Foolishness

First things first- Plax is a idiot. No doubt about it. But three years seems pretty harsh to me. Does he have a prior record? The thing that makes it difficult for me to take is seeing Bloomberg answer a question about it the other day and saying that Burress needs to have the book thrown at him. Are they looking for justice? Or are they trying to make an example out of him? I've already seen that done in the past couple years to an NFL star. And because of it, the Rams' future QB is still wallowing in prison.

"Hey, these guys are role models! Let's lock them up for the longest time possible to send a message!!"

I don't get down with that.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 1:06 PM

"I'd let all the drug dealers go free"

I hate most mandatory minimums and the War on Drugs too, but really? Let all the pushers out? I'd start with letting all the non-violent USERS out first, and seeing how that went, before I'd let the dealers out. Some of those people are really, really bad types.

And I'm with you on the guns. Virginia has a pretty successful program called Project Exile, under which gun crime offenders face harsh prison sentences, regardless of the severity of the underlying offense.

Posted by Claudius | December 3, 2008 1:08 PM

Minima, not minimums. Just saying.

Anyway, this reminds me of the Moral Sense Test. Have you done it? Interesting stuff, and it makes me wish I'd actually taken philosophy classes in college.

Posted by Jonah | December 3, 2008 1:12 PM

When Burress speaks of himself in the third person, does that make the gunshot wound less painful?

Posted by asl | December 3, 2008 1:17 PM

I wouldn't let all the dealers out--I think it's more than a little silly to treat all drugs equally, seeing as some are absolutely more destructive than others--but I would decriminalize weed and let both users and dealers of that substance out of jail. And I mean, like yesterday.

Posted by Incertus (Brian) | December 3, 2008 1:18 PM

But TNC, Owens DID kill his teams. All the Giants have done is keep on keepin' on. They won a Super Bowl, and are currently the best team in the NFL, with or without Burress. Now, the real question is whether Plax brings down Antonio Pierce too. THAT would kill the Giants.

Posted by MikeNJD | December 3, 2008 1:18 PM

Coates

First of all you have just officially jinxed the Cowboys now and if TO has an "episode" I am going to hold you accountable!

Second of all there is some kind of perhaps interconnected story out there about how another Giants reciever got jacked at gun point last Tuesday, 5 days before Plax shot himself. Not saying that could possibly excuse him because the law is the law, and he has enough money to hire security. But I am just wondering if anybody is going to give a good faith effort to connect those dots

Third one of the things the NFL has in big supply is hypocrisy. On Sunday I watched Chris Carter who is definitely a good guy and was a helluva reciever talk about how he always respected the game and was just outraged over Plaxico shooting himself. Well uhmmm Chris weren't you a coke head early on in your career? Next up we see Emmitt Smith saying the Giants need to get rid of the cancer. Well Emmitt you are my dog and every thing and so is Money Mike but wasn't Mike Irvin snort coke, pulling knives on teammates, and (alledgedly) assaulting women on video during his career? When Money Mike actually was brought up Emmitt brushed off the comparison by saying Money Mike was a hard worker. WTF? Next thing you know OJ will release a statement saying they should throw the book at Plax. Its ridiculous.

4. It was the height of irony that Plaxico shot himself the day before a game where the Redskins were retiring Sean Taylor's jersey after he was shot and killed in his home last year. Double irony that they shared the same agent.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 1:19 PM

I'm a Giants fan and not going to agree to not call TO a team killer until Plaxico's legal troubles actually have a materially adverse effect on the Giants performance. But I don't see that happening. Steve Smith, Domenic (or howeve you spell his first name) Hixon and Well Dressed Amani Toomer have the passing game well in hand from the receiver side.

One the legal side, mandatory minimums are beyond stupid. I'm with you on violent crime TNC, but I'm not sure that what Burress did can be lumped into that category. I haven't heard reports of him brandishing the weapon he was carrying and the sort of counterfactuals along the lines of "what if the bullet had richoted..." don't really work. At least not to the tune of 3 1/2 years in prison or even jail time if this is his first offense. For instance, if you cut someone off in traffic you could have caused an accident, we can run all sorts of hypotheticals about how somebody's kid could have been hurt by said accident, but we don't generally throw people in jail for bad/reckless driving especially when no bystander was actually injured and the incident was a first offense.

Sorry for the long post. Slow day at work.

Posted by AMT | December 3, 2008 1:25 PM

For the life of me, I can't imagine why you would ever go to a club where you FELT YOU NEEDED A GUN. And in the end that's what bodyguards are for aren't they? I mean seriously Plax.

Plus, unless you are trained it is SUPER EASY for a better than average combatant to get the drop on you, gun or not, which just makes it that much more silly.

I get that being strapped makes them feel safe, but IMO that's what your fist and bodyguards, if necessary are for.

ESPN the Mag had a good piece on this last month.

k1

Posted by kforceone | December 3, 2008 1:32 PM

I'd also like to say that:

(1) Plaxico was an idiot for putting himself in this situation. Apparently the NFL provides bodyguards for these guys if they request them and the bodyguards are licensed to carry.

(2) I can't stand when people want to throw the book at athletes just because they're athletes. It's as bad as atheletes getting treated as if they're above the law.

(3) The problem with political grandstanding even in the case of gun violence or something similarly as serious is that politicians are screwing with people's lives just to score points.

Posted by AMT | December 3, 2008 1:33 PM

What if he had killed somebody? We have to punish rank stupidity don't we?

