home

Plaxico Burress Pleads Guilty, Agrees to Two Year Sentence

Former NY Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty today to attempted possession and agreed to a two year sentence, of which he will serve 20 months. He is expected to begin serving the sentence on September 20, when he is offiically sentenced. His lawyer, Ben Brafman, said:

"This is a sad day because I think a very good man who is a brilliant athlete is going to unfortunately spend 20 months in prison when he had no intent to violate the law," Brafman said. "I give Plaxico a great deal of credit for accepting responsibility, recognizing that he had to accept responsibility. It was a hard decision in a case like this because as all of you know, the facts in this case have never been in dispute from day one. This is a perfect example in many ways of bad judgment sometimes has very terrible consequences, consequences far more severe than may be justified, in my view.

[More...]

"... We tried for eight months to get a plea to less than two years, without success. If he went to trial and were convicted, he would face a significantly greater prison sentence.... After an agonizing period of discussion, Plaxico decided that he wanted to do this, put this behind him as quickly as possible in the hope that when he is released, he will be able to resume his stellar professional football career."

Brafman also explained today why he had Burress testify before the grand jury -- he was hoping for empathy, particularly with respect to the mandatory minimum sentencing law -- because the facts were so against him:

"We tried our best to negotiate a better plea," Brafman said during his news conference. "We tried our best to convince the grand jury to have compassion. There were not facts that we could argue in this case. The gun was recovered. It was his gun. It was registered in his name. It was turned over by him to the police. The Giants were alerted within minutes after the incident happened that Plaxico shot himself. This was never a who-done-it. There were never disputed facts. This was a question of trying to find a way out of this horrible legal predicament with the least amount of punishment possible, and this is unfortunately where it ended."

Burress was between a rock and a hard place. If convicted, he faced a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years and a maximum of 15 years.

"This is a sad day because I think a very good man who is a brilliant athlete is going to unfortunately spend 20 months in prison when he had no intent to violate the law," Brafman said. "I give Plaxico a great deal of credit for accepting responsibility, recognizing that he had to accept responsibility. It was a hard decision in a case like this because as all of you know, the facts in this case have never been in dispute from day one. This is a perfect example in many ways of bad judgment sometimes has very terrible consequences, consequences far more severe than may be justified, in my view.

...Brafman said of the mandatory minimum 3-1/2-year jail term that Burress was facing if convicted of the original weapons charges: "Taking away discretion from the courts, sometimes this statute creates a far more serious sentence than the circumstances of the particular case really call for."

New York's law is a bad one. It provides for a mandatory minimum sentence even if the defendant did not have the intent to injure anyone. We need to allow judges discretion in sentencing, based on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and the history and characteristics of each individual offender. One size fits all justice is no justice at all.

Update: Here's Ben Brafman:

< The Madman Theory Of Political Bargaining: Part 3 | Media Matters: Health Care Primer for the Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Kind of silly (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    2 years is an absurd penalty for this infraction IMO.  But at least some professional athletes might learn the appropriate lesson from this: have someone in your entourage carry the gun, for heaven's sake!

    That's a corollary of the (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    Paris Hilton (And many more) DWI-prevention rule:

    "You're making a mountain of money.  Hire someone to drive you around."

    The other corollary is:

    "When you go out, don't go to places where you think you might need a gun."


    Parent
    I don't think Burress (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    thought he "needed" a gun.  I think he just liked having his toy at hand.  Someone who was serious about having a gun to use would have had it holstered, not stuck in his pants!

    When it comes to the wealthy, I'd think they'd do a little cost benefit analysis.  Mere peons don't have the option of hiring a driver or a bodyguard at need - it would probably wipe out the money we'd need to go out in the first place!

    Parent

    i think he has said he had been threatened (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    by someone and had it for protection. But I can't remember now where I read that. I doubt he did it for entertainment. Or that he owned a holster.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    The man feels threatened so he carries an unlicensed weapon and shoots himself?  

    I'm going to have to remember this one so I can tell my kids when they get older.  

    Parent

    As a Giants fan I detest Burress (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    but I still can't quite wrap my head around getting 2 years in the slammer for accidentally shooting yourself...

    As a pats fan (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I hate him more.  But yea, 2 years is a bit overboard, to say the least.

    Parent
    My brother lives in Beantown (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    and is a rabid completely over-the-top Pats fan. Our mutual distaste for Burress, for completely different reasons, is the only thing we have in common w/regards to pro football.

    Parent
    Be nice (none / 0) (#27)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    Plaxico is a Spartan.  We're good people.

    Parent
    Smith was a weirdo (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Good riddance I say.

