did david gregory break the law on meet the press holding up that magazine

[saveliberty]

40 pages! This now reeks of desperation.

Yep, the left defending a leftie despite his own company plainly stating Gregory went outside the law. Pretty desperate bunch you folks.

 

[Pogo]

Then, dumb it down for me, Val. How does a law not apply if no harm was done as a result of breaking that law.

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens?

I only get a ticket when caught.

Is that particular law aimed at pregnant women speeding toward the hospital or do exceptional circumstances not also exist in your world?

Apples and chainsaws: Where was the life or death emergency in this situation?

Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

The aim of this law IS absolutely personal safety, thus why the District decided it is illegal to be in possession of such a magazine and the District code mentions zero exceptions to that law. It doesn't say we only enforce it when ghetto rats, gangs, or guys with low-hanging pants have one. It doesn't say when a decent looking white man wearing a suit and tie on the tube has one, we turn our heads and ignore the law, especially when his employer asked us if he could break the law and we said no (duh).

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

 

[Pogo]

40 pages! This now reeks of desperation.

Actually 'now' is misplaced. This thread jumped the shark at post #1. And you want a laugh? Here it is-- read the last line:

David Gregory presses Wayne LaPierre, may have violated law | The Daily Caller

hope someone calls the dc atf

 

[Si modo]

When you speed on the highway do you get a ticket every time or only when shit happens?

I only get a ticket when caught.

Apples and chainsaws: Where was the life or death emergency in this situation?

Is the aim of that law not personal safety and not just bullshit justification? In this thread I am obviously referring specifically to THIS particular law on this topic and not every other law you may imagine...

The aim of this law IS absolutely personal safety, thus why the District decided it is illegal to be in possession of such a magazine and the District code mentions zero exceptions to that law. It doesn't say we only enforce it when ghetto rats, gangs, or guys with low-hanging pants have one. It doesn't say when a decent looking white man wearing a suit and tie on the tube has one, we turn our heads and ignore the law, especially when his employer asked us if he could break the law and we said no (duh).

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

We'll see what a judge, the one in authority to decide that, thinks. I'm not so sure it will wash all that well, especially when NBC was told by the cops not to do it, yet they still did it. I do believe there is another code concerning that, too. It's a blatant disrespect for the law. Sorry ironic as well.

 

[bripat9643]

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

The law doesn't mention anything about "causing harm" or the aim of possessing such a magazine. The law is the law. You want to let a law breaker off simply because you agree with his position. Sorry, but the law doesn't work like that.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's "a harmless incident" to be in possession of a magazine, then why does the District have a law against it?

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

Appropriately said, and if and when the DA gets this case this would be the reasoning that he (>OR SHE<) takes into account.

See how easy it is when cooler heads prevail?

No it won't. The DA isn't permitted to take anything into account except what the law says.

Yeah, it's always easier when sleazy cronies ignore the law.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes they do for the purpose of demonstration. Been done forever. Remember elementary school when they would have people come in and talk about drugs? How do you think they were able to bring all those samples with them?

I don't ever recall seeing samples of any actual drugs.

 

[bripat9643]

Your key phrase is "ordered to do something illegal". That means you have to know you'd be doing something illegal. What I'm saying is that in this case that question would have been investigated and resolved by Gregory's producer -- not by David Gregory. That's just the figurehead we see on the screen.

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

All you're doing is ignoring the point in Latin. The fact remains that all that was in response to a poster who tried to suggest that David Gregory acted alone.
Ignorantia posterius neminem excusat, et ad deum qui letificat juventutem meam (that was taught to me by Incontinentia Buttocks).

It doesn't matter whether he acted alone. If he held up an actual 30 round magazine, he broke the law.

End of story.

 

[Si modo]

The law is not against this particular incident which caused no harm...The law is aimed at public safety and the entire point of having the magazine there on that news program was to convince people how ridiculous it was that an average person should have one, because of all the harm...

Appropriately said, and if and when the DA gets this case this would be the reasoning that he (>OR SHE<) takes into account.

See how easy it is when cooler heads prevail?

No it won't. The DA isn't permitted to take anything into account except what the law says.