I don't think it's a good idea to punish people based on what could have happened.

Posted by dwhite10701 | December 3, 2008 1:34 PM

kforceone

I have a major major major problem with that argument that guns make "them" feel safe. Now i might be wrong and if so I apologize but if you are saying "them" as in all or even most NFL players i totally disagree. For one there are 53 players on every NFL roster with most teams also having an additional 8 players on practice squad. And so far this year I have heard of precisely 1 gun incident where the player had a gun and we are talking about it right now. Gun ownership is not in and of itself a problem. Doing dumb sh!t with a gun is the problem. Lets not over look the fact that the NRA is a huge mostly white male institution and they don't think ANY gun law is just. So why then when an NFL player is arrested for a gun related offense doesn't anyone ever call out the NRA? I can tell you why. Because its easier to try to paint a picture that "half of the NFL is packing heat" as I heard the reformed coke snorter Chris Carter say this past Sunday is both ridiculous and irresponsible. I say irresponsible because if you say gun and NFL player in the same sentence the majority of people get a mental picture of a black man. Do I have a poll to back that up? Nope, but I stand by it and believe with all my heart its true. So now you have joe blow fan watching football listening to Chris Carter and he looks at a guy like Warrick Dunn who helps put single moms into houses every year during the holidays as a potential gun toter. You know we all look alike anyway. Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg, the other two NFL players with him didn't have a gun. So maybe its just a Plaxico Burress problem and not an NFL player problem.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 1:49 PM

yeah... you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot there with that T.O. comparison (although i dont really consider T.O. a 'team killer' either, that's a cop-out), since the giants seem to have a real professional ability to focus, as well as to adapt to playing at the same high level without plaxico.

i don't think plaxico deserves much jail time for not registering his weapon with the government. he deserves some, but less than that mandatory minimum. i mean, would having papers for it have prevented the moron from letting the gun go off and possibly hurt someone else? do they do an IQ test for concealed carry? (not that i put much stock in IQ but you get my drift.)

Posted by sv | December 3, 2008 1:49 PM

Giant fans can talk all they want, because with Plax, the Giants have won a Superbowl. Have the Cowboys won a playoff game with T.O.?

Also, the Giants actually discipline their players when they do something wrong. Did the Cowboys buy Pacman a puppy when he came back, or did they just give him all his old responsibilities?

Posted by Giantfan | December 3, 2008 1:49 PM

"Now i might be wrong and if so I apologize but if you are saying "them" as in all or even most NFL players i totally disagree."

sg, I think he was just referring to players that carry guns as 'them.' He wasn't saying that all NFL players carry guns. I feel you on the larger point, but I don't think that's what kfor was getting at.

For me, if I needed to carry a gun to a club to feel safe, I'd probably head to my local dive bar instead. Or stay in all together.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 1:55 PM

I don't think it's a good idea to punish people based on what could have happened.

So, no DUI laws, huh? "I was swerving all over the road with a BAC of .15, but I didn't actually hit anyone, your honor!"

If I shoot at you and miss, should I get prosecuted? No one got hurt, after all.

So maybe its just a Plaxico Burress problem and not an NFL player problem.

Well, there was the whole Marvin Harrison incident less than a year ago. Maybe it's a wideout problem.

Posted by Pesto | December 3, 2008 1:55 PM

let's take care of the preliminary matters. first, plax is a damn fool and i disapprove of his actions. second, minimums is just fine. the language evolves and minimums doesn't bring (most) people up short wondering about whether minima is a nissan or some kind of ancient curse.

mandatory minimums are political grandstanding---look at me, i passed a law that's TOUGH ON CRIME. i think mandatory mimums are bad policy, bad law, and i'd love to see most of them eliminated. here's the thing, though, mandatory minimums are not self enforcing. prosecutors have enormous discretion as to what offenses to charge, and, in most prosecutorial offices, charges can be changed or lessened. many, many of the people who end up doing mandatory time---and we're talking 10, 20, life---are doing it becuase the prosecutor was overinvested in the case and wouldn't take a plea to anything less than a statute with a mandatory minimum. once there is a conviction on a mandatory minimum offense, the judges hands are tied. then the judge, the prosecutors, and the press cries crocodile tears about how this "had to happen, we had know choice." not true. there were lots of points at which the mandatory minimum could have been taken out of the process. (some prosecutor's offices put up convoluted reduction "policies," but that too is mostly cover)

i hope the NY prosecutors are grandstanding in plax's case. This is not a man whose behavior, stupid though it was, or record suggests he needs hard time. a plea to a lesser charge and some hard. prefeably somehwat shaming to him, public service is plenty of punishment. if the prosecutors insist on the 3 1/2 year sentence, they will have done plax wrong and shamed themselves. will the press call them on it, or will they pretend it is "the law's" fault?"

for all my dislike of most mandatory minimums, i'd keep them for guns. they can be a very useful tool for very violent, potentially witness-intimdating offenders. but if we keep them, the prosecutors need to be held accoutnable for how they use them

Posted by big bad wolf | December 3, 2008 1:55 PM

The case against Owens was always really weak, mostly a case of people not liking him. During that mid-seasons stretch a couple of years ago when Owens was front-page news every day (with the Eagles), I'd ask people, "Tell me what he's done, explain it to me." And people would say "he's disrespeted his quarterback, his coach, he's in it for himself." Uhhh, okay. So basically nothing. I mean the list of crimes here is just really short and vague. If I were a GM I don't know if I'd want T.O. either, but people were talking about banning him from the sport. There was just never any rational basis for that.

