jackandjill 683 Posted February 23, 2015 Demonizing the enemy - Propaganda Techniques, http://books.google.com/books?id=5ip9vVZ-H4sC&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false. If this guy is the baddest dude on the street, it becomes even more important for the system to charge him properly and not resort to silly techniques. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maintenanceguy 510 Posted February 23, 2015 Why is this so simple to me? If he was stopped for drug charges and hints at hiring a prostitute, and the gun charge is therefore appropriate, where's the drug and prostitution charge? Maybe he's a junkie and a pervert. But until he has a felony conviction, he still has his 2A rights if the 2A doesn't cover 1750s flintlocks, we're in trouble. But I agree that the sheriff has muddied the waters enough to ruin Van Gilders chance at being our poster boy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted February 23, 2015 Whether is is guilty of those things or not they will lie if they have to when it comes to covering their tracks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted February 24, 2015 As stated above, A Pawnshop in NJ cant make A loan on A firearm. So thats A shady excuse. possibly returning or going to a pawn shop.. a questionable relationship.. it starts to be the sum of a situation... And if that pawn shop happened to be in PA where said "firearm" is not considered by any stretch of the law a "firearm" and now is on the same scale as a BB pistol purchased outside of the Kommunist Enklave of New Jerkistan... What sayeth the great judges then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
heaterbob 53 Posted February 24, 2015 we need this test case, nice of him to volunteer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 24, 2015 And if that pawn shop happened to be in PA where said "firearm" is not considered by any stretch of the law a "firearm" and now is on the same scale as a BB pistol purchased outside of the Kommunist Enklave of New Jerkistan... What sayeth the great judges then? my statement is not one on how the law should work... it was one of my personal feelings.. IF the other things are true.. and only IF.. then the guy is by my best estimation a scumbag.. and I would not personally want him lingering around my neighborhood.. if he was traveling home from a pawn shop in PA.. he should have an easy day in court.. since he will easily win the case... as long as he was going directly home.. directly not including a stop to buy a bag or heroin... everyone keeps saying where are all the other charges... sometimes police get involved over something... and sometimes in the course of that investigation the original concern (maybe in this case drugs) represents a less than solid case.. so they take the loss on the drug charge.. but they in turn find something else far simpler to prove.. and rather than waste everyones time with making extra charges that wont stick they go for the one that they know will.. that MAY be the situation in this case.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kirk2022 43 Posted February 24, 2015 Time will tell how this all comes out. All I know is, Where they were stopped at is not A place that anyone from this area would be. Unless they had ill intentions. Plus the kid driving the car immediately jumped at the oppurtunity for A pretrial drug program. Although the pills were prescribed. Oh and he was represented by A public defender that helps many of his clients to get the court ordered drug programs. That we are all paying for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted February 24, 2015 Lots of people take plea deals like that when facing a sentence. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted February 24, 2015 I'm not bailing on the guy yet. Until he's charged/convicted it didn't happen. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted February 24, 2015 I honestly think if this guy was some crack head Nappen wouldn't have went public with this case. He may have defended him, but why go to the media. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teufelhunden 6 Posted February 24, 2015 The bottom line is he was only charged with the flintlock, nothing else. That means they couldn't charge him with anything else, otherwise they definitely would have. So, what that means is, if he was in 49 other states he wouldn't have been charged with anything. As far as the pawn shop, I'll start off by saying I have never been to one so I don't know how they work in NJ, so I am going to speculate on what happened. Since federal law and the laws of 49 states don't consider a flintlock a firearm, it doesn't seem far fetched to me that this guy, and the pawn shop employee, never even considered that this was a firearm, and they didn't think anything of it. I know that ignorance is no excuse, but when the law is so mind numbingly stupid, how can you expect the average person to not be ignorant of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,570 Posted February 24, 2015 Weak case. Another Dirt Bag will get off without jail time. No laws were broken here. Maybe he'll learn a lesson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joe P. 4 Posted February 24, 2015 The gun charge seems to be preposterous... but can we just wait for all the facts to come out before we put up the 100ft bronze statue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 24, 2015 Why is this so simple to me? If he was stopped for drug charges and hints at hiring a prostitute, and the gun charge is therefore appropriate, where's the drug and prostitution charge? Maybe he's a junkie and a pervert. But until he has a felony conviction, he still has his 2A rights if the 2A doesn't cover 1750s flintlocks, we're in trouble. But I agree that the sheriff has muddied the waters enough to ruin Van Gilders chance at being our poster boy. I agree with your assessment . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 24, 2015 The bottom line is he was only charged with the flintlock, nothing else. That means they couldn't charge him with anything else, otherwise they definitely would have. thats not true at all.. I made some bad decisions when I was much younger.. and I was ONLY not in trouble due to the officers discretion.. I was very honest with the officer given the circumstances.. he took my conversation as being genuine (and it was)... and sent me on my way, when he could have probably made a pretty big deal about something that was pretty stupid... so I can say without question.. not EVERY time an officer encounter a situation where charges could be filed they are.. and honestly as a young stupid kid it probably worked out for the best.. it greatly changed my opinion of people in authority.. I learned a pretty important lesson.. and it honestly had a lot to do with why I stopped doing stupid shit.. lol I figured I was lucky to get cut one break.. and the chances of that ever happening again were pretty slim.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted February 24, 2015 So the officers let him go on charges that result in rehab programs and help him. But nail him on the one that makes him a felon and shows how ridiculous nj gun laws are. In the mean time puts the spot light on the department Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 24, 2015 So the officers let him go on charges that result in rehab programs and help him. But nail him on the one that makes him a felon and shows how ridiculous nj gun laws are. In the mean time puts the spot light on the department I didnt say that... I said that officers use discretion.. that could be applied to tons of things.. in this situation (assuming he is the scumbag they are painting him out to be) they probably would love to have charged him with a tons of other nonsense.. but found that the evidence would make for a weak case.. so instead went for the far simpler weapon possession.. the ability to PROVE a case may be the legal burden.. but that does not mean that the individual is not guilty.. that is why I said for ME personally.. IF all those other factors are true.. I am glad he was charged on the gun charge.. because I would rather have him charged on that than nothing.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 24, 2015 So the officers let him go on charges that result in rehab programs and help him. But nail him on the one that makes him a felon and shows how ridiculous nj gun laws are. In the mean time puts the spot light on the departmentShawn makes a valid point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 24, 2015 I didnt say that... I said that officers use discretion.. that could be applied to tons of things.. in this situation (assuming he is the scumbag they are painting him out to be) they probably would love to have charged him with a tons of other nonsense.. but found that the evidence would make for a weak case.. so instead went for the far simpler weapon possession.. the ability to PROVE a case may be the legal burden.. but that does not mean that the individual is not guilty.. that is why I said for ME personally.. IF all those other factors are true.. I am glad he was charged on the gun charge.. because I would rather have him charged on that than nothing..Innocent until(cough) proven guilty.You guys do know gays can marry now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted February 24, 2015 Every time a bill comes up, there is always someone who says "we know its ridiculous, but we promise to use rarely, with discretion and only when we cant nail the bad dude otherwise". If we are going to support charging someone with a ridiculous law, because the dude is bad, we might as well get rid of due process. Sounds far fetched ? BTW, if discretion justifies charging people with ridiculous laws, then we shouldn't be asking to change the NJ firearm transportation laws. I bet the intent was to prevent gang members from driving around the town with handguns "ultimately" headed to range. In a progressive society, even the scum of the scum has the right to be charged properly. Any reason to justify otherwise is utter failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 24, 2015 Every time a bill comes up, there is always someone who says "we know its ridiculous, but we promise to use rarely, with discretion and only when we cant nail the bad dude otherwise". If we are going to support charging someone with a ridiculous law, because the dude is bad, we might as well get rid of due process. Sounds far fetched ? BTW, if discretion justifies charging people with ridiculous laws, then we shouldn't be asking to change the NJ firearm transportation laws. I bet the intent was to prevent gang members from driving around the town with handguns "ultimately" headed to range. In a progressive society, even the scum of the scum has the right to be charged properly. Any reason to justify otherwise is utter failure. it doesnt justify anything.... what I am saying if this was a simple situation of someone driving on the parkway home from is friends house.. got in accident.. and the gun was discovered.. the maybe there would or would not be charges... but IMO.. the likelihood of being charged with a ridiculous crime is when you put yourself in the sum of all bad situations.