    Parent
    Well, when the Mayor gets to publicly declare... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    ... your guilt and what the sentence should be, this is what happens.

    Parent
    It's nice to see a Talkleft thread.... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    that isn't loaded with praise for the law and order tyranny-lite brigade...used to go without saying, but it got scary on some recent threads.

    All hope is not lost...I'm glad to hear people treating 2 caged years as seriously as it should be treated, and calling it outrageous.

    Now only if we can bring this thinking to the ballot box and rebuke the tired "tough on crime" schtick.

    Like Tosh said..."Everybody talking 'bout crime, but tell me who are the criminals?"  

    Amen to that... (none / 0) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    ...my friend.  Nice to have something other than a HCR thread too!

    Parent
    looks as if April 2011 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    is his earliest possible release date. We know Vick is still considered worth a shot. Will Burris be?

      I can't agree with his attorney that it's "not an intentional criminal act" but that is a pretty steep penalty for a gun possession case where the person is not even a felon.

       Is Manhattan really insistent upon that in all cases where it's a non-felon and no reason to believe the gun was possessed to further any other criminal activirty or enterprise?

    yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    the law makes it a crime to possess a loaded firearm in a public place outside one's home or business. No intent to injure or use the weapon to commit another crime is necessary. The law was enacted in 1996. See my earlier post.

    Parent
    what i am asking (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    is a little different. I  am asking whether in plea negotiations the Manhattan DA always insists upon at least 2 years being accepted by a defendant or refuses to have a deal in cases involving unlawful possession.

    Parent
    I don't think any general rule (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    can be posited about what the NY DA (or any other DA) will or will not do.  Each case is pretty much sui generis.

    I think a fair argument can be made that if the bullet had not gone through Burress' leg but instead wound up in the ceiling without hurting anyone, there never would have been any charge at all.  And that's as much a function of "pro football players get a pretty generous free pass" (in any city but esp. in NYC)  as anything else.

    Parent

    Mayor Bloomberg is a rabid anti-gun activist (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    and he went on a public relations rampage after this shooting, demanding that Burress had to serve prison time and that there was to be no plea bargaining, etc.  He and his PR flunkies were all but demanding that he be hauled off immediately, locked up and the key thrown away.

    Good for Burress that Morgenthau as D.A. is an independent office and not subordinate to the mayor.

    This deal was a plea to attempted possession, as I read the NYDN article, which avoided the mandatory minimum.

    Nice work by Brafman, particularly in the face of Bloomberg's pout-and-stomp.

    Parent

    I should have been more clear (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    that the attempted possession of a weapon charge could (I'd have to look at the NY Penal Law to be sure, and don't have the time) be a violation which has a mens rea of less than "intentional".

    In that case, Brafman would be absolutely correct in stating it was "not an intentional criminal act".

    FWIW, it bears remembering that Burress was injured when the gun fell, hit the floor, and discharged.  The gun fell because Burress had stuck it in the waistband of the sweat pants he was wearing, without benefit of a holster.  I have no doubt he did not intend for the elastic in his waistband to fail so spectacularly - so it was not intentional in that light, either.

    Parent

    What part of putting a gun (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    (unlicensed) in your waist band and going to a club with it is attempted possession?

    I agree the gun going off was unintentional (stoopid!). Thank goodness only stoopid got injured.

    Parent

    That's part of the art of plea bargaining: (none / 0) (#15)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    finding a lesser charge for which

    (a) the facts as they are will support a guilty plea (i.e., the "factual basis" for the plea will not be laughed away) and
    (b) the prosecutor will go for.

    Do you have any idea how many times all sorts of chicanery have been pleaded down to a local ordinance violation of "loud and tumultuous behavior"?  Everything from bar-brawls to arguments to flailing drunkenly in the gutter to you name it.


    Parent

    "attempted possession" isn't laughable? (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    I can see the pleading down, but the bar-brawls ones sound more reasonable on the belief scale :)

    Parent
    it's a deal ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:00:04 PM EST
     but still  there is a factual basis because to intentionally possess something you have to have had attempted the possession. You could be convicted of attempt without completing the possession but finishing the possession does not negate the attempt.

       Although, I could see an interesting question if the possession was complete prior to entering the charging jurisdiction and the attempt only occurred outside the jurisdiction.

    Parent

    no diifferent than someone (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    pleading guilty to possession of valium when the substance they had was cocaine. The factual basis as to the identity of the particular substance is waived so that the defendant can get the benefit of the lesser sentence provided for valium.

    Attempts to commit a crime are typically one level lower than the actual crime. Attempt includes taking a substantial step towards the commission of the offense. Putting the gun in his waistband at his home was a substantial step towards possessing the gun in a public place.