Posted by Martin | December 3, 2008 1:58 PM

I wholeheartedly agree that Plax is an idiot, but seriously; this seems excessive. Did he actually commit a violent crime? No. Did he bring a gun with the intention of committing a violent crime? From what I've read, it certainly seems not be the case.

Yes, he should be punished for using one in an extremely irresponsible manner and endangering public safety, but up to 15 years in prison? Come on! Christ, people who get drunk and kill somebody with their car often receive smaller sentences and owning a car isn't a constitutionally protected right - and I say this as someone who IS NOT a big fan of the Second Amendment.

I think too many people are jumping on the, "Let's stick it to another rich athlete with a giant ego" bandwagon.

Just in case anybody suspects my motives, let me just say I'm a Broncos fan and loathe the Giants.

Posted by FRIFL | December 3, 2008 2:03 PM

"what if he had killed somebody"

i think thats the whole point. he took a loaded gun into a crowded club and it went off.

it's only by sheer coincidence (luck doesn't seem like the right word here) that he only hurt himself. but its completely within the realm of possibility that the bullet, instead of entering his thigh, ricocheted off the floor and ended up lodged in someone's skull.

thats the reason they have gun laws in new york, and its the reason they're so strict about them.

if he doesn't get the mandatory minimum, which is, well,mandatory, it will be very hard to argue that his celebrity status wasn't the sole reason.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 2:06 PM

I can't believe that SCOTUS hasn't struck down mandatory sentencing as an unacceptable interference into the judiciary by legislators. It seems pretty clear to me that one intent of the Constitution is to protect people from the whims of grandstanding pols.

Posted by MikeF | December 3, 2008 2:07 PM

"if he doesn't get the mandatory minimum, which is, well,mandatory, it will be very hard to argue that his celebrity status wasn't the sole reason."

If he doesn't get the mandatory sentence, it will be because he's extremely wealthy and has good attorneys. He'll probably plea out of the higher charge.

"I think too many people are jumping on the, "Let's stick it to another rich athlete with a giant ego" bandwagon."

I think this is almost precisely what it is.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 2:11 PM

Sullivan had a nice link about the NRA's lack of noisemaking for Burress...

Posted by Joel | December 3, 2008 2:22 PM

Isn't the point of harsh anti gun laws to send a message?

He took a loaded gun with the safety off into a crowded nightclub and it went off, it is pure luck that he only shot himself in the thigh instead of killing someone.

This should be a serious crime, this isn't someone leaving a gun in his luggage and forgetting about it.

Again he carried a loaded, ready to fire gun into a crowded night club. Guns aren't toys.

Posted by eric k | December 3, 2008 2:22 PM

"So, no DUI laws, huh?"

I think the point dwhite was making (forgive me for speaking for you, if I get it wrong) is that the law should not punish people for things that they could have cause through an illegal action as if that thing had actually happened. And to address DUIs specifically, I'm not aware of any laws where people do jail time (at least not serious time) for a first offense.

Posted by AMT | December 3, 2008 2:23 PM

AMT,

I agree that we shouldn't punish people as if "something had happened". If I shoot at you and miss, I shouldn't be punished as if the bullet had hit you and killed you. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be punished at all for doing something reckless and dangerous.

Plaxico shouldn't be punished as if he'd shot someone else in the club. But he should be punished.

Posted by Pesto | December 3, 2008 2:28 PM

So, no DUI laws, huh? "I was swerving all over the road with a BAC of .15, but I didn't actually hit anyone, your honor!"

If I shoot at you and miss, should I get prosecuted? No one got hurt, after all.

I think you are missing the point of the comment you were responding to. DUI laws punish drunk driving, not vehicular homicide. If I shoot at you and miss, I might get charged with attempted murder but certainly not murder. There are punishments that are appropriate to carrying an unlicensed weapon. There is certainly disagreement over how severe they should be but what might have happened is, at best, peripheral to how those statutes should be applied in the case of Plaxico Burress or, at least they should be. As someone else pointed out above, it is not even clear why his having a registration for the weapon would have made any difference to what might have happened. He might have been just as careless. We don't know and it really only makes sense to create policy to respond to what we do know, not an alternate reality.

Posted by brent | December 3, 2008 2:32 PM

Funny how you don't hear the gun rights folks jumping in about his constitutional right to bear arms? Why isn't the NRA rushing to his defense?
Suppose there had been a terrorist in the club? Plaxico could have...........
OK, I guess its too easy to joke about this. Generally, the gun nuts tend to paint a picture of the gun toting civilian leaping to stop a robber or terrorist with some quick straight shooting. Generally, what tends to happen is just this- some idiot shooting himself or someone else by accident with a gun.
Plaxico probably gets a year in jail and probation pleading to a lesser crime.

Posted by stonetools | December 3, 2008 2:45 PM

Brent, I think Plaxico should be punished for bringing a loaded, concealed firearm into a public place that serves alcohol, and for discharging that weapon (albeit accidentally) in a reckless and dangerous way.

Those aren't "what-ifs" -- those are things he actually did. And he should be punished for them.

Posted by Pesto | December 3, 2008 2:50 PM

Pesto,

Not saying Plax shouldn't be punished. He was a dumbass. But 3 1/2 years for carrying an illegal weapon seems unduly harsh. You lose three plus years of your life before you hurt somebody? If he'd threatened someone or something then I can get behind a harsher sentence. We can't have people pointing guns at people in clubs. But he didn't. He was just stupid. 3+ years in jail is a really high tax on stupidity.

