Looks like jail time for Plaxico

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:37 am

well that's what happens when you do something stupid :roll:

http://wcbstv.com/cbs2crew/plaxico.burr ... 36400.html

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:45 am

The guy shoots himself in the leg, misses the rest of the season, loses his multi-million $ job, and goes to jail for two years. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.

I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:41 pm

That seems excessive, but I guess owning an illegal gun is pretty serious.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:33 pm

Deadskins wrote:The guy shoots himself in the leg, misses the rest of the season, loses his multi-million $ job, and goes to jail for two years. Talk about self-inflicted wounds.

I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

Yeah becasue he technically comitted the same crime as Burress. They should lock up all the Giants, Cowboys and Eagles - they are all criminals.

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:07 pm

brad7686 wrote:That seems excessive, but I guess owning an illegal gun is pretty serious.

In NY it is.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:09 pm

Deadskins wrote:
I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

The grand jury made the right decision with regard to Pierce. He never actually hid the gun and he wasn't accused of hiding it. The charge that the DA was going after Pierce was for possession of the gun.

cleg · Post by **cleg** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:33 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

The grand jury made the right decision with regard to Pierce. He never actually hid the gun and he wasn't accused of hiding it. The charge that the DA was going after Pierce was for possession of the gun.

I thought the whole point of Pierce taking the gun was to hide it in New Jersey?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:52 pm

cleg wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

The grand jury made the right decision with regard to Pierce. He never actually hid the gun and he wasn't accused of hiding it. The charge that the DA was going after Pierce was for possession of the gun.
I thought the whole point of Pierce taking the gun was to hide it in New Jersey?

It was.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:36 pm

brad7686 wrote:That seems excessive, but I guess owning an illegal gun is pretty serious.

Two entire years of his life for that. I agree, that seems excessive. What a shame.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:31 am

cleg wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

The grand jury made the right decision with regard to Pierce. He never actually hid the gun and he wasn't accused of hiding it. The charge that the DA was going after Pierce was for possession of the gun.
I thought the whole point of Pierce taking the gun was to hide it in New Jersey?

He took the gun to Plaxico's house. The prosecution never attempted to charge him with anything related to hiding the gun. If they had then they would have been going for additional charges as well as possession of the gun. However, that would have required showing intent and there was zero evidence to support such a charge. That is why they attempted to charge him with possession of the handgun, a crime for which you don't have to prove intent.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:36 am

CanesSkins26 wrote:
cleg wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
I can't believe they let Pierce off scott free for hiding the gun.

The grand jury made the right decision with regard to Pierce. He never actually hid the gun and he wasn't accused of hiding it. The charge that the DA was going after Pierce was for possession of the gun.
I thought the whole point of Pierce taking the gun was to hide it in New Jersey?

He took the gun to Plaxico's house. The prosecution never attempted to charge him with anything related to hiding the gun. If they had then they would have been going for additional charges as well as possession of the gun. However, that would have required showing intent and there was zero evidence to support such a charge. That is why they attempted to charge him with possession of the handgun, a crime for which you don't have to prove intent.

I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:36 am

VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:39 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

He took the gun to another state IIRC... I think he shoulda been Plax's cellmate.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:11 am

VetSkinsFan wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

He took the gun to another state IIRC... I think he shoulda been Plax's cellmate.

Ok, I'll repeat what I just said. You have to look at the intent. He wasn't trying to do anything illegal and if he was, I'm sure they would have pegged him for it. In such a frantic situation I'm sure it was a rush and hectic few min. It's easy to judge wut others should do when you're not in that situation.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:22 am

I comprehend the English language just fine. I just question the intent.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 12:25 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

What do you suppose his intent was, then?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:00 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

What do you suppose his intent was, then?

"This is going to be a famous gun... I wonder what it will fetch on E-Bay?"

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:19 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

What do you suppose his intent was, then?