    Parent

    Actually it's very different than what you wrote. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:30:16 PM EST
      It would be similar only f the person possesses BOTH valium and cocaine and was permitted to plead only to the valium.

      If he did not actually possess valium then there truly is no factual basis and the judge has to join the parties in fabricating a legal fiction (not to say it doesn't happen).

      Here, the facts would support a true factual basis of attempt to possess the firearm because you can't inentiuonally possess something without having tried to possess it. As I said in the other comment completing the crime does not negate the fact of the attempt.

    Parent

    Not necessarily so: (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    You could plead the case based on valium if, for example, the defendant admitted that he possessed a "controlled substance" - you might get through without ever admitting what the substance was.  Depending on the judge.

    And, as to a substantial step, you could also say a substantial step (attempt) was ... trying to pick up the gun after it fell, or trying to keep it in the waistband (and failing, hence it was only an "attempt").

    One can dance a lot of angels on this pinhead....

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    happens every day in state courts all across America.

    Parent
    the point is you don't need an exact (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    factual basis. You plead to the valium and the judge acknowledges that the substance you had was not valium but you are waiving the factual basis as to the identity of the substance to get the benefit of the deal, because it's not in your interest to go to trial on the cocaine charge.

    Parent
    the mens rea aspect is quite simple-- (none / 0) (#13)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:55:07 PM EST
     -- that you know it's a firearm and knowingly and intentionally have possession of it.

      Clearly, there is no question he knew what it was and intentionally possessed it. Even it was necessary (and it's not) to prove he knew it was unlawful to possess it, the lengths he went to in the immediate aftermath to rid himself of possession would make it look pretty cut and dried on that.

      It's an entirely different thing to say he had no intent to harm anyone.  The jury could fully believe that but it's irrelevant.

    Parent

    You're getting it backwards: (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:59:15 PM EST
    He might have "known" that, but the key is in finding a combination of the maximum he would admit to (in support of a lesser charge) and the minimum the prosecutor would agree to accept to satisfy The People's interest in fightin' crime.

    So, if the most Plaxico would agree to was negligence and the prosecutor was happy with that, we have a deal.

    Parent

    no, I'm not getting it backward (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:04:15 PM EST
      I understand the basics of law and you may not.

     Negligence has nothing to do with anything here involving the criminal charges.

       If he thought he couuld establish reasonable doubt that he intentionally posseessed the weapon by showing he was merely negligent-- i.e. the gun was in my poclket but i diddn't know it-- i might have been careless not to check bit I did not intend to have the gun-- that's a defense-- if believed.

    Parent

    please don't insult Scribe (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    you are both lawyers and have a difference of opinion. There's no need to suggest your knowledge is greater than his.

    Parent
    I'm not suggesting it (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:22:30 PM EST
      I'm saying that if he actually believes what he wrote then has less--- dangerously les if he is a lawyer.  Some things are not a matter of opinion. what the law is is one of those things.

      What he said is completely wrong. The state has the burden to prove mens rea as I set it forth. end of discussion.

    Parent

    Come back another day (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    Bemused, you are in time out. You continually accuse others of being wrong and assert your opinions as fact. You also are blog-clogging today.  I rarely agree with you and have warned you before to stop stating your opinions as fact.

    Parent
    While it was not part of the charge (none / 0) (#67)
    by Rojas on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 04:59:50 AM EST
    it's impossible for the pistol (Glock) to have gone off in the manner described. The trigger was pulled. It did not discharge from hitting the floor.

    Parent
    Bloomberg has behaved... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    shamefully throughout the whole case.  Burress, love him hate him or indifferent, is a human being, not an example of anything.

    For shame Mr. Mayor....Shame!

    Bloomberg may have his heart in the right place, who doesn't dislike guns on the street (especially in the hands of the people in blue:)?  But he lost his soul in his gun crusade, cheerleading for the chains and cages.

    Parent

    I would hope Burris gets another (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    opportunity. He'll end up doing more time than Vick did . . .

    Parent
    Burress' problem is that he is now 31 (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    and will be about 33 when he comes out.  He was already seen as sort of being on the down-slope of his career when this happened.  And he's a wide receiver, where his speed and his legs are his main assets.

    Vick, OTOH, is now 29 and has a good 4 or 5 years left (minimum), barring serious injury.

    Parent

    Well then maybe the NFL (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    could find a place for him in their org  ;)

    Too bad about the age thing and the man sentence. I could see doing 30 days or something like that for being stoopid and reckless, but 2yrs . . . ?