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted February 25, 2015 it doesnt justify anything.... what I am saying if this was a simple situation of someone driving on the parkway home from is friends house.. got in accident.. and the gun was discovered.. the maybe there would or would not be charges... but IMO.. the likelihood of being charged with a ridiculous crime is when you put yourself in the sum of all bad situations.. And that (un)fortunately presents us limited situations to fight the said ridiculous laws. If we dont take those opportunities (despite being not ideal), the ridiculous laws stay on the books for eternity and spread to other states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 25, 2015 And that (un)fortunately presents us limited situations to fight the said ridiculous laws. If we dont take those opportunities (despite being not ideal), the ridiculous laws stay on the books for eternity and spread to other states. not sure I buy it spreading to other states by default.. NJ has had ridiculous gun laws for a long time... but drive two hours west and you can walk down main street with a loaded AR15 pistol hanging from a sling.. NJ gun laws are difficult to fight because it is only a minority that wants to change them.. you have gun owners and non gun owners.. of the non gun owners some are completely against change and if anything want MORE strict rules..... the rest are likely neutral and don't likely care enough to get involved with fighting for your right to carry (for example) when they dont even see the need to own a gun.. then of gun owners you have another fraction that are mostly hunters or target shooters that are in all honesty fine with the laws as is.. again they just don't care enough to be involved in it.. as long as they can go to the range and bust some clays with their shotguns they are content.. lastly you have the other fraction of gun owners that would like to carry.. own a short barrel rifle.. but as you can see.. relative to the entire population they are only a small cluster.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted February 25, 2015 it doesnt justify anything.... what I am saying if this was a simple situation of someone driving on the parkway home from is friends house.. got in accident.. and the gun was discovered.. the maybe there would or would not be charges... but IMO.. the likelihood of being charged with a ridiculous crime is when you put yourself in the sum of all bad situations.. funny how some people just don't get that, ain't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted February 25, 2015 funny how some people just don't get that, ain't it? myself as a teen "I don't get why the police always hassle me.. I am always dressed like a punk.. loud music.. hanging out with kids known to be in trouble.. wandering the streets at all hours of the night.. acting paranoid when I see them.. sometimes being loud obnoxious and or cocky.. its so messed up its like they are out to get me or something" or maybe I am just a living breathing series of terrible choices.. lol which to MOST people indicates that I am probably up to something.. I mean by comparison I was a pretty good kid.. but you would never know it by the actions I took.. even if most of them were not actually against the law.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted February 25, 2015 Ok - to fix my previous speculation - the pawn shop was in NJ. Now I have no idea what to make of that... Will they pursue prosecuting the Pawn Shop? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted February 25, 2015 not sure I buy it spreading to other states by default.. NJ has had ridiculous gun laws for a long time... but drive two hours west and you can walk down main street with a loaded AR15 pistol hanging from a sling.. NJ gun laws are difficult to fight because it is only a minority that wants to change them.. you have gun owners and non gun owners.. of the non gun owners some are completely against change and if anything want MORE strict rules..... the rest are likely neutral and don't likely care enough to get involved with fighting for your right to carry (for example) when they dont even see the need to own a gun.. then of gun owners you have another fraction that are mostly hunters or target shooters that are in all honesty fine with the laws as is.. again they just don't care enough to be involved in it.. as long as they can go to the range and bust some clays with their shotguns they are content.. lastly you have the other fraction of gun owners that would like to carry.. own a short barrel rifle.. but as you can see.. relative to the entire population they are only a small cluster.. I think we drifted off the topic, happens in these threads. I am confused. Are you saying this particular law, that Nappen would be arguing against in this case (OP Topic), should stay on the books ? It appears (I could be wrong) that you support taking this guy off the street using "that" specific law because the system couldnt come up with any better way to prosecute him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Double Cheese 8 Posted February 25, 2015 A post on Evan Nappen's Facebook page indicates that charges against Van Gilder have been dismissed. For those with Facebook, here's a link to Nappen's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Evan-F-Nappen-Attorney-At-Law-PC/134969510019316?fref=nf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Norseman 2 Posted February 25, 2015 Is this true? I see it going around Facebook. But it was also "removed" from a post too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