Also note, the minimum would apply even if Plax had been smart enough (big IF I know) to engage the safety on the pistol he was carrying. At that point, he wouldn't have been doing something reckless or dangerous assuming the gun manufcaturer had built the weapon properly.

Posted by AMT | December 3, 2008 2:52 PM

erick

From what I have heard it was a glock and they dont have safetys per se. The trigger is a safety (sort of) but glocks are ready to fire guns. Now having said that I have owned 3 different glocks and I know other people who have owned them and I have never heard of one going off accidentally unless someone's finger was on the trigger. So I am really at a loss as to how he shot himself in the club in the first place unless he pulled the trigger when he tried to keep the gun from sliding down his pants leg. As for mandatory sentencing, its circular logic and i will tell you why. You get sentenced for firing a gun while committing a felony. But the felony you are committing is having the gun in the club in the first place. So even if you shoot the gun deliberately into the floor where nobody could possibly be hurt (not saying thats a plausible scenario) you would still be subject to a mandatory sentence. To me thats just crazy as all hell. Having said that I believe he should be punished. But not by handing him the same sentence that a guy who runs up in the club and shoots at a mofo for stepping on his nikes would get.

As for the DUI question. Yes you should be punished for drinking and driving. But you shouldn't be punished for vehicular homicide jsut because if you WOULD have hit somebody you MIGHT have killed them. And thats the same way accidentally shooting yourself and nobody else should work if you ask me.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 2:53 PM

@eric k. criminal law should not be about "sending a message" it should be good policy & proportional punishment.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 3:05 PM

Sounds to me like we all agree (a) that Plaxico should be punished for what he did; (b) that he should be punished less than if he'd shot someone else (much less killed someone else) or if he'd shot the gun deliberately (though I guess he might have done that -- we don't know the details of how the gun went off).

I think all we're possibly disagreeing about is whether 3 1/2 years is too much for the crime he seems to have committed. I'm certainly willing to be persuaded that 3 1/2 is too long, but it doesn't strike me as outrageous on its face.

Posted by Pesto | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM

@eric k. criminal law should not be about "sending a message" it should be good policy & proportional punishment.

Agreed. Mandatory minimums are a bad idea. Burress should be charged and fairly tried, however. There's no ambiguity about his case.

Posted by Joel | December 3, 2008 3:09 PM

Those aren't "what-ifs" -- those are things he actually did. And he should be punished for them.

So we agree.

Posted by brent | December 3, 2008 3:12 PM

@ Joel, I'd be shopcked if this case went anywhere near a court room.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 3:18 PM

Pesto I have some sympathy for Plax simply because he shot himself and now he is paying for it. But thats not a lot of sympathy. I really don't think that 3 1/2 years is appropriate though because again you have people who purposely commit violent crimes like spousal abuse and get less than 3 years. Now here is the deal per SportsCenter a little while ago. Evidently Plax had a permit to carry in florida which expired. He supposedly thought that because of his permit in florida he could carry his weapon in NY. He also says he didnt realize the permit expired. Now I can go ahead and tell you that its bullsh!t on both counts. The NFL every year has the player programs director for each team bring in a retired FBI guy to go over with all of the players the gun regulations in the state which the team plays and or is head quartered in. So at some point somebody had to have told Plaxico that

a) if he had a gun he needed to make sure the registration and any permits were up to date and

b) he couldn't carry a concealed weapon in NY off of a Florida license.

But even after all of that I don't see any reason to believe that Plax had the gun so he could commit some crime. And I don't see any reason to believe that he would do it again in light of the punishment already being meted out. So how is 3 years reasonable with that being the case? He shot himself, he has been embarrased nationwide, he will lose money for the rest of the year and he will probably lose his job. So we should tack 3 1/2 years on to that just because its "mandatory"? I don't know. To me that just seems like overkill.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 3:31 PM

Agreed. Mandatory minimums are a bad idea. Burress should be charged and fairly tried, however. There's no ambiguity about his case.

so would it be fair if he got less time than someone who broke the same law he did? because, if he doesn't get the3.5 years that anybody else would get (it is a MANDATORY minimum, after all) it seems that he's being treated differently and if you treat someone differently than another who broke the same law, that's not "fair". Or, more precisely, that's not equal treatment under the law, which i suppose is what we mean by "fair" in this case.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 3:46 PM

sgwhiteinfla, thanks for the detailed argument. There are still details we don't know -- in particular, exactly how the gun got fired (did it fall? was he readjusting it? pulling it out to show someone?). But I'm definitely curious now about how NYC arrived at the 3 1/2 year mandatory minimum when the law was first passed.

Posted by Pesto | December 3, 2008 3:47 PM

Not saying Plax shouldn't be punished. He was a dumbass. But 3 1/2 years for carrying an illegal weapon seems unduly harsh. You lose three plus years of your life before you hurt somebody?

He did hurt somebody. To continue the DUI metaphor, it's more like someone flipping over his car, not just swerving down the highway-- he had an accident, which proves he was being irresponsible and/or reckless with the gun, not just carrying it illegally.

Posted by Persia | December 3, 2008 3:48 PM

I think it's kind of ridiculous to put Plaxico in jail for this crime. He should get some kind of community service, but instead of the state using its funds to house in him jail, how about he uses his own funds to work with children in his hometown or in New York? He should be obligated to do outreach of some kind. The charge should also be a permanent fixture on his record. I cannot stand when he used our tax dollars to house rich people who commit minor crimes or crimes like this and we could make them use their own money to give back to the community.

