Why hasn't Gregory been charged?

[il Padrino Ute]

David Gregory broke the law about 2 weeks or so ago by possessing a 30 round magazine. He needs to be charged, just as a former member of the military was charged.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ms-of-justice/

[All-American]

Prosecutorial discretion. It's a beautiful thing. And it's absolute.

[il Padrino Ute]

Prosecutorial discretion. It's a beautiful thing. And it's absolute.

The law should be applied equally, particularly when one so brazenly breaks it. But if a prosecutor decides not to charge an individual, it should be the former soldier rather than a left-wing dickhead like Gregory.

[All-American]

The law should be applied equally, particularly when one so brazenly breaks it. But if a prosecutor decides not to charge an individual, it should be the former soldier rather than a left-wing dickhead like Gregory.

Il Pad, work with me on this one for a second.

Assume for just a second-- just one, I promise-- that the law is a good law that actually should be enforced. If that is true, then prosecutors should do what they can to ensure that citizens comply with the law. If you prosecute the member of the media, it draws bad press, excites the opposition, and possibly encourage non-compliance. It's one of the rarer times when enforcing the law actually undermines its legitimacy. Thus, in the sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion, they decide to let this one go.

My guess is that the only idea over which you have any fundamental disagreement is the first one, that the law is a good one and that it should be generally enforced. You want the guy prosecuted here because it would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the law. If so, fine-- I'm not sure I disagree-- but let's say so.

[edward777]

Prosecutorial discretion. It's a beautiful thing. And it's absolute.

Then there is no justice.

[Uncle Ted]

Prosecutorial discretion. It's a beautiful thing. And it's absolute.

Just like jury nullification is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately jury members are not usually advised of this option.

[il Padrino Ute]

Il Pad, work with me on this one for a second.

Assume for just a second-- just one, I promise-- that the law is a good law that actually should be enforced. If that is true, then prosecutors should do what they can to ensure that citizens comply with the law. If you prosecute the member of the media, it draws bad press, excites the opposition, and possibly encourage non-compliance. It's one of the rarer times when enforcing the law actually undermines its legitimacy. Thus, in the sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion, they decide to let this one go.

My guess is that the only idea over which you have any fundamental disagreement is the first one, that the law is a good one and that it should be generally enforced. You want the guy prosecuted here because it would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the law. If so, fine-- I'm not sure I disagree-- but let's say so.

I think the law is bad, yes. But my point is that there is a double standard here. Gregory broke the law and intentionally so. He should be prosecuted. If the prosecutor thinks enforcing the law is bad for the law, the law should be repealed.

As for creating bad press, if it had been a right-wing media type who was as against gun control as Gregory is for gun control, what would the prosecutor have done? I think he would have thrown the book at him to prove that it is a good law. Again, the double standard.

[old_gregg]

I think the law is bad, yes. But my point is that there is a double standard here. Gregory broke the law and intentionally so. He should be prosecuted. If the prosecutor thinks enforcing the law is bad for the law, the law should be repealed.

As for creating bad press, if it had been a right-wing media type who was as against gun control as Gregory is for gun control, what would the prosecutor have done? I think he would have thrown the book at him to prove that it is a good law. Again, the double standard.

has gregory expressly advocated for gun control? not that it matters, but i'm just trying to grasp the whole "left-wing dickhead" thing. i also ready that he had permission from the atf, is that not the case?

[il Padrino Ute]

has gregory expressly advocated for gun control? not that it matters, but i'm just trying to grasp the whole "left-wing dickhead" thing. i also ready that he had permission from the atf, is that not the case?

I've not heard him expressly advocate for gun-control, but when he has advocates from both sides on his show, he is particularly hostile toward the pro-gun advocate and fair to the anti-gun advocate. As for left-wing dickhead, he is one of them. But there are rightwing dickheads as well, such as me. (Unlike those on the left, I'm willing to admit that I'm a dickhead.)

I've not heard that he had permission from the ATF, but that the ATF was told that Gregory had permission to use an empty clip as a prop. But the problem for Gregory here is that the DC police told the ATF that Gregory had permission to use the empty clip as a prop. But if that's the case, why did the DC police investigate someone who had it's permission to use that particular clip?

[All-American]

Then there is no justice.

Sure, there's justice. There's just not always justice-- and in fact, there is never always justice. You get a little closer to the mark, though, if you can obviate a law when application would result in injustice.

[All-American]

I think the law is bad, yes. But my point is that there is a double standard here. Gregory broke the law and intentionally so. He should be prosecuted. If the prosecutor thinks enforcing the law is bad for the law, the law should be repealed.

As for creating bad press, if it had been a right-wing media type who was as against gun control as Gregory is for gun control, what would the prosecutor have done? I think he would have thrown the book at him to prove that it is a good law. Again, the double standard.

There's not a double standard. The standard is "do what encourages maximum compliance with the law." You discourage compliance when you undermine legitimacy.

[doctorcoug]

I'm naive to this stuff, but it seems that the prosecutor knows who is writing his check in D.C.

via a galaxy s3 far far away

[il Padrino Ute]

There's not a double standard. The standard is "do what encourages maximum compliance with the law." You discourage compliance when you undermine legitimacy.

So, charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law is not a double standard?

We may have a different idea of what defines a double standard. I define it as charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law.

How do you define it?

[All-American]

So, charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law is not a double standard?

We may have a different idea of what defines a double standard. I define it as charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law.

How do you define it?

I doubt we have a different definition of double standard. But there are certain circumstances, chief among them being the fact that you don't like the law, that are doing a lot of work in helping you arrive at the conclusion that this outcome is the product of a double standard.

[Bo Diddley]

So, charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law is not a double standard?

We may have a different idea of what defines a double standard. I define it as charging a veteran who unintentionally has two bullets in his backpack, but not charging a left-wing media member who intentionally flaunts the law.

How do you define it?

Charging either one of them is silly and stupid. So I will be consistent and say that they should not charge Gregory.