Yeah, it's always easier when sleazy cronies ignore the law.

The DA can also consider passing if s/he feels the chance of conviction are slim. But, that wouldn't seem to apply in this case.

 

[saveliberty]

This goes badly for Gregory at almost every scenario.

1. NBC turns over magazine and Gregory's prints are on them.
2. Magazine is "lost"; withholding evidence.
3. A prop is produced which doesn't match the well documented video footage.

Remember David, its the cover up that seals your fate.

 

[Pogo]

I only get a ticket when caught.

Apples and chainsaws: Where was the life or death emergency in this situation?

The aim of this law IS absolutely personal safety, thus why the District decided it is illegal to be in possession of such a magazine and the District code mentions zero exceptions to that law. It doesn't say we only enforce it when ghetto rats, gangs, or guys with low-hanging pants have one. It doesn't say when a decent looking white man wearing a suit and tie on the tube has one, we turn our heads and ignore the law, especially when his employer asked us if he could break the law and we said no (duh).

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

We'll see what a judge, the one in authority to decide that, thinks. I'm not so sure it will wash all that well, especially when NBC was told by the cops not to do it, yet they still did it. I do believe there is another code concerning that, too. It's a blatant disrespect for the law. Sorry ironic as well.

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all (nor is it against the law-- "you can't legislate respect", sayeth Captain Obvious). We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

 

[bripat9643]

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

In other words, if some lefty breaks the law, that's OK because he had good intentions, but if a righty breaks the law, nail his ass to the wall.

That's what I love about lefties: they parade their hypocrisy as if it was a virtue.

 

[Si modo]

You guys (I mean that loosely) are arguing the letter versus the spirit of the law, you know.

We'll see what a judge, the one in authority to decide that, thinks. I'm not so sure it will wash all that well, especially when NBC was told by the cops not to do it, yet they still did it. I do believe there is another code concerning that, too. It's a blatant disrespect for the law. Sorry ironic as well.

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all. We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

Oh, I think LaPierre would be very willing to testify.

Video is sure as hell evidence, unless there is a problem with chain of custody. That's not going to happen.

It is sure looking like a lot of folks want to excuse white guys in suits who break this law. Hmmmmm.

 

[Synthaholic]

No need to be sorry. It's just revealing.

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

Well, you are very butch.

 

[Pogo]

We'll see what a judge, the one in authority to decide that, thinks. I'm not so sure it will wash all that well, especially when NBC was told by the cops not to do it, yet they still did it. I do believe there is another code concerning that, too. It's a blatant disrespect for the law. Sorry ironic as well.

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all. We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

Oh, I think LaPierre would be very willing to testify.

Video is sure as hell evidence, unless there is a problem with chain of custody. That's not going to happen.

It is sure looking like a lot of folks want to excuse white guys in suits who break this law. Hmmmmm.

Oh I don't think so, it would be a conflict of interest for him. And for the NRA, which has been relentlessly pushing the case against such laws.

NRA president David Keene said Thursday that David Gregory should not be prosecuted over the gun magazine he showed on "Meet the Press."

...Keene appeared on CNN on Thursday. When asked if he believed Gregory should be prosecuted, he responded, "No, I don't think so."

He said that Gregory's actions showed that owning a magazine is "a silly felony." He continued, "I really think what David Gregory did while he was inadvertently flouting the law was illustrating in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are."

-- David Gregory Should Not be Prosecuted

The NRA may be a great many things, a great many of them evil, but they're not stupid.

And no I don't think video is evidence. Whatever he was holding looked to me like a section from a child's race car game. You can't prove what it was from a video. As for "chain of custody", where do you see a seizure? This idea wasn't even brought up until the show was over and everybody left. You're trying to recreate an incident from the past with nothing to go on but a video. And you have one witness, who's in no position to testify for the prosecution, and has an interest in the defense.

How's that for irony? The NRA could testify in David Gregory's defense. Such is the circus when the rabid go in pursuit of political prisoners.

 

[Si modo]

"Disrespect for the law" irrelevant, if it's even present at all. We've already established and agreed that the cops do not determine what the law is. Therefore "told by the cops not to do it" is meaningless. That was an opinion, and it was already contradicted by another opinion from other cops who told them an empty one was OK.

