Law Pelosi desk "invader" asks judge for freedom to sell cars

Poon Goon said:
So you gave this guy a "few thousand" dollars and now you have spent an entire day of your life arguing on his behalf on a forum. You have some wild priorities bub.
Click to expand...

I was in a CLE today. Not much going on.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
oh shoot my bad. You’re right. I did that thsr
Click to expand...

Thank you for being honest (I'm serious). I'm glad we can agree to disagree like men and not resort to name calling or insults.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
It’s obvious the prosecutors are overcharging. All they need is probably cause to sign off on a complaint. The prosecutors know that the “dangerous weapon” charges won’t stick at trial because “dangerous weapons” have traditionally meant weapons that cause serious bodily harm. Stun guns do not. They can’t cut or bludgeon like a knife or club. You get hit with it and then you’re fine.
Click to expand...

you can also get hit with one and fall down and hurt yourself and die. many people have.

try going to many countries and crossing the border with a stun gun in your pockets. thats all you will have to do to get arrested.

in the united states the laws prohibit them are few, and much more relaxed, and the only way you can really get in trouble for carrying them is if you have prior convictions of violent crimes or felonies, OR you are in possession of one while in the act of committing another crime. otherwise it just gets treated the same as any other weapon out there. as long as youre carrying it responsibly and not committing any crimes, its no issue at all

carrying around a taser was no big deal at all. Bigo had every right to have that on him. until he decided to carry it with him into federal property. that becomes a seperate crime on his own, for which he has even been hit with two charges over.
 
Last edited:
idrankyourbeer said:
you can also get hit with one and fall down and hurt yourself and die. many people have.

try going to many countries and crossing the border with a stun gun in your pockets. thats all you will have to do to get arrested.

in the united states the laws prohibit them are few, and much more relaxed, and the only way you can really get in trouble for carrying them is if you have prior convictions of violent crimes or felonies, OR you are in possession of one while in the act of committing another crime. otherwise it just gets treated the same as any other weapon out there. as long as youre carrying it responsibly and not committing any crimes, its no issue at all

carrying around a taser was no big deal at all. Bigo had every right to have that on him. until he decided to carry it with him into federal property. that becomes a seperate crime on his own, for which he has even been hit with two charges over. his only way out of it, aside from taking plea deals and having charges stayed, is to somehow be able to convince the right people that a taser cant actually be capable of causing injury or death to somebody, and thus cannot be a dangerous weapon

you would be hard pressed to make that kind of argument against a taser. with all of the laws aside, there are alot of ways you can die and get hurt as a result from them, even if its just indirectly. if you have heart problems, if youre on drugs, or have underlying medical issues, if you just ran a marathon trying to get away from police, it only increases the risk of serious injury or death.

hell even police will first try to deescalate the situation and subdue the perpetrator with pepper spray and other chemical agents first. if they dont choose to pull out their handguns and use lethal force, their taser is their last resort. it is also more dangerous than trying to spray a guy or tackle the perp down, mainly because of the injuries sustained by the person who cannot control their falls, and also if their all on drugs and their heart rate is jacked. every year people die from the use of tasers. being used by police officers who are trained how to use them, and arent genuinely trying to murder them, and in alot of cases shit still happens and they die, or end up breaking bones or ending up disfigured from faceplanting concrete and curbs trying to escape the police. now if those same weapons were being used by unruly criminals with malicious intent, you better damn well believe somebodies gonna end up getting hurt from it

if you cant see why a taser can be looked at as a dangerous weapon and youre genuinely not just trying to troll, then you need to slap yourself. once again, i would like to see you make the argument to me while standing on top of a flight of stairs. or let me hold it to you for a while. i guarantee you won't be making that type of argument after that. its not all peaches and roses and its not always a happy outcome for people who have had to go through it. there is a risk involved with using them, which all the training and experience is not going to ever completely mitigate. not everybody will fall on soft grass, and not everybodies heart will be able to handle it the same way

these things are dangerous. especially when in the wrong hands and used maliciously theres a reason why they are outright banned or heavillly regulated in many countries. trying to convince people why a taser cant possibly be deemed as a dangerous weapon is a completely fucking stupid argument to try to make, because its very easy to shut down.
Click to expand...