    Parent

    He'll get a shot (so to speak).... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    Nobody thinks what he did was unforgivably bad, and he'll have done real time for it. At 33 by the time he gets out, though, he's not likely to make big star money again.

    Parent
    IF some team thinks he will help them win (none / 0) (#38)
    by scribe on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    he'll get a job.

    The minute he becomes more trouble than he's worth, he's down the road.

    Ask Adam "Pacman" Jones.  

    Parent

    Is he still worth a shot? (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    Kind of depends on how much the accidental shot plus two years slows him down.

    Parent
    He'll still be tall in two years... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    ... which is his primary selling point. If he keeps himself in shape he should be able to help somebody.

    Parent
    the article is unclear on this, but (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:45:47 PM EST
     it sounds as if the attempted possession charge to which he pleaded does not carry a mandatory minimum but that he agreed to accept the 2 yearsit -- because the DA has the hammer of the 3 1/2 minimum he'd get for possession.

      If that is the case, then the DA would not entertain either an agreement he'd plead to the reckless endangerment  or even a deal where the parties agree to the conviction and each reserves the right to argue for what it believes to be the appropriate sentece at sentencing. It sounds as if it was 2 years or drop dead.

       Again, if there is anyone who practices in NYC, is that really SOP in Manhatan?

     

    that's what happened (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    as to whether it's standard operating procedure, I don't know. The point is the law is a bad one because it provides a mandatory minimum sentence that prohibits the judge from giving a lesser sentence upon conviction and only the prosecutor can decide whether to forgo charging it and the price the defendant will pay even if he does.

    The DA could have allowed Burress to plead to the lesser charge of reckless endangerment, or even a plea to the attempted possession charge he did plead to, allowing Burress the chance to argue for lesser or no jail time, but he refused.

    Prosecutors have all the discretion. They get to hold "the hammer" of a mandatory minimum over your head unless you agree to their terms.

    I wonder if the plea agreement provides the prosecutor can withdraw from the deal if the judge rejects the sentencing component and decides to give a lesser sentence on his own (even if Plaxico doesn't ask for it.)

    Parent

    I ask because I read somewhere (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:19:18 PM EST
     that the DA's office made that claim and i find it difficult to believe they are that rigid in all cases. I could be wrong. He's not running for reelection and wouldn't need I this publicity anyway given his tenure, but if every person caught with a gun in Manhattan gets no less than 2 years that's got to be a lot jail cells filled.

      We'd have to see the plea agreement. It could be a binding plea agreement where the judge has to impose the agreed sentence or reject the entire agreement. Or, it could be a voidable agreement where the state can void if it the judge goes below and Burris if he goes above. or, it could be the agreement acknowledges the judge retains discretion to vary in one or either direction but the parties remain bound regardless.

      we need someone from NYC who has a little experience in these things  there, but that the deal doesn't merely reserve the state's right to argue for a sentence, I'd bet $5 it's either a binding plea agreement  or voidable if the judge varies.  I can't imagine Burris would commit if there was any possibility he'd get more, and at this point the DA would look bad if he got less.  

    Parent

    What happens to a judge that disobey (none / 0) (#30)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    the mandatory sentence ruling?  Can a judge  disobey the law and override the NY min sentence ruling?

    Parent
    it may be that (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    the attempted charge carries a 2 year mandatory minimum (instead of 3 1/2 for the actual possession charge.) I was just reading the statutes and it seems like it but it's confusing (lots of talk about class C, D and E violent felonies) and I'm out of time. Hopefully someone else can fill in this blank.

    Parent
    Intent is important (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Last Whimzy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    A legal process that fails to take intent into account has no practical value, and in many cases creates a net negative with respect to protecting society at large.

    Common Sense (none / 0) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    One size fits all doesn't even work with clothes, let alone justice. No wonder all the prison's are bursting at the seams.

    Stupid all around it seems (none / 0) (#29)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    Plaxico was a dumb a$$ for trying to be gangsta going to a club w/gun in his pants.  Playa, hire a body guard next time.

    While I generally Mike Bloomberg's approach to governing in NYC, his ideas around controlling behavior sometimes miss the mark.

