acts are actually performed pursuant to the agreement. Therefore, it is the acts done and not the conspiracy to do them which should be regarded as the essence of the civil action.' [para.s] By its nature, tort liability arising from conspiracy presupposes that the coconspirator is legally capable of committing the tort, i.e., that he or she owes a duty to plaintiff recognized by law and is potentially subject to liability for breach of that duty.

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c183.htm

 

 

May or may not apply exactly to the NJ definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't know the laws relating to this, could...or rather, would you be charged if for instance

 

a) You are talking with a 'friend' who mentions stealing something from someone while you two are drinking, you, not being serious, nor thinking he is serious, suggest he should do it because that person is a dirt bag. He ends up actually doing with it and tells the cops you said he should. You were joking, and assumed he was too.

 

b) A 'friend' mentions he is thinking about committing some crime. You tell him that is a bad idea, but whatever do what you want. He does commit it, and tells the cops you knew he was planning on it.

 

c) A 'friend' mentions in passing something about committing some crime. You don't really pay much attention to it as you don't realize he is being serious. He commits said crime.

None of those are anything I, or anyone I work with would charge someone for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's Trentonian: During a traffic stop for erratic driving, in Burlington Twp, the policeman spotted a handgun in the car. The suspect took off and the police gave chase. When all was said and done, here's a list of the charges:

 

1) Unlawful possession of a handgun

2) Possession of a stolen handgun

3) Possession of a handgun by certain persons not to possess a firearm

4) Possession of a firearm during a CDS violation

5) Possession of hollowpoint ammunition

6) Possession of a high-capacity magazine

7) Resisting arrest

8) Eluding

9) Possession of a CDS with intent to distribute

 

Bail was set at $150K - of course I look for this to get plea-bargained down to a disorderly persons offense :icon_mrgreen:

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

If drugs were legal, there were no assault weapons ban, and we had Constitutional open carry and CCW, this guy would not be a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don't know the laws relating to this, could...or rather, would you be charged if for instance

 

a) You are talking with a 'friend' who mentions stealing something from someone while you two are drinking, you, not being serious, nor thinking he is serious, suggest he should do it because that person is a dirt bag. He ends up actually doing with it and tells the cops you said he should. You were joking, and assumed he was too.

 

b) A 'friend' mentions he is thinking about committing some crime. You tell him that is a bad idea, but whatever do what you want. He does commit it, and tells the cops you knew he was planning on it.

 

c) A 'friend' mentions in passing something about committing some crime. You don't really pay much attention to it as you don't realize he is being serious. He commits said crime.

 

None of these are conspiracies and you really can't be charged with anything. One person cannot form a conspiracy (exception below). If someone commits a felony and tells you about it afterward and you don't report it to police there is a Federal statute for "Misprision of a Felony" which means you knew about and didn't report it to police. Not sure if there is a comparable state statute.

 

vjf915 is basically correct in his example. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people (that are not LEOs)to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act (which can be something done legally) to complete the conspiracy. All parties of the conspiracy are considered to be participants of any crimes committed by members of the conspiracy even if they don't take part in the crime or are even aware it was committed.

 

The only exception to this in Federal law is a drug conspiracy. If you make an agreement with an undercover LEO to sell (or buy) drugs the conspiracy is complete. I saw a guy was selling a couple of kilos of heroin get 10 years because he told the undercover "I usually don't deal in these small quantities but if you want some real weight...like 20 or 30 kilos, you come and see me again". That's all it takes for a drug conspiracy under Federal law.

 

If drugs were legal, there were no assault weapons ban, and we had Constitutional open carry and CCW, this guy would not be a criminal.

 

Well drugs are not legal, I think the anti-gun faction would find a reason for the AWB no matter what (there have been irrational gun control measures imposed for years), a guy dealing drugs shouldn't be allowed to carry, and he deserves probably more than he'll get.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If drugs were legal, there were no assault weapons ban, and we had Constitutional open carry and CCW, this guy would not be a criminal.

 

Is he a Felon because of a Drug Conviction or for another crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

vjf915 is basically correct in his example. A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people (that are not LEOs)to commit a crime. There has to be an overt act (which can be something done legally) to complete the conspiracy. All parties of the conspiracy are considered to be participants of any crimes committed by members of the conspiracy even if they don't take part in the crime or are even aware it was committed.

 

So if the police get together and talk of committing a crime, and then one of them does, it isn't a crime for the other, but if they are civilians, it is? Is this what you are saying or am I misinterpreting what you actually mean, because that is how it reads. If true, that would be entirely effed up.

 

 

The only exception to this in Federal law is a drug conspiracy. If you make an agreement with an undercover LEO to sell (or buy) drugs the conspiracy is complete. I saw a guy was selling a couple of kilos of heroin get 10 years because he told the undercover "I usually don't deal in these small quantities but if you want some real weight...like 20 or 30 kilos, you come and see me again". That's all it takes for a drug conspiracy under Federal law.

 

 

So in my examples before, if they were drug related, potentially could be crimes? That seems jacked up too. Why is it that drug crimes often seem to be of such great interest, and carry such high punishments when they can often be the pettiest of crimes? That I don't get either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the police get together and talk of committing a crime, and then one of them does, it isn't a crime for the other, but if they are civilians, it is? Is this what you are saying or am I misinterpreting what you actually mean, because that is how it reads. If true, that would be entirely effed up.

No, that's not what he is saying. As I understand it, this is in reference to an undercover officer. In essence it means that you need to have two civilians agreeing upon the act. If one is a civilian, and the other is an undercover law enforcement officer (who is in fact following orders by doing this) then it is not a conspiracy. If someone is a law enforcement officer, but plans a crime while off duty with another civilian, it is still a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not what he is saying. As I understand it, this is in reference to an undercover officer. In essence it means that you need to have two civilians agreeing upon the act. If one is a civilian, and the other is an undercover law enforcement officer (who is in fact following orders by doing this) then it is not a conspiracy. If someone is a law enforcement officer, but plans a crime while off duty with another civilian, it is still a conspiracy.

 

 

Thanx for jumping in and explaining this. You are correct. LEOs can be part of a conspiracy and charged if they are not doing it in a undercover capacity. I know some that have been charged and convicted.

 

You only need one person for a drug conspiracy under Federal law. I have seen that person be a LEO.

 

Why is it that drug crimes often seem to be of such great interest, and carry such high punishments when they can often be the pettiest of crimes?

 

In the example I gave 20-30 kilos of heroin is not what I'd call a petty crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx for jumping in and explaining this. You are correct. LEOs can be part of a conspiracy and charged if they are not doing it in a undercover capacity. I know some that have been charged and convicted.

 

You only need one person for a drug conspiracy under Federal law. I have seen that person be a LEO.

 

Ahh, that make sense, I guess I didn't make that, looking at it now, somewhat apparent connection.

 

 

Why is it that drug crimes often seem to be of such great interest, and carry such high punishments when they can often be the pettiest of crimes?

 

In the example I gave 20-30 kilos of heroin is not what I'd call a petty crime.

 

I wasn't referring to your example in particular, but rather in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good analysis above. To be charged with conspiracy an 'act' must be made in furtherance of that which was 'conspired' between the parties. In the most basic form successful criminal prosecution requires the 'mens rea' and the 'actus reus'..the state of mind and the action.

 

If anyone is particularly bored today, look up 'Inchoate' offenses and read all about it.

 

and of course: I am not intending to give legal advice, just an opinion not based on my professional experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...