Posted by Rainy | December 3, 2008 3:53 PM

Free Plax
Free Vick
Free Benoit
Free Scott Peterson

Posted by FreeBenoit | December 3, 2008 3:56 PM

@freaktown, mandatory minimums are wrong. just because it would like preferantial treatment if Plax doesn't get the full time doesn't mean he should get the full time. As big bad wolf said above, mandatory sentences aren't really mandatory. A prosecutor doesn't have to charge someone with a crime that comes with a mandatory sentence. This happens all the time with "regular" offenders. They plead out to a lessor charge.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 4:00 PM

@ Persia,

I should have said, "before you hurt somebody else." And back to DUIs, if you flip your car and only you are hurt, you're likely to receive a lesser punishment than if you'd hurt someone else.

Besides, the real problem is that minimum. It applies whether somebody catches a bullet or not.

Posted by AMT | December 3, 2008 4:02 PM

Persia

I get your premise but I would say your analogy is a little off. Plax shooting himself in the leg and it being a mild enough injury that two days later he was walking on it to me says DUI wise it would be more like somebody hitting a street sign or fire hydrant, not rolling over a truck. And seriously although those people get arrested, how many times have you heard of someone having a one car involved alcohol related accident getting jail time on their first offense?

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 4:03 PM

i'm not defending mandatory minimums, as i too think they are a bad idea, and when it comes to drug laws, they're racist.

but thats not the point. the point is, he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who broke this law is treated. no better no worse. and seeing as how a mandatory sentence of 3.5 years is imposed on anyone else who broke this very same law, there's absolutely no reason in the world why he should get less time than that.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 4:06 PM

@freaktown, I think maybe you missed this part of my comment:

As big bad wolf said above, mandatory sentences aren't really mandatory. A prosecutor doesn't have to charge someone with a crime that comes with a mandatory sentence. This happens all the time with "regular" offenders. They plead out to a lessor charge.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 4:12 PM

@freaktown, to clarify my last comment. they are mandatory but only if you charge them with the specific crime that goes the mandatory sentence. That is not always the case, celebrity or not.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 4:14 PM

Plax should absolutely get time. There are plenty of hardcore criminals that wouldn't in their wildest dreams try to walk into - not just any club - The fucking LATIN QUARTER with a piece. This is just pure primadonna celebro-thugging. Plax was carrying because he was scared someone would run him for his cash or his jewels - an unlikely event which, had it happened, would've presumably inspired him to pull out and let off in a crowded public area. He didn't give that responsibility to a bodyguard or even some hired hitter. And here you have a man probably more capable of beating ass than 99% of the other patrons in that club. Shameful shit.

Posted by Jonathan | December 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Eddy,

Sending a message is very much part of what laws are about, they aren't just about punishing the current offender. You need to make the penalty severe enough to deter people from comitting the crime, that is what "sending a message" means. If you don't want people carrying loaded guns into nighclubs full of people the punishment needs to be severe enough to deter people from doing it, a slap on the wirst, fine and probabtion ain't gonna cut it.

I'm against mandatory minimums also, but the law In NYC is what it is and applying it to Burress in the same way as to a random hood isn't political grandstanding.

SGW,

If you want to argue that the law in NY has too severe a punishment that is a different argument, change the law, but Burress is subject to the law that exists in NYC today, not what you think it should be,

Posted by eric k | December 3, 2008 4:16 PM

and seeing as how a mandatory sentence of 3.5 years is imposed on anyone else who broke this very same law, there's absolutely no reason in the world why he should get less time than that.

Given that your first clause is almost certainly incorrect, I think your argument fails.

I think it is very, very rare that such a sentence will be imposed on a first time offender with no prior record. It is almost certain that a lesser charge will stick. Celebrity or no celebrity.

Posted by gwangung | December 3, 2008 4:16 PM

@gwangung

if they don't impose it, then it's not a mandatory sentence. but seeing as how it is a mandatory sentence, they HAVE to impose it. thats why its, say it with me, MANDATORY.

maybe plaxico doesn't deserve 3.5 yrs in prison. but thats beyond the point because the law says he has to serve it (if convicted on this charge).

they could always change the law to make that no longer true. but unless/until they do that, he has to, by law, serve that time if convicted.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 4:31 PM

Aw man! Taking away the TO???? You have no idea (maybe you do;-) how hard Giants fans worldwide celebrated when he signed with the Eagles. Hell, the pool I was in had him tearing the team apart in his 2nd year...it didn't even take him a half a season. :P

Plax was a marginal impact at best. Reduced to a knuckleheaded scrub now. Bloomberg is talking example setting time ala Mike Vick. He is going to jail, no doubt.

Like Tiki and Shockey before him they can all watch it on TV. Next up Philly.

Posted by MikeCee | December 3, 2008 4:34 PM

Freaktown,

Are you just going to ignore what Eddy has pointed out twice? Its a mandatory sentence if that's the crime that he ends up getting convicted of. We're pretty far from that happening.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 4:35 PM

eric k

I thought the subject HAD shifted to whether mandatory sentences have merit. As both Eddy and big bad wolf have pointed out, its only mandatory if its charged that way. To me this shouldn't rise to the level of a felony of any kind. Again thats my opinion, I don't have any insight into what the law is in New York other than the fact that I know florida concealed weapons licenses don't have reciprocity with NY. I think mandatory sentences tie a Judge's hands when they should have the latitude to weigh other factors like intent, and the amount of damage thats done.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 4:38 PM

"Hell, the pool I was in had him tearing the team apart in his 2nd year...it didn't even take him a half a season. :P"

Hmmm...we're aware that TO helped the Eagles to the Super Bowl, and then had over 100 yards IN the Super Bowl, right?

