Why hasn't Gregory been charged?

[il Padrino Ute]

Il Pad doesn't think so. Or, at least, if he does, he won't say so.

I thought I was implying that the prosecutor was not charging Gregory despite the fact that Gregory intentionally broke the law because the prosecutor agrees with Gregory in regard to gun control laws. That's why I said there is a double standard.

[venkman]

Il Pad doesn't think so. Or, at least, if he does, he won't say so.

I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess he didn't feel a need to spell it out since you're a smart guy.

[il Padrino Ute]

So is your objection to prosecutorial discretion a general one, or just as it is applied here?

It's a general objection. If people break the law, charge them with breaking the law. If the prosecutor later decides to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, or, in the case of the vet that I mentioned, decides to not go to trial but make a deal on a lesser charge, then do that.

But to charge one person but not another is a double standard.

[All-American]

I thought it was pretty obvious. I guess he didn't feel a need to spell it out since you're a smart guy.

Or because he knows that if he accuses a prosecutor of something so low as targeting veterans, he'll have to back that claim up, and he knows better than to try it.

[All-American]

It's a general objection. If people break the law, charge them with breaking the law. If the prosecutor later decides to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, or, in the case of the vet that I mentioned, decides to not go to trial but make a deal on a lesser charge, then do that.

But to charge one person but not another is a double standard.

General objection. Okay, then.

Do you think police officers should issue tickets to anybody who drives 56 in a 55 mph zone? What do you think about the process of plea bargaining?

[venkman]

Or because he knows that if he accuses a prosecutor of something so low as targeting veterans, he'll have to back that claim up, and he knows better than to try it.

I wouldn't say targeting. It's just not letting someone of the hook because they're not connected, a friend, or a fellow traveler like Gregory is. A double standard.

The problem is too many stupid ass laws. Carrying two bullets? Showing an empty magazine? These are crimes? So ridiculous.

[All-American]

I wouldn't say targeting. It's just not letting someone of the hook because they're not connected, a friend, or a fellow traveler like Gregory is. A double standard.

The problem is too many stupid ass laws. Carrying two bullets? Showing an empty magazine? These are crimes? So ridiculous.

See, I'm with you there. I think the laws are dumb and ought to be reconsidered.

[old_gregg]

Yes, I do, because he broke the law. That he did it unintentionally isn't the point. Gregory intentionally broke the law and should be charged as well.

how do we know that is the case? are you positing that gregory's intent was to disobey the law by possessing the magazine for however long he was on air? if publicly violating law was the outcome he sought, it seems like the only motivation for intentionally breaking a law on national tv would be to demonstrate its absurdity. i think il pad and left-wing dickhead david gregory are in agreement

[il Padrino Ute]

General objection. Okay, then.

Do you think police officers should issue tickets to anybody who drives 56 in a 55 mph zone? What do you think about the process of plea bargaining?

I'm consistent. If someone speeds, then I'd have nor problem with an officer writing them a ticket.

That said, there's a difference between breaking a gun law and speeding in that there are far more speeders on the road, then there are people breaking the gun laws, so it wouldn't be very practical to pull all of them over.

And I already mentioned plea bargaining. I'm okay with it.

[venkman]

how do we know that is the case? are you positing that gregory's intent was to disobey the law by possessing the magazine for however long he was on air? if publicly violating law was the outcome he sought, it seems like the only motivation for intentionally breaking a law on national tv would be to demonstrate its absurdity. i think il pad and left-wing dickhead david gregory are in agreement

I believe he knew it was illegal, I believe he asked the DC cops of DA or someone beforehand. I seriously doubt the intent of waving the magazine in front of Wayne LaPierre's face was to demonstrate the absurdity of laws against high capacity magazines. I think he's in favor of those laws. The magazine was a prop to attack the NRA. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

[il Padrino Ute]

how do we know that is the case? are you positing that gregory's intent was to disobey the law by possessing the magazine for however long he was on air? if publicly violating law was the outcome he sought, it seems like the only motivation for intentionally breaking a law on national tv would be to demonstrate its absurdity. i think il pad and left-wing dickhead david gregory are in agreement

Gregory intentionally broke the law because he knew that it was illegal to possess that magazine, but still had possession of it. How is knowing the law, but breaking it anyway anything other than intentional?

And you are absolutely wrong in thinking that Gregory and I are in agreement. Gregory used the magazine to push his anti-gun agenda. He ranted about how people who are against gun restrictions don't care that magazines like that can be used by weapons to go on mass shootings and that we need to have more gun control to stop those shootings. I just think it's a stupid law.

But it is the law in DC to possess that particular magazine, so Gregory should be charged for breaking that law.

[il Padrino Ute]

See, I'm with you there. I think the laws are dumb and ought to be reconsidered.

So you and I agree that it's a stupid law. We just disagree about the double standard that exists when it comes to enforcing that stupid law.

[All-American]

I'm consistent. If someone speeds, then I'd have nor problem with an officer writing them a ticket.

That said, there's a difference between breaking a gun law and speeding in that there are far more speeders on the road, then there are people breaking the gun laws, so it wouldn't be very practical to pull all of them over.

And I already mentioned plea bargaining. I'm okay with it.

So you're okay with not pulling over every speeder, and you're okay with plea bargaining. It kind of sounds like you're okay with prosecutorial discretion.

[All-American]

So you and I agree that it's a stupid law. We just disagree about the double standard that exists when it comes to enforcing that stupid law.

I don't need to tell you how many "double standards" you just sanctioned by approving of plea bargaining and not pulling over every speeder, do I?

[il Padrino Ute]

So you're okay with not pulling over every speeder, and you're okay with plea bargaining. It kind of sounds like you're okay with prosecutorial discretion.

Am I? I'm okay with the prosecutor not going to trial after charging someone with breaking the law, but I'm not okay with not charging someone in the media who intentionally breaks the law while ranting that the gun control laws are not strict enough.