David Gregory Violates DC Gun Law

[xtry51]

It's not considered a confession, which what I said. Read my post where I mentioned that it may or may not be admissible depending on the court. I also said that it would never stand on it's own in court. If you have some legal precedence that you can show me where a spontaneous utterance alone was enough to convict someone, I'd love to see it. In fact, I'll make a $20 donation in your name to the pro-2A organization of your choice if you can provide me with a case where a person was convicted based on a spontaneous utterance with no other evidence whatsoever (I'll end up making the same donation later in my own name when you can't come up with one).


ETA: I didn't realize I had failed to fix a mistake in my other post - it is not labeled "hearsay." That term only applies to second hand admissions of guilt.

Every time some attempts robbery by saying "I have a gun, give me all your money" without ever actually displaying a weapon.

It's is more than enough to prosecute and convict.

Next question?

- - - Updated - - -

Simply show me a case where someone has been convicted only on a spontaneous utterance with no other evidence, then. Shouldn't be hard, right? $20 in your name to the pro-2A organization of your choice to show me that.

See above. $20 to Comm2A

 

[That Guy]

Give me a break - that's not a spontaneous utterance of guilt. That's assault. The actual words being spoken are the crime. That's not even close to what we're talking about here.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize JWPaolilliJr is a former police officer right?

I thought it was universally acknowledged on NES that police officers are the worst people in the world to ask about legal matters?

 

[xtry51]

It's words. The robber never needs to physically touch the victim.

Explain how this case is any different? He was in the commission of a crime, possessing a magazine, and during the commission of said crime he claimed the mag he was holding was real.

It's the same situation. Talking about the crime while committing it is admissible in court.

Even in the robbery case I gave no real gun need ever be recovered to be charged and convicted of using a gun in commission of a crime.

 

[bill o]

I thought it was universally acknowledged on NES that police officers are the worst people in the world to ask about legal matters?

You have it all wrong. When a former police officer supports your internet argument, then he is an expert on the law. Otherwise he shoots dogs and should be stacked like cordwood.

 

[qmmo]

I am former LEO and have a lot of respect for everything Mr. Paolilli has to say. While I may not agree with 100% of of what he posts I do respect from whence it came. He paid his dues. Many times over. Environmental POs have a very tough gig...and he did it for a long time. I got to know a couple of EnvPOs when I went through the academy in '77. Good people. The kind of folks we want on our side.

 

[Palladin]

when was the girl charged $500 for transporting a wounded woodpecker???? Christ!!!

 

[pdm]

Put it this way - if I went on TV tonight and claimed I murdered Jimmy Hoffa, it may be enough evidence to begin an investigation, but barring some other evidence cropping up, the case isn't even making it to court, much less getting me convicted.

That's because murder isn't a malum prohibitum law with no other elements that need to be satisfied. In the case of the DC AWB, mere possession (caught on tape) is the crime. You don't need any mens rea and you have no other doctrine that can excuse your breaking of the law, you have only the statutory exemptions (in this case, typically police and a limited one for military under orders).

My own personal preference would be to see Gregory charged, convicted and then reversed on appeal to SCOTUS. This would be an excellent case (he's not a criminal) for good binding precedent (mag bans suck). But I'm a realist enough to know this will go nowhere.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

when was the girl charged $500 for transporting a wounded woodpecker???? Christ!!!

Rescinded: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4398682...els-fine-woodpecker-saviors-mom/#.UN-FI2-RRfk

 

[That Guy]

That's because murder isn't a malum prohibitum law with no other elements that need to be satisfied. In the case of the DC AWB, mere possession (caught on tape) is the crime. You don't need any mens rea and you have no other doctrine that can excuse your breaking of the law, you have only the statutory exemptions (in this case, typically police and a limited one for military under orders).

My own personal preference would be to see Gregory charged, convicted and then reversed on appeal to SCOTUS. This would be an excellent case (he's not a criminal) for good binding precedent (mag bans suck). But I'm a realist enough to know this will go nowhere.

So you're telling me if Gregory did, in fact, have a prop magazine or a ten rounder that looked like a 30, the fact that he said it was a 30 makes him guilty of possession? If he had a bag of oregano but referred to it as marijuana would he be guilty of possession?