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 4:40 PM

@freaktown

I don't mean to sound churlish here but I think you are really missing the point. Prosecutors do not have to charge anyone with the specific crime that with a conviction carries a mandatory sentence. They can & do charge people with lessor offenses than the one they specifically committed for a number of reasons. Committing a crime doesn't mean you automatically get prosecuted for that specific crime.

@eric k

Here is what I said:

criminal law should not be about "sending a message" it should be good policy & proportional punishment.

I did not implicitly or explicitly suggest a slap on the wrist as you infer. I specifically said that crimes should be proportional. When we "sending a message" usually we are handing down a punishment disproportionate to the crime. I also did not say that laws aren't about sending a message. They are. I said they shouldn't be. One of the main reasons I oppose the death penalty is that I don't believe it's a deterrent. I don't believe the thought of punishment is a deterrent for the people most likely to commit them.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 4:45 PM

stacy i'm not ignoring it.

maybe you should read what i wrote.

maybe plaxico doesn't deserve 3.5 yrs in prison. but thats beyond the point because the law says he has to serve it (if convicted on this charge).

i'm well aware he could be charged with a lesser offense. my understanding of NYC laws, as limited as it is, is that they take gun violations very seriously and are probably not likely to give him the slap on the wrist that some people think he should get for taking a loaded gun into a crowded club and discharging it recklessly around innocent people and thus putting their lives at risk.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 4:52 PM

freaktown,

I'm with you.

Rich people have good lawyers. Rich people plea bargain to lesser crimes. On top of that, I think he has a pretty clean record. I don't think anyone is saying that he should get convicted of a crime that has a MANDATORY three year sentence and then be sentenced to something less than the mandatory.

I read what you wrote.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 4:56 PM

@freaktown

I'm from NY & they do take gun charges fairly seriously. There are ads about this specific law on subway trains.

I haven't read anyone here thought argue for him to get a lessor sentence under that specific law
I don't think anyone has explicitly said it but what I'm inferring is that some folks here want him to be charged with a lessor offense.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 4:58 PM

I hate mandatory minimums a great deal. A close friend of mine is currently doing minimum 7 years in Oregon for "Arson" (He was screwing around and set fire to a tree in a public park, then immediately freaked out and called the police.)

However, I can't think about the fact that there are almost certainly not-famous black guys up on Riker's Island right now who are serving 3.5 for this exact same crime. If Plax gets off for being famous, isn't it just another fuck you to them? Mandatory Minimums have got to go, but the Rosa Parks of that movement should not be a dumbass NFL Wide Receiver who should have hired a bodyguard.

Posted by OGWiseman | December 3, 2008 5:07 PM

"Minimums have got to go, but the Rosa Parks of that movement should not be a dumbass NFL Wide Receiver who should have hired a bodyguard."

Great line. However, if Plax gets off, its not because he's famous. Its because he's rich. If anything, his celebrity makes the city want to make an example of him.

Posted by Stacy | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM

@OGWiseman, I have a big problem with this logic. So because other people a been f'd over by this law that means Plax should get f'd over too because he's a celebrity? Come on man.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM

eddy

right. i guess some people think he deserves a lesser charge. i don't.

maybe i'm just letting his millions of dollars and his expensive lawyer and his sense of entitlement and his, "i'm above the law and can take an unregistered loaded gun anywhere i want" cloud my judgment.

i'm no fan of mandatory minimums, but like TNC, when it comes to guns I say throw the freakin' book at 'em. We have a serious problem with guns in this country made worse by the fact that most people don't see guns as a problem.

and if you're going to treat your loaded gun like a toy and brandish it about and shoot it off in a crowded club, then i don't think you deserve any breaks or any deals regardless of how clean your prior record is. you know the old saying, don't do the crime if you cant do the time.

maybe burress should have left his gun at home and we wouldn't be debating this issue at all. but he didn't. now he has to take full responsibility for that. and if that means doing hard time, so be it.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM

@freaktown

I sorta/kinda generally agree with what you said but it's a little too black & white for me. Most crimes committed by 1st time offenders just aren't that cut & dry.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 5:18 PM

Mayor Bloomberg needs to denounce the gun-loving Republican Party.

Posted by Watson | December 3, 2008 5:58 PM

two points, i think bear some consideration, when we are locking up other people.

1.prison sucks. i don't even like it when the door slides shut behind me, and i know that i, being the lawyer, get to leave. it's all well and good for people to talk tough about locking up everybody,but do you know what you are sending them to? your freedom is gone. i don't mean you can't go for a drive or out for a beer; i mean you can't do most anything. for an ordianry person (and plax is fairly ordinary in this regard), who made a mistake, a few days of that level of restrictions teaches a big lesson. add in the menacing, the really bad food, and the poor quality of many of the physical facilities
and it's a lesson that will usually stick. i am not suggesting that no one should receive a term of imprisonment that is lengthy; i am saying that being unnecessarily punitive is not just and accomplishes nothing in terms of teaching a lesson (it fosters resentment) or genuinely protecting the public. in this case, i find the idea of locking the dummy up for 3.5 years becuase he shot himself in the leg to be unnecessarily punitive.