Are you on drugs? Can you not make a coherent point? We’ve been over this before. You can’t base laws around worst case scenarios. Sure someone COULD die or be seriously hurt if they’re hit with a stun gun, just like someone COULD die if they inhale peanuts. That doesn’t mean that peanuts are inherently dangerous. A person COULD asphyxiate and die if they are pepper sprayed. But that doesn’t mean that any of these cause serious bodily harm, as required by most jurisdictions to be considered a dangerous weapon.

Your reaction to this is bizarre. Your spamming of statutes and claiming victory is something a high schooler would do. You have not cited anything which can lead anyone to conclude that a stun gun is a de facto dangerous weapon. Sure they are banned some places, but I’m not aware of any statute or precedent which unequivocally states that stun guns cause serious bodily harm. It’s likely a jury question.

Even still, his carrying of a stun gun is irrelevant to my position that the judge was wrong in not setting a bond. The DC Circuit agrees with me.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
The statute is titled “possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in a federal facility”. That is a statute specifically related to firearms and similar weapons. A stun gun is not similar to a firearm and shouldn’t be construed as the same.
Click to expand...


what is the word between firearms and dangerous weapons?

i'll give you a hint skippy, i just answered that part

once again i clearly have to bold and underline it for this former prosecutor and expert in law

TheBlondBomber said:
The statute is titled “possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in a federal facility”.
Click to expand...

do you see the magic word yet after i had to crayola it in for you? i'm sorry but i cant make it any bigger for you so maybe you will understand.

nobody is implying that he ever carried a firearm with him into a federal facility. thats not the part of the statute that he is being federally charged under
 
idrankyourbeer said:
what is the word between firearms and dangerous weapons?

i'll give you a hint skippy, i just answered that part

once again i clearly have to bold and underline it for this former prosecutor and expert in law



do you see the magic word yet after i had to crayola it in for you? i'm sorry but i cant make it any bigger for you so maybe you will understand.

nobody is implying that he ever carried a firearm with him into a federal facility. thats not the part of the statute that he is being federally charged under
Click to expand...

lol and what in that statute defines a stun gun as a dangerous weapon? If a stun gun is a dangerous weapon under that statute, why wasn’t he inducted under that statute? That should be obvious, he was in a federal facility carrying a supposed dangerous weapon. Why wasn’t he charged?!

hint: that statute is nothing applicable to stun guns.

you seem to be missing the link between stun gun and dangerous weapon.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
lol and what in that statute defines a stun gun as a dangerous weapon? If a stun gun is a dangerous weapon under that statute, why wasn’t he inducted under that statute? That should be obvious, he was in a federal facility carrying a supposed dangerous weapon. Why wasn’t he charged?!

you seem to be missing the link between stun gun and dangerous weapon.
Click to expand...


and either you continue to ignore, or you are completely short bus retarded if you cant see how a taser can be seen as a dangerous weapon

tasers are readibly capable of causing injury or death. that is by law, the definition of a dangerous weapon.


many people die from tasers every year, even from being used by trained police officers who arent trying to kill anybody. many countries even heavilly regulate, or have even outright banned them completely because of the dangers they present and the injuries they cause. you're batshit crazy or completely negligent if you cant understand how people often get hurt or die from the use of them. which is it?

surely you believe the bullshit you are spewing out, so why dont you just volunteer yourself to be the sherdog guinea pig and we can all just tase the shit out of you? it'll be fun to watch and surely nothing bad could ever happen to you. especially if we decide to use it maliciously, or your heart isnt feeling up to the task or humpty dumpty takes an epic fall.

theres no way a taser could ever be considered as a dangerous weapon. its just crazy talk says the self proclaimed prosecutor from his armchair
 
Last edited:
Proud American said:
Who tried an insurrection?

that’s fake news. Like complete fake news. Only MSM peddles that nonsense for political gain

you want the videos again?
Click to expand...
Lol, fake news …it’s all fake news…


Unless it supports my own bias right?

