Explain this. This guy shoots a Firefighter during the attempt to murder someone else....released in less than 3 years, gets illegal gun, again.

[2aguy]

This is why we do not take anti-gunners seriously.......they target normal people who own guns, while the political party they support keeps releasing violent gun offenders....gun offenders who have been convicted for shooting people........this is fucking insane...

Jermaine White, one of two men charged with shooting an on-duty firefighter in Albany Park last year, was in court to face a new gun charge before Judge John Lyke.

Last year, police said two men set a car on fire in the 3600 block of West Wilson Avenue so they could shoot rival gang members who came outside to investigate the blaze. The gunmen shot a fireman who got caught in the crossfire. He survived.

Prosecutors charged White and another man with aggravated battery of an on-duty fireman by discharging a firearm and other felonies. Earlier this year, prosecutors dropped that charge when White agreed to plead guilty to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in exchange for a three-year sentence.

The state automatically cut the sentence in half for good behavior, and White received credit for time spent in jail after his arrest. When it was all said and done, White walked into the Stateville Correctional Center on June 29. And he walked out 36 days later.

White, who is still on parole, was arrested again on Monday. Police pulled him over for driving without headlights. When they asked him for his license, he leaned forward and threw a handgun from the floorboard in front of him to the back seat floorboard, prosecutors said. His three-year-old child was sitting in the back seat without restraints, according to Assistant State’s Attorney Darryl Auguste.

CPD body cameras recorded the alleged gun toss, Auguste said. Cops allegedly found crack cocaine in the car, too.

Auguste tried to convince Judge Lyke to hold White without bail by arguing that White was on parole for a gun case that originated with allegations that he shot an on-duty fireman.

White’s private defense attorney, Joshua Kutnick, wasn’t having it.

“This state’s attorney’s office decided that no conviction was warranted on the [aggravated battery of a] firefighter,” Kutnick told Lyke, arguing Auguste’s colleagues dismissed the charge that prosecutors were trying to use against him.

Kutnick said White, who was convicted of aggravated battery as a juvenile and spent six years in prison for a domestic battery attack that lacerated his girlfriend’s liver, “is not a violent person.”

White did participate in the shootout that injured the fireman last year — but he only fired in defense of a friend, Kutnick argued.

The state’s plea agreement in the firefighter case apparently kept the court’s pre-trial services officer from flagging White for possible violence in the future.

Plea deal in 2020 firefighter shooting pays dividends when gunman is allegedly caught with another firearm

Two months after getting out of prison, Jermaine White was allegedly caught with another gun Monday.

cwbchicago.com

 

[DukeU]

Don't expect any comments from the gun grabbers.

They hide from examples that expose their ignorance.

 

[Pete7469]

Democrooks need the chaos and mayhem in the streets to advance their disarmament agenda. They need the public terrorized by thugs so that the people demand more restrictions.

 

[SavannahMann]

So you are angry about what? Plea Bargaining?

 

[westwall]

So you are angry about what? Plea Bargaining?

No you fucking dickhead, we are angry that a violent felon is allowed to walk free and cause more mayhem.

All the while you fuckers demand that we who are not violent thugs be disarmed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you are angry about what? Plea Bargaining?

Angry about gun-grabbing advocates being the very same people DELIBERATELY letting violent criminals out of jail after a slap on the wrist so they can continue to be violent with a gun and further drive the gun-grabbing "crisis"

I want all gun laws repealed immediately

I will not rest until a violent felon who has been released can lawfully obtain and carry a loaded, belt-fed light machine gun in every school, Courthouse, or government building in America.

 

[SavannahMann]

No you fucking dickhead, we are angry that a violent felon is allowed to walk free and cause more mayhem.

All the while you fuckers demand that we who are not violent thugs be disarmed.

Ok. Find a post where I advocated repealing the second amendment. You can’t. But hey. Why let that stop your broad brush attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Now this fellow wasn’t shooting anyone the second time. He apparently lives in a dangerous city. Probably a dangerous neighborhood. A place you wouldn’t go without body armor and a rifle. So he got a gun. We don’t know it may have been for additional crimes. It may have been for protection. It may have been both.

Why shouldn’t he have a gun? He was done with his original charge. Nothing in the Second or the writing of the Founders in the Federalist Papers indicated that they intended to create classes of people who were forbidden to own guns for life.

In fact. When you completed a prison sentence in those old days. You got your guns back. Or were allowed to purchase new guns. No problem.