2. it's always amusing to me to watch people's attitudes change when it is personal. i hear snide remarks or full-on putdowns about my work all the time. but, lo and behold, when it is their father, brother, son, cousin, coworker, it turns out that he is really a good guy who made a mistake and the law is unfair and why don't people realize this. yet the law is exactly the same as it was when the other guy deservec to be locked up. i think this is becuase it is easier to declaim and summarily judge than to think of people as people with individual merits and flaws. every offense is different, every offender is different. as a practical matter we cannot individualize justice, but we can avoid lengthy mandatory impriosnment statutes. and i thinkk we should before banishing plax to prison for so long, ask, if my kid, dad, or friend did this, would i think he should be locked up for 3.5 years.

Posted by big bad wolf | December 3, 2008 6:27 PM

freaktown

No news report I have seen has said word one about Plax supposedly "brandishing" the gun nor intentionally shooting it off in the club. Now its bad enough in my opinion that he had a loaded weapon in a club that I am pretty sure served liquor. But nobody needs to try to make the story any more sensational than it really was by trying to make it seem like he was clowning with the gun out trying to stunt. And yes I DO think it makes a difference whether the gun accidently went off when it slid down his pants leg where it was concealed or if he had it out "brandishing" it and then the gun went off.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 8:18 PM

sgwhite:

do you really think it matters if it was intention or accidental? he shot a gun in a crowded club.

and its hard to fire a gun unless its in your hand, and if its in your hand, that counts as "brandishing".

stop parsing words.

Posted by freaktown | December 3, 2008 9:04 PM

The second charge against Plaxico is something about presumed intent to do harm. What exactly is Mayor Bloomberg's position on the Bush Doctrine? Bloomberg is such a grandstanding clown. Congrats, NYC, on letting this power-crazed egomaniac pull a Putin in City Hall. Wasn't Giants WR Tim Carter car-jacked, kidnapped, and left in the middle of nowhere two years ago? Wasn't Sean Taylor shot and killed by an intruder last year? And wasn't Javon Walker kidnapped from a Vegas hotel and beaten at the start of this season? Professional athletes are targets. I can easily understand why Plaxico decided he needed a gun.

The reason Plaxico is retarded is because he chose to tuck that pistol into the waistband of his sweatpants and head out to the club. Let me say it again, HIS SWEATPANTS! Not surprisingly, shortly after arriving, the gun begins to slide out of the waistband and fall down his leg. When he grabbed for the falling gun (with drink in hand), it went off in his pants. Moron. Think about pants with a belt next time.

TO might end his career as the greatest wide receiver of all time. The guy is huge and he's faster than Felix Jones at 36 or however old he is. The story of TO in Philly goes like this: TO arrives and carries the Eagles on his back over the hump of the NFC Championship game to the Superbowl. McNabb chokes, TO plays heroically. TO points out this fact when asked by reporters why Eagles lost. The organization freaks and rallies around the "honor" of their star QB and runs TO out of town. The Eagles make the playoffs once in the next three years while TO and Dallas are favorites to reach the Superbowl again. Objectively, the only knock on TO's game is his hands.

Posted by Just Karl | December 3, 2008 9:12 PM

Outside of school, I have lived in an urban setting- around Black people - my entire life.

Never have I owned a gun. Never have I thought I needed to own a gun.

This guy wasn't going into the projects. He was in a nightclub. With an unregistered firearm, and didn't know enough about it so that he shot himself.

If you believe you need a gun, why go to those places. HE had the money, so why not hire protection?

Not feeling the excuses for this dude.

So tired of folks with more money than 99% of the Western World, and being this stupid.

Posted by rikyrah | December 3, 2008 9:19 PM

freaktown

I am not parsing words, you are trying to make the situation into something it wasn't. Like I said he was wrong for having he gun in the first place but nothing in any report talks about him having the gun in his hand. As I said way up top, with a glock you don't have to have the gun in your hand for it to go off because there is no safety and its a semi automatic. All you would need is pressure on the trigger ie a finger hitting the trigger as you try to keep the gun from sliding down the inside of your pants. YOU want to paint the picture of the guy waving the gun around like he was about to rob the whole club or something, I am dealing with the facts as we know them and thats very very far from the truth. You are trying to make ASSumptions based on your limited knowledge of guns evidently but I will say it again that Plax did enough just bringing a loaded gun into a club where they serve alcohol, there is no need to try to make him look dumber or more of a criminal than he already does. Now if you can provide ANY report about the crime which talks about him pulling the gun out or brandishing it then I would be happy to read it and concede the point to you. But until you provide that its obvious that you are misrepresenting the situation.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 9:50 PM

freaktown,

you see no difference between an intentional act and an accident. whoa. glad i'm not your kid. death for spilling milk, i guess.

the law has always made distinctions based on intent. we grasp, instinctively, i think, that deliberate acts are more morally culpable (that is, destructive to the group) than stupid or silly acts that cause harm. we want to discourage stupid and silly acts, but, especially when, as in this case, they only hurt the actor, it makes no sense, individually or societally, to treat them the same as intentional acts that harm others.

and, let's assume there was some evidence, (though i've heard none so so far) of a deliberate showing of the gun. that still is a far cry from brandishing, which is a word connoting wielding a weapon in an intentionally threatening manner.

but, for you, all this is parsing words, i'm sure. you know, and that's all we need to.