    Our legislature is silly by passing such a insane law w/the mindset this will stop people from carrying guns in NY.  Gun violence is down in NY not because of laws like this.

    i must respectfully, vigorously disagree: (none / 0) (#47)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    ....when he had no intent to violate the law," Brafman said.

    mr. burress had every intention of violating the law, the facts speak for themselves. i'll buy that he had no harmful intent, but then why carry a loaded weapon in the first place, if you've no intent to actually use it?

    probably fortunate for him that NYC doesn't have mandatory minimums for being just flat-out, beyond any possibe reason stupid. also fortunate he only ultimately harmed himself, someone was watching over him that night.

    he'll be roughly 33 upon his earliest release, old even for a receiver who keeps in shape. prison, rough as it is, isn't an NFL training/practice camp, and lacks the assets available for injured athletes any NFL team routinely provides. add to this the damage he caused his leg (his asset), and i question his ability to outrun even average corners and safeties.

    i hope he invested his salary well.

    You sure?... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    I live in NY, I don't every criminal law, I'd be surprised if even old man Morgenthau knows 'em all by heart...I mean there are so many.  

    Parent
    why carry it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    if you didn't intend to use it? Perhaps as protection, hoping you wouldn't need to use it, but for self-defense if needed.

    Parent
    like the man said, (none / 0) (#62)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    I live in NY, I don't every criminal law, I'd be surprised if even old man Morgenthau knows 'em all by heart...I mean there are so many.

    ignorance is no excuse. if you intend to do something as obviously stupid as carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon into a bar, you have, at minimum, a responsibility to learn the basic law in your state/city. this isn't even an issue for discussion, there is no other viable position, period.

    Perhaps as protection, hoping you wouldn't need to use it, but for self-defense if needed.

    then he most certaintly intended to use it, should he feel it necessary. frankly guys, you're just digging his stupid hole deeper, you might consider tossing your shovels to the side, and going and having a drink.

    he established his intent right up front, his lawyer's public claims notwithstanding, and admitted them, multiple times.

    as for the self-defense part: why go somewhere you feel you might need a gun for self-defense, unless you absolutely, positively had to, in the first place? he didn't need to go anywhere, he chose to.

    this gives me the impression he was maybe looking for trouble in the first place (just a guess), which, if true, completely destroys his whole "i had no intent" claim.

    that said, 20 months is excessive, for being stupid in public, and only hurting yourself. mr. burress is being used as an example.

    Parent

    It's a scary thought (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    to think that you could be "retired" in your thirties if you were a pro athlete.  Given that reality, I hope every athlete socks away a significant percentage of their income from their first day in professional whatever.  Ten, fifteen years to earn the bulk of your life's income.

    Parent
    for self-defense, obviously (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    And how did that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    work out?

    As I pointed out in another comment, there is some serious irony there, and yet another anecdote for responsible gun owners and shooting ranges to use to point out that being trained in how to properly and safely carry and use a gun is a more valuable investment than the weapon itself.

    I immediately thought of the advice that many women get when they are being stalked or otherwise feel threatened: "Get a gun and learn how to use it.".  

    Is there an assumption that men don't need to learn how to use a gun?  

    Parent

    It worked out poorly (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    but that doesn't make the suggestion that the only reason to carry a gun is that you intend to shoot someone any more intelligent.

    Parent
    according to standard gun safety (none / 0) (#63)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    rules (see the NRA training materials), you don't carry a loaded weaopon anywhere, unless you intend to use it. you might not end up using it, but the stated assumption is that you intend to. you don't point a gun at anyone, unless you intend to shoot them.

    as well, (see above response to jeralyn), you don't go somewhere, where you legitimately feel you might need a weapon for self-defense, unless you absolutely have to. mr. burress didn't have to go to a bar, he chose to. everything after that affirmative act falls directly on him.

    Parent

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:12:53 PM EST
    Saying "he intended to use the gun" and "he intended to use it IF HE GOT ATTACKED" are two entirely different things.

    And it doesn't square with most people's reality to say that if you think it's possible you could run into trouble, you don't ever leave the house.

    The question was whether he had an intent to violate the law.  You don't violate the law by defending yourself, nor is it a persuasive argument to blame the victim by saying "you should never ever go anywhere where you might potentially have to defend yourself."

    Parent

    Honestly, I think the sentence is about right (none / 0) (#59)
    by nyjets on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    I do not think this is an outrageous sentence. The man brought a unlicensed firearm into a public place. The gun went off and I consider it amazing noone got hurt. Two years is about right for what he did.

    he had a license for it in Florida (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:52:46 PM EST
    just not NY. It wasn't an illegal weapon or sawed off shotgun. He had no prior convictions. Maybe 10 days would be ok but two years is close to absurd considering he was the only one hurt.

    It's a stupid law passed by the gun control crazies.


    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#66)
    by nyjets on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    It was still an illegal weapon in NY. And the fact is that someone else could of gotten hurt. The fact that he was the only one hurt was a matter of luck, not because Burress acted in a responsible matter. I am sorry, 2 years is not unreasonable.

    Parent