So what makes it moral and ethical to deny this fellow his second amendment rights? It isn’t the gun doing anything. If he chooses to abuse those rights. Deal with it in the courts.

I don’t care if you have a basement full of guns. I don’t care if he does. It is none of my business. He wasn’t hurting anyone. And the plea bargain that set him free happens in a vast majority of cases of criminal activity. I don’t care about that.

You apparently do. So we shouldn’t allow people accused of gun crimes to plead guilty to a lesser crime and avoid trial and the full penalty. I could argue that overcrowding in our prisons kind of dictates the alternate view. But instead I’ll point out a case where the RW celebrated the plea bargain that released people who committed gun crimes.

That couple in St. Louis who got off with a plea bargain slap on the wrist. Tell me how they were heroes screwed by the system again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Ok. Find a post where I advocated repealing the second amendment. You can’t. But hey. Why let that stop your broad brush attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Now this fellow wasn’t shooting anyone the second time. He apparently lives in a dangerous city. Probably a dangerous neighborhood. A place you wouldn’t go without body armor and a rifle. So he got a gun. We don’t know it may have been for additional crimes. It may have been for protection. It may have been both.

Why shouldn’t he have a gun? He was done with his original charge. Nothing in the Second or the writing of the Founders in the Federalist Papers indicated that they intended to create classes of people who were forbidden to own guns for life.

In fact. When you completed a prison sentence in those old days. You got your guns back. Or were allowed to purchase new guns. No problem.

So what makes it moral and ethical to deny this fellow his second amendment rights? It isn’t the gun doing anything. If he chooses to abuse those rights. Deal with it in the courts.

I don’t care if you have a basement full of guns. I don’t care if he does. It is none of my business. He wasn’t hurting anyone. And the plea bargain that set him free happens in a vast majority of cases of criminal activity. I don’t care about that.

You apparently do. So we shouldn’t allow people accused of gun crimes to plead guilty to a lesser crime and avoid trial and the full penalty. I could argue that overcrowding in our prisons kind of dictates the alternate view. But instead I’ll point out a case where the RW celebrated the plea bargain that released people who committed gun crimes.

That couple in St. Louis who got off with a plea bargain slap on the wrist. Tell me how they were heroes screwed by the system again.

So, you agree with me that one who has completed his sentence should have ALL his rights restored?

You agree that it is fundamentally unjust to force a felon to walk around with a target on his back?

You agree with me that the Founders intended that the people be armed like soldiers without restriction, and that those arms would include anything a soldier would carry, such as full-autos like the M4 and the m249 SAW?

If the gun-grabbers would just give it up and accept the FACT that we are going to have and keep all our guns and get better guns when we can, everyone will be much happier. There is no place on earth where being unarmed gives one any particular advantage and it is certainly unrealistic to believe that being unarmed will always result on one's own safety.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That couple in St. Louis who got off with a plea bargain slap on the wrist. Tell me how they were heroes screwed by the system again.

They were standing on their own property facing a huge mob of people who appeared to intend to do harm.

I am not at all certain what crime these people were accused of committing. They should not have been prosecuted in the first place. For that matter, the guy who was released in the OP story should have been restored to his full rights and had no issues.

Do you think the St. Louis couple did anything wrong?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok. Find a post where I advocated repealing the second amendment. You can’t. But hey. Why let that stop your broad brush attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Now this fellow wasn’t shooting anyone the second time. He apparently lives in a dangerous city. Probably a dangerous neighborhood. A place you wouldn’t go without body armor and a rifle. So he got a gun. We don’t know it may have been for additional crimes. It may have been for protection. It may have been both.

Why shouldn’t he have a gun? He was done with his original charge. Nothing in the Second or the writing of the Founders in the Federalist Papers indicated that they intended to create classes of people who were forbidden to own guns for life.

In fact. When you completed a prison sentence in those old days. You got your guns back. Or were allowed to purchase new guns. No problem.

So what makes it moral and ethical to deny this fellow his second amendment rights? It isn’t the gun doing anything. If he chooses to abuse those rights. Deal with it in the courts.

I don’t care if you have a basement full of guns. I don’t care if he does. It is none of my business. He wasn’t hurting anyone. And the plea bargain that set him free happens in a vast majority of cases of criminal activity. I don’t care about that.