I doubt very much it would get to a judge. I believe the DA is the one who prosecutes or declines to prosecute, if anyone prosecutes at all. What would they do at this point anyway -- watch a video? That's not evidence. No arrest was made on the set and no police were there. Who do they have for a witness? Wayne LaPierre? You think he's going to testify to enforce a gun law?

That's why I keep saying the office to go to to ask this question would have been the DA.

Oh, I think LaPierre would be very willing to testify.

Video is sure as hell evidence, unless there is a problem with chain of custody. That's not going to happen.

It is sure looking like a lot of folks want to excuse white guys in suits who break this law. Hmmmmm.

Oh I don't think so, it would be a conflict of interest for him. And for the NRA, which has been relentlessly pushing the case against such laws.

NRA president David Keene said Thursday that David Gregory should not be prosecuted over the gun magazine he showed on "Meet the Press."

...Keene appeared on CNN on Thursday. When asked if he believed Gregory should be prosecuted, he responded, "No, I don't think so."

He said that Gregory's actions showed that owning a magazine is "a silly felony." He continued, "I really think what David Gregory did while he was inadvertently flouting the law was illustrating in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are."

-- David Gregory Should Not be Prosecuted

The NRA may be a great many things, a great many of them evil, but they're not stupid.

And no I don't think video is evidence. Whatever he was holding looked to me like a section from a child's race car game. You can't prove what it was from a video. As for "chain of custody", where do you see a seizure? This idea wasn't even brought up until the show was over and everybody left. You're trying to recreate an incident from the past with nothing to go on but a video. And you have one witness, who's in no position to testify for the prosecution, and has an interest in the defense.

How's that for irony? The NRA could testify in David Gregory's defense. Such is the circus when the rabid go in pursuit of political prisoners.

When subpeonaed, LaPierre won't have much choice about testifying.

Yes, and video is quite often evidence. We're in the 21st century now, just so you know.

 

[Si modo]

I dunno how revealing it really is -- in our language we presume an unknown is a he. That's a genderical prejudice, and going by the general pop we should really assume she. But if you do that the guys get all pissy like you're quesitioning their testosterone level. Which considering the effects thereof is prolly a worthy question anyway.

I should just write s/he to be correct in future

(/offtopic)

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

Well, you are very butch.

And you love every minute of it.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, I think LaPierre would be very willing to testify.

Video is sure as hell evidence, unless there is a problem with chain of custody. That's not going to happen.

It is sure looking like a lot of folks want to excuse white guys in suits who break this law. Hmmmmm.

Oh I don't think so, it would be a conflict of interest for him. And for the NRA, which has been relentlessly pushing the case against such laws.

NRA president David Keene said Thursday that David Gregory should not be prosecuted over the gun magazine he showed on "Meet the Press."

...Keene appeared on CNN on Thursday. When asked if he believed Gregory should be prosecuted, he responded, "No, I don't think so."

He said that Gregory's actions showed that owning a magazine is "a silly felony." He continued, "I really think what David Gregory did while he was inadvertently flouting the law was illustrating in a very graphic way, perhaps not intentionally, but in a graphic way just how silly some of these laws are."

-- David Gregory Should Not be Prosecuted

The NRA may be a great many things, a great many of them evil, but they're not stupid.

And no I don't think video is evidence. Whatever he was holding looked to me like a section from a child's race car game. You can't prove what it was from a video. As for "chain of custody", where do you see a seizure? This idea wasn't even brought up until the show was over and everybody left. You're trying to recreate an incident from the past with nothing to go on but a video. And you have one witness, who's in no position to testify for the prosecution, and has an interest in the defense.

How's that for irony? The NRA could testify in David Gregory's defense. Such is the circus when the rabid go in pursuit of political prisoners.

When subpeonaed, LaPierre won't have much choice about testifying.

Yes, and video is quite often evidence. We're in the 21st century now, just so you know.

"Subpoenaed"? Getting way ahead of yourself aren't you? Where do you see anything above a right-wing blogosphere entertaining the idea that this is a real case (as in a DA)?