Posted by big bad wolf | December 3, 2008 9:55 PM

"TO might end his career as the greatest wide receiver of all time."

Hey, Just Karl, lay off the whiskey there will ya? Owens will not, I repeat NOT, be considered the greatest wide receiver of all time. That's just plain silly.

Also, you said the Cowboys are favorites to go to the superbowl. Are you living in the 70's dude? They're not even winning their division.
I like to talk smack but at least my arguments have some foundation.

Puh-lease!

Posted by Paul gilmartin | December 3, 2008 10:58 PM

So I hail from the midwest. My father taught me how to shoot, and I went through my first gun saftey course at 12 years old.

Buress is an idiot. No more idiotic than a guy who was a year ahead of me in school and acidentally shot and killed his little brother when he was 12 years old but an idiot nonetheless.

This is exactly why when a person purchases a firearm they need to be required to show proof of having gone through a gun saftey class. Hell we require a drving test for getting behind the wheel and yet someone can without proof of competency buy a handgun. Christ it makes me sick. If a person is going to buy a weapon they should be treated with respect. At least know the basic rules of gun saftey and B know how to shoot so you don't accidentally shoot yourself or someone else.

This whole incident is bloody disgracefull. I would be less pissed off if he had intentionally shot someone else. Seriously there is a village somewhere missing its idiot. I don't think the answer is sending the guy to prison. Prison can't fix stupid. A year long gun saftey class might but I doubt it.

Posted by Sorn | December 4, 2008 12:01 AM

Owens will not, I repeat NOT, be considered the greatest wide receiver of all time.

Why? Because you say so? Owens is 2nd (137) on the all-time TD receptions list. Second in the number of multi-TD games and has 7 seasons with 13+ TDs. Only Rice has 8. Owens set an NFL record with 20 catches in a single game. The last game he played in but didn't catch a ball was in his rookie year of 1996. He'll have over 1,000 receptions and 15,000 yds when he retires. And in my opinion, Owens has been the most physically dominating receiver I've ever seen. He's changed the wide receiver position in the NFL in a way that Rice did not.

Also, you said the Cowboys are favorites to go to the superbowl. Are you living in the 70's dude? They're not even winning their division.

Dallas was like 6/1 at the start of the season. You could bet the Big 3 vs the Field at the Monte Carlo in Vegas, I know for a fact. The Big 3 being Dallas, Indy, and the Pats. I don't know the odds at this moment but I'd guess that Dallas is still one of the favorites. And dude, who won the NFC East last year and who won the Superbowl?

I like to talk smack but at least my arguments have some foundation.

all evidence to the contrary

Posted by Just Karl | December 4, 2008 12:02 AM

Let me clarify what I meant when I said that I would be less pissed off if he had intentionally shot someone else. At least then he could be sent to jail with a clear conscience. Do the crime serve the time. It seems like a needless waste to lock someone up for being a dumbass. There are a lot of dumbasses in this world. They need education not prison time.

Posted by Sorn | December 4, 2008 12:08 AM

Sorry should have edited before I posted that rant. Further clarification.

If a person is going to buy a weapon the weapon should be treated with respect.

Posted by sorn | December 4, 2008 12:12 AM

Just Karl, speaking of no foundation to arguments, you're changing yours as you go.
You initially said "TO and Dallas are favorites to reach the Superbowl again" and then said "I'd guess that Dallas is still one of the favorites".
Well, which one is it? Are they favorites or not? Answer: NO!

Next, with regard to my statement that Owens will not be regarded as the best receiver ever, you said "Why? Because you say so?", but then finish your argument with "Owens has been the most physically dominating receiver I've ever seen." So, do our opinions count in this or not?
The answer is, of course they do. Anytime you have an argument as to who is "the best ever", it all comes down to opinion. I'm not arguing that Owens is crap or even that he's an asshole. He is a great receiver with excellent talent but his accomplishments just don't stack up to be considered the best ever.

Finally, let's get the facts straight. You stated "The story of TO in Philly goes like this: TO arrives and carries the Eagles on his back over the hump of the NFC Championship game to the Superbowl." Seems like you're conveniently forgetting that owens was injured and didn't play in ANY post-season games except the superbowl. Did he make a massive contribution to the team in the regular season and the superbowl? Of course! Did he carry the team on his back over the hump of the NFC championship game? Eh, that would be no.

Posted by Paul Gilmartin | December 4, 2008 1:15 AM

One other point about Owens in Philly, Karl. Regarding their defeat in the superbowl, you said "McNabb chokes, TO plays heroically." Um, do you know anything about football? How can a receiver be a hero and his quarterback, the guy THROWING HIM THE BALL, be a choke? Did every pass McNabb throw suck but the ones in Owens general direction were amazingly hauled in by our hero??? I'm not saying McNabb should have been MVP or anything but "McNabb chokes, TO plays heroically", come on!

Posted by Paul Gilmartin | December 4, 2008 1:26 AM

Paul wins. Because I say so.

C'mon Just Karl, you had to know that T.O. didn't play in the playoffs until the SB, right? Yikes.

Posted by Stacy | December 4, 2008 1:40 AM

Just Karl,

You are aware that they changed the rules so current players liek TO and Randy Moss play in a much easier environment for WRs than Jerry Rice did right?

Comparing numbers across erss is always problematic anyway, in teh NFL eher the

TrackBack

Comments (83)