You apparently do. So we shouldn’t allow people accused of gun crimes to plead guilty to a lesser crime and avoid trial and the full penalty. I could argue that overcrowding in our prisons kind of dictates the alternate view. But instead I’ll point out a case where the RW celebrated the plea bargain that released people who committed gun crimes.

That couple in St. Louis who got off with a plea bargain slap on the wrist. Tell me how they were heroes screwed by the system again.

So who did the couple in St Louis shoot? Nobody. They stood outside on their property with their legally purchased firearms. You people with your apples to oranges comparisons.

He lives in a dangerous neighborhood? HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE MAKING IT DANGEROUS! Didn't you read the OP? He and his buddy set a car on fire that belonged to a rival gang. Do you know what that means? IT MEANS HE IS IN A GANG TOO!!!!!!

This loser has a criminal history extending all the way into his childhood. He should have been sentenced to 20 years in prison, not let out after a few months or a year. That's my problem with the case.

 

[Claudette]

Ray From Cleveland
Mine to. The guys a gangbanger and he shot a firefighter. Not much jail time though I'm not sure about the laws where this occurred.

 

[SavannahMann]

They were standing on their own property facing a huge mob of people who appeared to intend to do harm.

I am not at all certain what crime these people were accused of committing. They should not have been prosecuted in the first place. For that matter, the guy who was released in the OP story should have been restored to his full rights and had no issues.

Do you think the St. Louis couple did anything wrong?

The technical term is brandishing. Let’s use the legal terms. Castle doctrine. It is used to show that people have no requirement to retreat. To stand their ground. It does not mean you can advance. They came charging out of the house and waved the bang sticks around. The fact that they plead guilty to a lesser charge shows they knew the more serious charge was a question they did not want to face.

Let’s now talk strategic. By rushing outside with their weapons they showed they had some. And that told the crowd you claim were determined to do them harm that they had guns and made them a target for burglary later. Stolen guns are worth more than some department store paintings.

Tactical time. By rushing outside they abandoned easily defensible positions in favor of an exposed position. It was certain of shooting started that they would end up dead in their front yard.

So they were dumb legally, strategically, and tactically. Usually when someone is dumb in all three they are too dead to be tried in a court.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So who did the couple in St Louis shoot? Nobody. They stood outside on their property with their legally purchased firearms. You people with your apples to oranges comparisons.

He lives in a dangerous neighborhood? HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE MAKING IT DANGEROUS! Didn't you read the OP? He and his buddy set a car on fire that belonged to a rival gang. Do you know what that means? IT MEANS HE IS IN A GANG TOO!!!!!!

This loser has a criminal history extending all the way into his childhood. He should have been sentenced to 20 years in prison, not let out after a few months or a year. That's my problem with the case.

This is why we cannot tolerate restrictions of any kind. All people who are free to walk around in public should have the unobstructed right to be armed at all times. No exceptions. No restrictions.

 

[SavannahMann]

So who did the couple in St Louis shoot? Nobody. They stood outside on their property with their legally purchased firearms. You people with your apples to oranges comparisons.

He lives in a dangerous neighborhood? HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE MAKING IT DANGEROUS! Didn't you read the OP? He and his buddy set a car on fire that belonged to a rival gang. Do you know what that means? IT MEANS HE IS IN A GANG TOO!!!!!!

This loser has a criminal history extending all the way into his childhood. He should have been sentenced to 20 years in prison, not let out after a few months or a year. That's my problem with the case.

The problem is that 20 years wasn’t called for by the law. Even if he had been convicted of a murder chances are he wouldn’t do 20 years.

Do you know why people join gangs? No. Of course not.

Imagine you are in that dangerous neighborhood. Walking to the store for bread and milk can get you beaten, robbed, or murdered. You want to protect yourself. Everyone would want to. So you look around. The guys wearing blue aren’t being harassed like that. So you start to hang out with them. With them it is still dangerous. But not nearly as bad as going alone.

Take history and boil it down and see the parallels. When towns would band together to defend the town from Indians in our own history. The foundation of the Militia. Townspeople who came running when there was a threat.

I’m not saying they are misunderstood angels. I am saying they are surviving in their worlds the only way that seems to work. Locking up whole neighborhoods seems expensive. And the thing RW types hate more than crime is high taxes for things like prisons.

So answer me this. Where are we going to put these folks for 20 plus years for their crimes? And how much are you willing to be taxed to afford it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The technical term is brandishing. Let’s use the legal terms. Castle doctrine. It is used to show that people have no requirement to retreat. To stand their ground. It does not mean you can advance. They came charging out of the house and waved the bang sticks around. The fact that they plead guilty to a lesser charge shows they knew the more serious charge was a question they did not want to face.