at some point ,rational logic and common sense (I won’t even propose critical thinking cause that’s a stretch) has to kick in just a tad…
at some point you have to entertain the idea that maybe ,just maybe…you might be wrong. being manipulated by a con man into thinking every thing opposite your agenda is “fake news” makes you a victim..it’s ok to be a victim, it’s ok to admit mistakes.
 
idrankyourbeer said:
and either you continue to ignore, or you are completely short bus retarded if you cant see how a taser can be seen as a dangerous weapon

tasers are readibly capable of causing injury or death. that is by law, the definition of a dangerous weapon.


many people die from tasers every year, even from being used by trained police officers who arent trying to kill anybody. many countries even heavilly regulate ban them completely because of the dangers they cause. you're batshit crazy or completely negligent if you cant understand how people often get hurt or die from the use of them.

surely you believe the bullshit you are spewing out, so why dont you just volunteer yourself to be the sherdog guinea pig? lets go around in circles some more. its fun!
Click to expand...

First tell me what law you’re citing when you say

“tasers are readibly capable of causing injury or death. that is by law, the definition of a dangerous weapon.”

you have not cited precedent or a statute to support that. Your previously cited statutes DO NOT say that.

People are killed by ladders every year, that doesn’t mean that’s a dangerous weapon. Same with coconuts, bowling balls, shovels, hammers, belts and forks. I’m worst case scenarios, people die from those objects. But sadly, the law doesn’t take your worst case scenario criteria when determining whether an object caused serious bodily harm. There’s no harm done by stun guns besides a shock. Ask anyone who had worked on a ranch and ask them if stun guns or cattle prods cause serious bodily harm.

lol so you’re relying on your own definition of stun guns as “dangerous weapons”, which cause serious bodily harm to people. You’re not relying on anything but your own thoughts to tie a stun gun to that statute. The plain language of the statute is ambiguous at best when it comes to stun guns and the fact that he was not charged under that statute, despite fulfilling the other elements of the statute, indicates that a stun gun is not considered a “dangerous weapon” under that statute.

you are clearly out of your element.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
First tell me what law you’re citing when you say

“tasers are readibly capable of causing injury or death. that is by law, the definition of a dangerous weapon.”

you have not cited precedent or a statute to support that. Your previously cited statutes DO NOT say that.

People are killed by ladders every year, that doesn’t mean that’s a dangerous weapon. Same with coconuts, bowling balls, shovels, hammers, belts and forks. I’m worst case scenarios, people die from those objects. But sadly, the law doesn’t take your worst case scenario criteria when determining whether an object caused serious bodily harm. There’s no harm done by stun guns besides a shock. Ask anyone who had worked on a ranch and ask them if stun guns or cattle prods cause serious bodily harm.

lol so you’re relying on your own definition of stun guns as “dangerous weapons”, which cause serious bodily harm to people. You’re not relying on anything but your own thoughts to tie a stun gun to that statute. The plain language of the statute is ambiguous at best when it comes to stun guns and the fact that he was not charged under that statute, despite fulfilling the other elements of the statute, indicates that a stun gun is not considered a “dangerous weapon” under that statute.

you are clearly out of your element.
Click to expand...
You guys have really went back and forth on this and I wouldn't think of reading the walls of text. I just did a quick search and this is what I found on justice.gov.

What constitutes a "deadly or dangerous weapon" is left to the general definition of that term as found in the law by the courts. See 107 Cong. Rec. 14366-67; H.R. Rep. No. 958, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), p. 15, reprinted in 1961 U.S.Code Cong. and Adm. News 2563, 2570. A "stun gun," as a matter of law, is a dangerous weapon. See United States v. Wallace, 800 F.2d 1509 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1019 (1987).

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1415-deadly-or-dangerous-weapons


Did I miss something?
 
Poon Goon said:
You guys have really went back and forth on this and I wouldn't think of reading the walls of text. I just did a quick search and this is what I found on justice.gov.

