They'd rather see you dead than defend yourself
by CmdrFenix on Jan.15, 2010, under Political Discussion
So here we have the case of Jason Baez of NYC. An honest working family with three kids. One night three people forced their way in, tied them up, and proceeded to robbed them. He reported it and police suggested he move until they find the perps. So without breaking his current lease, he takes on another appt and a mountain of debt until they find the people involved. They get a security camera, and Jason also gets a gun. Now NYC has some of the strictest firearm laws and “ordinary people” aren’t allowed to own them. It’s felt people should be the “only ones” armed.
But five months after the robbery, as Mr. Baez was visiting their Manhattan apartment to collect the mail, a police officer stopped him in the lobby and frisked him, he said. Finding nothing, the officer asked him if he had any drugs or weapons on him. Nervous, he decided to confess: “I just got home-invaded in September and I have a weapon for my protection,” Mr. Baez recalled telling the officer.
He was arrested, and despite having no criminal record, he faced up to three and a half years in prison. Prosecutors offered him a deal of one year if he pleaded guilty, and he accepted. He is to be sentenced Jan. 27.
This is why feel so many of the firearm laws in this country are bogus and the politicians don’t care about you or I. After all, why should they? They usually have protection that carries automatic weapons…
Hey I know who we can all call!!!
January 15th, 2010 on 9:53 am
I hear some guy got scammed once by not reading fine print. Perhaps we should send everyone to law school for free.
January 15th, 2010 on 10:09 am
How does that even relate to this? I love discourse, but don’t understand your point here.
He *knew* it was illegal to possess any weapons, but felt he had no choice. You have a system that didn’t allow him to have any means of defense for his family. Would it have stopped the first attack? Maybe, but we’ll never know.
My problem here is a system that says, “loose the firearms and everyone will be safer, or call the police”, but in the end can’t guarantee their protection. Again, why not just leave everyone who isn’t causing anyone else any harm alone. Here you have a guy who never committed any crime in his life except trying to protect his family. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t mean your feelings on the matter trump mine rights or his.
January 15th, 2010 on 11:54 am
Please explain how you plan to identify “everyone who isn’t causing anyone else any harm” and distinguish between those who -are- causing anyone else harm? You also face the slippery-slope of people (mostly on the conservative side) who want to use profiling/etc to pre-emptivly “tag” people who -might- cause other people harm, etc etc etc.
My point is, it’s not as black and white as you’re making it sound. You and I agree on the “ends” of this type of issue, but the “means” are more complex then a lot of people realize
January 15th, 2010 on 2:13 pm
I guess I look at it like this. It’s already a crime to threaten people with firearms, shoot them with firearms, so why would anyone think that disarming people makes sense.
January 15th, 2010 on 2:31 pm
I agree that it doesn’t make a lot of sense
The issue that I’ve mainly heard used in cases like this is the “it isn’t a crime until they pull the trigger” argument, which in some states is a valid one. I don’t neccessarily think that disarming people is the answer, but I do agree that answers need be found one way or another.