Yes. "Brandishing" means showing that you have the ability to do harm in an effort to stop certain behavior that, itself could result in serious injury or death. Should that be illegal?

But, you are mixing "stand your ground" with the castle doctrine. There is no duty to retreat from your castle. In most states, that includes the ground surrounding said castle.

They came charging out of their own house onto their own fucking property to do nothing more than prevent a large number of people from entering their property, approaching, approaching the home, and doing harm. Is it your argument that the St. Louis couple did not reasonably believe that they were in danger?

The fact that they pled guilty means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than they wanted to be done with it, whether the result was just or not. It means nothing more.

Let’s now talk strategic. By rushing outside with their weapons they showed they had some. And that told the crowd you claim were determined to do them harm that they had guns and made them a target for burglary later. Stolen guns are worth more than some department store paintings.

Burglary in Texas is almost extinct because of the castle doctrine being a complete defense to prosecution. Not a defense at trial, mind you. A complete defense to the case even being maintained. The "castle" extends to the edge of the property and includes any automobiles. One does not need to wait until intruders come into the home to defend it. WHY? For the same reason one does not need to wait until another person actually shoots them before they draw and fire. The intruders do not need to actually enter the walls of the home to do all manner of terrible things, like burn the house down or shoot at the occupants through windows and walls.

So, now those people know that there are guns in the home to be stolen, but they also now know that there are guns in the home to shoot them if they try, and the home occupant walks without prosecution (at least in Texas).

Tactical time. By rushing outside they abandoned easily defensible positions in favor of an exposed position. It was certain of shooting started that they would end up dead in their front yard.

Counter-point. By staying indoors, they would have allowed the mob, who one could reasonably believe such mod intended to burn their house down or otherwise do them harm, to get close enough to do it without resistance. Stopping them in the yard prevented the mob's approach.

If shooting started, they may have ended up dead in the yard, but that's better than potentially burned alive in the house with zero effort to prevent it. Who are you to criticize decisions made under the extreme pressure of what appeared to be a mob of angry people insurmountably outnumbering the two.

So they were dumb legally, strategically, and tactically. Usually when someone is dumb in all three they are too dead to be tried in a court.

Legally - that's highly debatable and probably should result in a constitutional challenge if true.
Strategically - I think you are a moron. I'm glad I don't have to rely on you for security.
Tactically - see above.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The problem is that 20 years wasn’t called for by the law. Even if he had been convicted of a murder chances are he wouldn’t do 20 years.

Do you know why people join gangs? No. Of course not.

Imagine you are in that dangerous neighborhood. Walking to the store for bread and milk can get you beaten, robbed, or murdered. You want to protect yourself. Everyone would want to. So you look around. The guys wearing blue aren’t being harassed like that. So you start to hang out with them. With them it is still dangerous. But not nearly as bad as going alone.

Take history and boil it down and see the parallels. When towns would band together to defend the town from Indians in our own history. The foundation of the Militia. Townspeople who came running when there was a threat.

I’m not saying they are misunderstood angels. I am saying they are surviving in their worlds the only way that seems to work. Locking up whole neighborhoods seems expensive. And the thing RW types hate more than crime is high taxes for things like prisons.

So answer me this. Where are we going to put these folks for 20 plus years for their crimes? And how much are you willing to be taxed to afford it?

Speaking of dangerous neighborhoods, etc. Should a home owner need to wait until the drive-by is already going down and shots fired before "brandishing" a firearm of their own in an effort to detour it?

I cannot WAIT to hear your response.

 

[Godboy]

Ok. Find a post where I advocated repealing the second amendment. You can’t. But hey. Why let that stop your broad brush attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Now this fellow wasn’t shooting anyone the second time. He apparently lives in a dangerous city. Probably a dangerous neighborhood. A place you wouldn’t go without body armor and a rifle. So he got a gun. We don’t know it may have been for additional crimes. It may have been for protection. It may have been both.

Why shouldn’t he have a gun? He was done with his original charge. Nothing in the Second or the writing of the Founders in the Federalist Papers indicated that they intended to create classes of people who were forbidden to own guns for life.

In fact. When you completed a prison sentence in those old days. You got your guns back. Or were allowed to purchase new guns. No problem.