What did you want him to do? After Burress was shot the security guard from the night club placed the gun in Pierce's car. After Pierce drove Burress to the hospital he drove home and then arranged for the gun to be taken back to Plaxico's house. So he wasn't the one that removed the gun from the crime scene and he didn't try to hide it. If anybody should have been charged it should have been the security guard for removing the gun from the crime scene, but he isn't a big name NFL player so the prosecution wasn't interested in going after him. I have no problem with the prosecution going after Plaxico as he is going to serve a jail sentence that is commensurate with what others that have committed the same crime in NYC usually get. However, going after Pierce was completely unjustified. The level of evidence needed to secure a grand jury indictment is very low so the fact that the grand jury failed to indict Pierce tells a lot about how little evidence there was against him in this case.

Once again, the prosecution WASNT GOING AFTER HIM FOR TRYING TO HIDE THE GUN, they were trying to get him on possession of the gun. For possession there is no intent element. For obsturction of justice, tampering, conspiracy, etc. the prosecution has to prove INTENT, of which there was absolutely no evidence in this case.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:25 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:I have to plead ignorance to the details of this case...but if he took the gun away from the crime scene to "take it to his house," couldn't that be in the least obstruction of justice or tampering with a crime scene or something along those lines? I mean, knowingly participating in the coverup should net you SOMETHING.

You have to look at the intent of the action. He wasn't trying to obstruct or hide anything.

What do you suppose his intent was, then?

What did you want him to do? After Burress was shot the security guard from the night club placed the gun in Pierce's car. After Pierce drove Burress to the hospital he drove home and then arranged for the gun to be taken back to Plaxico's house. So he wasn't the one that removed the gun from the crime scene and he didn't try to hide it. If anybody should have been charged it should have been the security guard for removing the gun from the crime scene, but he isn't a big name NFL player so the prosecution wasn't interested in going after him. I have no problem with the prosecution going after Plaxico as he is going to serve a jail sentence that is commensurate with what others that have committed the same crime in NYC usually get. However, going after Pierce was completely unjustified. The level of evidence needed to secure a grand jury indictment is very low so the fact that the grand jury failed to indict Pierce tells a lot about how little evidence there was against him in this case.

Once again, the prosecution WASNT GOING AFTER HIM FOR TRYING TO HIDE THE GUN, they were trying to get him on possession of the gun. For possession there is no intent element. For obsturction of justice, tampering, conspiracy, etc. the prosecution has to prove INTENT, of which there was absolutely no evidence in this case.

I never heard about the security guard placing the gun in Antonio's car. All I ever heard was that the police were looking for the weapon, but they couldn't find it because Pierce had taken it back to NJ. I'll have to take your word for it about the security guard.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:33 pm

Yeah, he coulda dealt with the cops BEFORE the gun was to be transported to two different homes, but that's just me. What am I thinking? :hmm:

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:22 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:What am I thinking?

You're thinking in the comfort of your home, not with your good friend possibly bleeding out in your car as you rush him to the hospital.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:25 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:What am I thinking?

You're thinking in the comfort of your home, not with your good friend possibly bleeding out in your car as you rush him to the hospital.

I have a little training in those types of situations...

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:43 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:What am I thinking?

You're thinking in the comfort of your home, not with your good friend possibly bleeding out in your car as you rush him to the hospital.

Ok, so after he gets him to the hospital (which is in NY, not NJ, BTW) and the gun is in his car (by way of the security guard), what was his intent in then taking the gun back to NJ?

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:55 pm

I have no problem with the prosecution going after Plaxico as he is going to serve a jail sentence that is commensurate with what others that have committed the same crime in NYC usually get.

I agree with this comment. A lot of pepople are saying his punishment was excessive, but, in fact, according to several reports and accounts from NYC residents, he got off easy from the 4-5 yr mandatory sentence he could have gotten.

He committed the crime, so he must do the time. At least he'll get to add to his ink while in the clink. :lol:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:08 am

Plaxico gets 2 years - he may get out after 20 months - says he plans to try for the NFL again but good luck with that :shock:

I feel a little bit sorry for his wife and young son but I am just so glad that these guys get wake-up calls like this and don't get away with it - I am all for guys doing jail time when they think they are above the law :lol: