Gun control

[rahmota]

Okay Maybe i should explain somethign I meant by the too many government agencies havign power over weapons and such. You have agencies like Child services who think that a person should not have ANY weapons in a home when you have children. And they define weapons very very liberally. Basically if it looks like a weapon or has a blade longer than 3" it is a weapon. But even though they have no real legal power they will harrass and threaten to take a person's children for having weapons. Forcing people to get a lawyer and fight them.

Okay. i mentioned I am on probation thanks to that bastard judas. Fortunately it is only for 2 years (assumign things dont get wiped out htis august and go away) and then i get my firearms back. But if i was a felon, no matter what it was for or what i did to redeem myself or whatever time was served and restitution was paid to society the RIGHT to keep and bear arms would be forever denied unless i went to court to fight it. (of course felons also cannot vote or do a lot of other things that are not exactly fair and equitable according to the constitution but thats for another thread) And in the current environment that would be rather difficult. This is because more and more thigns are being called felony crimes. More charge are able to be thron at a person. It is getting to the point where a person can be a criminal just for walking the wrong way on a street.

Just because when Judas called 911 he said I had a gun they responded in force (to the point where I was rather rudely thrown to the ground on broken glass even with both hands up in the air and in plain sight, fortunately my lawyer made the officer apologize to me, hes lucky i was trying to have his badge for excessive force) and judas was able to shove aggravated burglury against me even though I was (1) declaring I am unarmed (2) no weapon was found on me (3) I cooperated with the offier (4) and had never been in trouble. I had to plea down to misdemeanor tresspassing to avoid going to prison on felony charges as it was made abundantly clear to me that since the judge was up for reelection there was no way anyone was going to walk out of his court without being found guilty of something.

Anyhow suffice to say that throwing more power to the cops and the government is not the answer to anything. You give these bastards an inch and they will take a mile or more. What we need to do is reduce the amount of power the police and government have over the individual persson's life and increase the indivdual person's responsibility and control over their own life. i mean there is no need for any laws against a person possessing any firearm of any type, caliber or style. It is how that firearm is used that needs to be controlled. And that comes from changing social, cultural and personal perspectives about how firearms are thought of and looked at.

[Fuzzykitten99]

<snip>I can see why the guy in VT may have felt pushed against the wall and hopeless. I may not agree with what he did but I can see and understand it. Understand it is not always the fault of the poor and unemployed that they are in the position they are in. <snip>

It may not be their fault, but working conditions and wages are FAR better now than say, during the industrial revolution, and even the Great Depression. Back then, there was no government-mandated minimum wage. No worker's rights. No OSHA. If you didn't like the working conditions, there was always someone willing to take your place. And, here's the kicker--- you didn't hear of a kid going and lighting up a class full of innocent people because he felt 'pushed against the wall and hopeless'. Why are you justifying this person's actions? I feel stressed right now because we are tight for money. Doesn't mean I go rob a bank or hold people hostage. And if I did, my reason doesn't justify breaking the law and murdering innocent people. I am not above the law, regardless of the root cause of my actions.

Society has come to the point where people are taught to blame others for their plight. In many cases, it isn't their fault for their unemployment and position in life. But that is the way life is. The only one really keeping you down is the attitude that you can't work hard to rise above and prove them wrong. If some people can't do that, that is their problem, not mine. I am willing to help give a boost, but only if their attitude is the right one.

There will always be low-points in someone's life. Financial, emotional, whatever. Saying that their position in life is because the elite don't want them in their little club is just an excuse to not try and get there anyway and prove them wrong. Why are you so worried about the 'elite' not wanting you in their 'club'? Why not find a way to get there, just to piss them off?

[Seshat]

There will always be low-points in someone's life. Financial, emotional, whatever. Saying that their position in life is because the elite don't want them in their little club is just an excuse to not try and get there anyway and prove them wrong. Why are you so worried about the 'elite' not wanting you in their 'club'? Why not find a way to get there, just to piss them off?

Or do what I'm doing, and redefine 'success'. I'll never be healthy enough for the professional-class job and lifestyle I used to call 'successful'. But when I thought about it, I realised that that wasn't necessary anyway: and not necessarily 'successful', either. Now I'm working towards other goals. Doing some good, leaving a legacy, and getting as healthy as is realistic given the disabilities.

So yeah, something prevents you from getting the goal you had in mind? Something moves the goalposts on you? Pick a different goal, or change direction, or something. Just keep moving towards something you can call 'successful'.

[rahmota]

Back then, there was no government-mandated minimum wage. No worker's rights. No OSHA. If you didn't like the working conditions, there was always someone willing to take your place.

And the conditions now adays is not much different. There may be a minimum wage but I'd love to see anyone actually live a decent life on it. Try and do that with kids and you'll have the gestapo come and take the kids for endangerment as you cant support them.
OSHA is a joke by the time they get around to doing anythign people have already died or maimed. And even then all they do is fine the company which if its a minor enough problem the company pays the fine and goes on with life. big deal so what. Heck this government is so friendly with the corps that most of the worker protection laws are unenforced, or the agencies required to enforce those laws are underpaid and overworked beyond belief.
With 5.1% unemployment adn an estimated 350,000 new unemployment claims each week companies have applicants lined up ten deep for most jobs.

[Slytovhand]

I would like to weigh into this debate, but not from a legal point of view. Not even from the POV of arguing one side or another (specifically).

I would just like to express how this debate and some of the arguments make me feel.

Firstly, I would just like to start by saying that this can quite easily be interpreted as a ‘flame’, or a pointed insult. I hope that the gun-lobby on here will forgive me for this, but I do think it’s necessary. I would also like to say that I have handled and fired them (and not too shabbily either, thank you ) Also, I know some people who do own, and I know people who will be owning. I feel relatively safe with the actual gun itself, and also with a couple of those people too. Personally, I could take having one or 2 – but while it’s not quite legal for me to (or there are legals to go through before I could) I’m not that phased that I can’t. I’d rather that while I can’t, I know others can’t as well. I’d also like to point out, that if we had the freedom of guns in our society, and if I had one available, I wouldn’t be here to type this right now.


From the arguments put forth on here, it scares the crap out of me that people can think like this. It makes me never want to visit the US, and certainly not to various parts of it.

What I hear when the ‘it’s my constitutional right to own a gun’ is ‘it’s my constitutional right to go an kill someone any time I feel I can justify it'.

Human life seems to have an incredibly low value. What is it worth? A television? A pack of cigarettes?? The debate always seems to get turned into a match of statistics. Those ‘statistics’ are each a life that has been lost, and a lot of lives spent grieving. The life lost and the lives grieving can, in the most easiest way, have been avoided if those who start the killing did not have access to the weapon. Is the theft of a mere object worth killing someone for? Is a human life so devalued in today’s society that we will truly kill to protect one’s property??

In every post here, the term ‘responsible person’ gets thrown up. Well – humans haven’t yet gotten to that utopian place yet. In the same post, there will be the argument of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’. Ok – assuming that there are people who don’t have that level of responsibility, who or what is to limit their ‘right’ to carry and misuse a firearm? It scares me to death that it could be anyone I walk past in the street who has an attitude.

Yes – that scares me! It’s a ‘fear mentality’ that is being propagated - “you need a gun to protect you from all the bad things in the world”. How would it be if there was as much passion, money, argument etc spent on making the place a safer one to be in? If there are social issues involved – then go spend the money on helping out the needy to make it a better place to live in. Not spend it on a way to make it worse.

I am flabbergasted that when a killing – the taking of innocent human lives – takes place, the gun lobby seems to think that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the situation. There doesn’t appear to be anything ‘wrong’ with a child taking a weapon and killing someone, other than that other children were unable to shoot back. Hey… does it truly matter if it’s 33 children, versus only 2? (2 being the first victim shot, and then the shooter). It’s still the life of a child we’re talking about. Surely, the sanest thing a person can say is ‘that person should not have had access to that gun’? True – there are social issues that need to be addressed, I’m not in any way denying that. But surely, the fastest and surest answer in the short term is to make such weapons harder to get – not easier?

It also scares the crap out of me to hear intelligent points get ignored, or worse, insulted, just because it opposes someone’s ideas. And it also galls me that quite irrelevant arguments get thrown up, which are quite obviously ridiculous (comparing guns and cars - oh please!). Especially on the topic of killing. So – your statistics aren’t my statistics – but one human life is still one human life! When the argument gets empassioned, then reason has a bad tendency to get thrown out the door… hey – that’s what we’re talking about –when someone who was normally responsible and reasonable goes ape and starts shooting someone….