Plus, if you remember from the video, LaPierre didn't handle the object. He would have to render an opinion on what he saw, without tactile observation. If it was a prop, he'd have no way to know. And who knows if he's familiar with that magazine anyway? And all of that is in the land where a DA decides he (OR SHE) has a case in an incident where everybody already went home and all you have is video.

Nooooo, I don't think justice works that way. I mean this has been a nice parlour game but where's the arrest? Where's the evidence?

No worry. You're in the norm....most assume I am a man. I find it funny....and revealing.

No offense or implication intended.

Well, you are very butch.

And you love every minute of it.

LOLOLOL

 

[Si modo]

Oh I don't think so, it would be a conflict of interest for him. And for the NRA, which has been relentlessly pushing the case against such laws.
-- David Gregory Should Not be Prosecuted

The NRA may be a great many things, a great many of them evil, but they're not stupid.

And no I don't think video is evidence. Whatever he was holding looked to me like a section from a child's race car game. You can't prove what it was from a video. As for "chain of custody", where do you see a seizure? This idea wasn't even brought up until the show was over and everybody left. You're trying to recreate an incident from the past with nothing to go on but a video. And you have one witness, who's in no position to testify for the prosecution, and has an interest in the defense.

How's that for irony? The NRA could testify in David Gregory's defense. Such is the circus when the rabid go in pursuit of political prisoners.

When subpeonaed, LaPierre won't have much choice about testifying.

Yes, and video is quite often evidence. We're in the 21st century now, just so you know.

"Subpoenaed"? Getting way ahead of yourself aren't you? Where do you see anything above a right-wing blogosphere entertaining the idea that this is a real case (as in a DA)?

Plus, if you remember from the video, LaPierre didn't handle the object. He would have to render an opinion on what he saw, without tactile observation. If it was a prop, he'd have no way to know. And who knows if he's familiar with that magazine anyway? And all of that is in the land where a DA decides he (OR SHE) has a case in an incident where everybody already went home and all you have is video.

Nooooo, I don't think justice works that way. I mean this has been a nice parlour game but where's the arrest? Where's the evidence?

I don't know what you're smoking, but I get my news from the WaPo, The Washington Examiner, a Reuters feed, and WTOP.

The cops are investigating. It's an easy win for a DA, so I'm comfortable moving ahead with an expectation that subpoenas being issued as well as search warrants.

Just because he's a white guy in a suit does not excuse him from the law. And, I'm pretty sure that's how the population of the District is looking at this.

 

[Pogo]

When subpeonaed, LaPierre won't have much choice about testifying.

Yes, and video is quite often evidence. We're in the 21st century now, just so you know.

"Subpoenaed"? Getting way ahead of yourself aren't you? Where do you see anything above a right-wing blogosphere entertaining the idea that this is a real case (as in a DA)?

Plus, if you remember from the video, LaPierre didn't handle the object. He would have to render an opinion on what he saw, without tactile observation. If it was a prop, he'd have no way to know. And who knows if he's familiar with that magazine anyway? And all of that is in the land where a DA decides he (OR SHE) has a case in an incident where everybody already went home and all you have is video.

Nooooo, I don't think justice works that way. I mean this has been a nice parlour game but where's the arrest? Where's the evidence?

I don't know what you're smoking, but I get my news from the WaPo, The Washington Examiner, a Reuters feed, and WTOP.

The cops are investigating. It's an easy win for a DA, so I'm comfortable moving ahead withan expectation that subpoenas being issued as well as search warrants.

Just because he's a white guy in a suit does not excuse him from the law. And, I'm pretty sure how the population of the District is looking at this.

I get mine from Google, which means everywhere. So what? There isn't much on this story, because it's not much of a story.

"The cops are investigating", yeah so that should take about eight minutes. But this is just the point -- it's not an easy win for a DA. I don't know where you get that idea. You have one witness who's visual-only, who may not have even been looking at the object since this question was not the question at the time, and you may have no object.

I guess what I'm saying is you're missing a ... smoking gun Ha! I kill me.

And ...why do you keep harping on David Gregory's race? Nobody else brought that up -- did they?