What constitutes a "deadly or dangerous weapon" is left to the general definition of that term as found in the law by the courts. See 107 Cong. Rec. 14366-67; H.R. Rep. No. 958, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961), p. 15, reprinted in 1961 U.S.Code Cong. and Adm. News 2563, 2570. A "stun gun," as a matter of law, is a dangerous weapon. See United States v. Wallace, 800 F.2d 1509 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1019 (1987).

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1415-deadly-or-dangerous-weapons


Did I miss something?
Click to expand...


well here is me eating my crow. I was wrong and I am ashamed that i was adamant that it was a jury question. Not an excuse for my ignorance, but I do t practice in the 9th circuit and did not know of that precedent.

my apologies to @idrankyourbeer for my attitude towards you and my ignorance. You were correct and I was wrong.

I stand by my position regarding the bond.
 
TheBlondBomber said:
People are killed by ladders every year, that doesn’t mean that’s a dangerous weapon. Same with coconuts, bowling balls, belts and forks. I’m worst case scenarios, people die from those objects. But sadly, the law doesn’t take your worst case scenario criteria when determining whether an object caused serious bodily harm. There’s no harm done by stun guns besides a shock. Ask anyone who had worked on a ranch and ask them if stun guns or cattle prods cause serious bodily harm.

lol so you’re relying on your own definition of stun guns as “dangerous weapons”, which cause serious bodily harm to people. You’re not relying on anything but your own thoughts to tie a stun gun to that statute. The plain language of the statute is ambiguous at best when it comes to stun guns and the fact that he was not charged under that statute, despite fulfilling the other elements of the statute, indicates that a stun gun is not considered a “dangerous weapon” under that statute.

you are clearly out of your element.
Click to expand...

every state has their own state statute definitions of how they define tasers. they arent federally regulated.

In Idaho, delaware, Iowa, louisiana, maine, missouri, alabama, arizona, maryland, north dakota, tennessee, utah, vermont, and washington state, tasers are quite literally, and specifically classified as a "dangerous weapon or instrument". i can give you the exact statutes of their state laws that literally define them as a "dangerous weapon or instrument" its right here in front of me now.

some states like new hampshire classify them by law as a electronic defense weapon. alot of states simply define them as a weapon. north carolina and south carolina have no statutes at all to define a taser, and in rhode island they are classified as a stun weapon, and under their laws stun weapons are completely prohibited and regular citizens are not allowed to possess or sell them in that state

where im going with this is that despite being legal in 48 states, many states define tasers differently. and if its not specifically defined as a dangerous weapon, then it would be open to interpretation by the courts to decide.

In Washington DC, under, 7-2501.01 tasers are defined as a Destructive device: Any device intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock. The same way the state of kentucky defines them as. where a taser isnt specifically defined in washgton dc as a "dangerous weapon" that will still be open to interpretation for the courts to decide

i dont know about you guys, but a "destructive device" sounds pretty dangerous to me. you'd have a hard time trying to spin that one off in court.
 
Last edited:
idrankyourbeer said:
every state has their own state statute definitions of how they define tasers. they arent federally regulated.

In Idaho, delaware, Iowa, louisiana, maine, missouri, alabama, arizona, maryland, north dakota, tennessee, utah, vermont, and washington state, tasers are quite literally, and specifically classified as a "dangerous weapon or instrument". i can give you the exact statutes of their state laws that actually define them as a "dangerous weapon or instrument" its right here in front of me now.

some states like new hampshire legally classify them as a electronic defense weapons. alot of states simply define them as a weapon. north carolina and south carolina have no statutes for a taser, and in rhode island they are classified as a stun weapon, and under their laws stun weapons are completely prohibited,

where im going with this is that despite being legal in 48 states, many states define tasers differently. and if its not specifically defined as a dangerous weapon, then it would be open to interpretation by the courts to decide.

In Washington DC, under, 7-2501.01 tasers are defined as a Destructive device: Any device intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock. The same way the state of kentucky defines them as. where a taser isnt specifically defined in washgton dc as a "dangerous weapon" that will still be open to interpretation for the courts to decide
Click to expand...
You should learn to Google better. I found the correct answer in less than a minute and it is posted above. He has already apologized to you too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,991
Messages
55,459,738
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top