 

[cekim]

So you're telling me if Gregory did, in fact, have a prop magazine or a ten rounder that looked like a 30, the fact that he said it was a 30 makes him guilty of possession? If he had a bag of oregano but referred to it as marijuana would he be guilty of possession?

The police should investigate as they are. He made claim on national television that indicated he was violating the law. Just as any security camera footage is used as evidence in a crime, so too is this footage evidence. If the outcome of that investigation concludes that it was indeed a prohibited item, then he should be prosecuted.

As I said, I would be an advocate for his defense if he were to recant his support for this nonsense law. Until that time, I will advocate for his prosecution under the law he seeks to strengthen.

The rest is pure and useless speculation. The video is evidence and the people also on film are witnesses. There are no doubt possible explanations that would exonerate him and I would never advocate that he not be entitled to due process.

 

[xtry51]

So you're telling me if Gregory did, in fact, have a prop magazine or a ten rounder that looked like a 30, the fact that he said it was a 30 makes him guilty of possession? If he had a bag of oregano but referred to it as marijuana would he be guilty of possession?

Again, in DC it doesn't matter if its a 10 round blocked or a prop. If it can be "readily modified" to be 30 again its illegal.

So yes.

 

[AntiHippie]

So you're telling me if Gregory did, in fact, have a prop magazine or a ten rounder that looked like a 30, the fact that he said it was a 30 makes him guilty of possession? If he had a bag of oregano but referred to it as marijuana would he be guilty of possession?

In a lot of places - yes.

 

[strangenh]

In a lot of places - yes.

Quite correct... and for a different reason, too. Anyhow, like JW said, apples, oranges, hearsay, hearsay exceptions, not hearsay... really, this makes for a very interesting thread. Please, keep it up! Possibly we can get some obscure First Amendment doctrine hashed about here before the person being investigated brings it up.

 

[bill o]

In a lot of places - yes.

Can you possess illegal drugs when not possessing illegal drugs? Absolutely, when you're selling oregano but representing it as marijuana. But that has nothing to do with the magazine incident.

 

[Coyote33]

here

Gregory under investigation, out of headlines

 

[SteelShooter]

Shocker

Last Friday, NBC's David Gregory was making headlines as the subject of a D.C. police investigation after having displayed an empty gun magazine on live television. Later that day, NBC announced that Gregory had landed an exclusive interview with President Obama, and the issue more or less went away.

 

[mikem317]

I guess we'll all have to be aspiring TV news anchors when the magazine ban comes, right? Maybe we'll all get interviews with the president.

 

[cekim]

I guess we'll all have to be aspiring TV news anchors when the magazine ban comes, right? Maybe we'll all get interviews with the president.

It is a pattern with this administration as well as Chicago politics in general, they need to establish that you have criminal credentials before they can trust you.

 

[Pilgrim]

from the article: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/gregory-under-investigation-out-of-headlines-153043.html)

Those who argue that the investigation is ludicrous have a point: Showing an empty gun magazine on television, though illegal in Washington, D.C., was hardly going to harm anyone.

Well then, it's ok to break laws. I think I'll use that excuse.

 

[xtry51]

from the article: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/gregory-under-investigation-out-of-headlines-153043.html)



Well then, it's ok to break laws. I think I'll use that excuse.

Exactly. By extension anyone should be able to conceal carry then without a permit. Beat them to death with their own logic.

 

[SteelShooter]

Million magazine march on DC, everyone bring one

 

[exo]

I really really wish that Wayne had called him on it on the air. Opportunity wasted.

 

[Maxpower]

I really really wish that Wayne had called him on it on the air. Opportunity wasted.

Is it possible he didn't know?

 

[OfficerObie59]

Those who argue that the investigation is ludicrous have a point: Showing an empty gun magazine on television, though illegal in Washington, D.C., was hardly going to harm anyone.

"Hardly going to harm anyone...." Yeah, just like the millions of high-cap mags in the hands of law abiding gun owners.

- - - Updated - - -

I really really wish that Wayne had called him on it on the air. Opportunity wasted.

Is it possible he didn't know?

Wayne was so awful in that appearance, it's likely he just wasn't quick enough to catch it.

 

[Fixxah]

"That Guy"

Still a douche, even in the New Year. Bravo.

Open your eyes to see the light.

-tapatalk and Devin McCourty blow chunks-