So what makes it moral and ethical to deny this fellow his second amendment rights? It isn’t the gun doing anything. If he chooses to abuse those rights. Deal with it in the courts.

I don’t care if you have a basement full of guns. I don’t care if he does. It is none of my business. He wasn’t hurting anyone. And the plea bargain that set him free happens in a vast majority of cases of criminal activity. I don’t care about that.

You apparently do. So we shouldn’t allow people accused of gun crimes to plead guilty to a lesser crime and avoid trial and the full penalty. I could argue that overcrowding in our prisons kind of dictates the alternate view. But instead I’ll point out a case where the RW celebrated the plea bargain that released people who committed gun crimes.

That couple in St. Louis who got off with a plea bargain slap on the wrist. Tell me how they were heroes screwed by the system again.

What happened to you in your life that led you to this moment where you are defending this awful human being?

 

[westwall]

The problem is that 20 years wasn’t called for by the law. Even if he had been convicted of a murder chances are he wouldn’t do 20 years.

Do you know why people join gangs? No. Of course not.

Imagine you are in that dangerous neighborhood. Walking to the store for bread and milk can get you beaten, robbed, or murdered. You want to protect yourself. Everyone would want to. So you look around. The guys wearing blue aren’t being harassed like that. So you start to hang out with them. With them it is still dangerous. But not nearly as bad as going alone.

Take history and boil it down and see the parallels. When towns would band together to defend the town from Indians in our own history. The foundation of the Militia. Townspeople who came running when there was a threat.

I’m not saying they are misunderstood angels. I am saying they are surviving in their worlds the only way that seems to work. Locking up whole neighborhoods seems expensive. And the thing RW types hate more than crime is high taxes for things like prisons.

So answer me this. Where are we going to put these folks for 20 plus years for their crimes? And how much are you willing to be taxed to afford it?

Really? Shooting an unarmed FIREFIGHTER in the act of fighting a fire isn't a good enough reason to go to prison for 20 years? Are you stupid?

 

[SavannahMann]

What happened to you in your life that led you to this moment where you are defending this awful human being?

I try and put myself in other people’s shoes to get an idea, a shallow and incomplete idea, of what they are enduring. It is inconceivable that anyone on the Right should try this, because then they might experience something other than small minded certainty of their rightness.

Perhaps it was my upbringing. Where I was taught to Judge Not lest ye be so judged. In other words, I was taught by the Priests and Instructors that the compassion I showed, would be returned when my life was over. If I was intolerant and hate filled, that would be my judgement.

Perhaps it was my parents who taught me that disapproving of an action, was much different than disapproval of a person. One was acceptable, the other wasn’t.

Perhaps it is because I’ve had friends who lived in those neighborhoods and I’ve visited them. I’ve seen their world. And I understand enough to be thankful that I did not grow up in such a place. Although my own upbringing was rough enough. About half my High School Class ended up dead or in jail themselves. I went to the Army instead, but few enough of us did.

Perhaps it is because my beliefs are based upon a foundation of this nation. The founders and their thoughts, and ideals. Including the right to keep and bear arms.

Show me where the Founders thought it was appropriate to deprive someone of their Second Amendment Rights because they had completed their sentence. I would bet you can’t, but the truth is you won’t even try. And it is a given that you can’t, because none of the founders wrote it that I’ve ever been able to find. I’ve looked.

But you want to limit guns to those who you approve of. You’re no better than the Gun Grabbers on the Left. Because you want to restrict them to who you want to be armed. Just as they do.

So rant and rave and bitch and moan. My ideals are based upon the foundation of this Nation. My ideals are based in common sense, and truth. What are yours based upon besides intolerance and the attitude that everyone is always guilty of something.

 

[SavannahMann]

Really? Shooting an unarmed FIREFIGHTER in the act of fighting a fire isn't a good enough reason to go to prison for 20 years? Are you stupid?

No. I’m that honest. Attempted Murder rarely sees that kind of sentence, anywhere in the nation. Rarely does the accused do more than a decade for such a crime.

There are multiple reasons, but one of the big ones is that the Prisons, are crowded now. And they can’t really stop prosecuting people to make sure that the guys we have no, serve long sentences.

So answer the question I asked. How much more are you willing to pay in taxes to lock everyone up for as long as you think they should be? Are you willing to pay half again as much in taxes? A 50% increase? Are you willing to pay twice as much? Or do you demand that the Justice System do more with less? Lock up more people, build more prisons, house and care for the prisoners, all for less money.