And it also scares the crap out of me to think that our law enforcement officers, who are there to help protect it’s citizens, could easily get killed because someone got their hands on such a weapon – because it was so readily available (and by ‘readily available’, I don’t mean the paper work.. I’m talking about Joe or Jane Blog owns a gun quite legally, and then just hands it over to Harry who goes for a joy ride and doesn’t want to get pulled over, and then panics!) Especially when the argument gets put forth that the enforcement agencies might, just might, turn against it's citizens.. that alone is supposed to justify the added risk the police have to face?


I just read Rahmota’s “deserving of an evil empire” line on page 8. Guess what? I live in an ‘evil empire’. I am not paranoid, I don’t think my government is doing the very best that it can, and sometimes it doesn’t have my personal best interests at heart.. but I’m not scared of being shot as I walk down the road, because some gun-owner who used to be responsible is having a real bad day, and needs to take it out on someone.

If the gun lobby were really that gung-ho about civil liberties and freedom and rights, they’d probably be in the middle of civil war right now. If you take a look at the laws the presidents have been enacting over the past few years, you’d see that most of your personal freedoms and liberties don’t exist anymore. The US security services now have the right to walk into your home, handcuff you, take you away, detain you with no access to legal aid, no right to contact anybody, not even the right to tell someone what’s happened to you – with no charges laid. They can currently keep you there indefinitely, and for no reason at all. Additionally, they have the right, right now, to monitor every form of communication that you use. For that matter, it wouldn’t surprise me if they already are.. given the comments on here about willingness to fight the government.

Also.. I would be just as scared, and not wanting to go to, those Middle-East or African countries which you see on the TV, and all those ‘militia’ are wielding their guns and shooting up into the air! Are those individuals any less ‘responsible’?


Let me ask a hypothetical. What if the US government decided to hold a referendum on the subject? What if the results of that referendum were that 60% of the people of the US decided to impose greater gun control laws? Would you hand them over? What if that figure was 75%? Or 90%?? You live in a democratic country, where the people (the majority) have the right to elect officials to enact laws for their personal safety and well being. Would that democratic process just get thrown out the window because it doesn’t fit someone’s ‘personal freedom’ to own a gun?




Slyt

[rahmota]

What I hear when the ‘it’s my constitutional right to own a gun’ is ‘it’s my constitutional right to go an kill someone any time I feel I can justify it'.

Thats truely what you hear when you hear a person defend their constiutional right to be able to defend themselves? Wow you have a very strange POV on the us. Having a firearm does not mean what you are saying it means. It means you are to hold yourself to a higher standard than just some gunslinging nutjob. There are laws against using that firearm to just go out and murder someone. There are laws against using a firearm irresponsibly. Just because a person does posess a firearm does not make them an irresponsible or violent person. The two are not interlinked.

Is a human life so devalued in today’s society that we will truly kill to protect one’s property??

It is not so much the property that is being defended but ones home and family and own life. Suppose you are in your home and someone breaks in. You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family. If they are in your home then you know they are already hostile to you so shooting them is valid and understandable. The same can be said if you ar ein your car and someone breaks into it or attacks you. they have forfeited their life by threatening yours.

I am flabbergasted that when a killing – the taking of innocent human lives – takes place, the gun lobby seems to think that there is ‘nothing wrong’ with the situation. There doesn’t appear to be anything ‘wrong’ with a child taking a weapon and killing someone, other than that other children were unable to shoot back. Hey… does it truly matter if it’s 33 children, versus only 2? (2 being the first victim shot, and then the shooter). It’s still the life of a child we’re talking about. Surely, the sanest thing a person can say is ‘that person should not have had access to that gun’? True – there are social issues that need to be addressed, I’m not in any way denying that. But surely, the fastest and surest answer in the short term is to make such weapons harder to get – not easier

No the thing is to increase education and responsibility. Especially as child related firearm incidents are rather inflated by the anti-firearm organizations.

Let me ask a hypothetical. What if the US government decided to hold a referendum on the subject? What if the results of that referendum were that 60% of the people of the US decided to impose greater gun control laws? Would you hand them over? What if that figure was 75%? Or 90%?? You live in a democratic country, where the people (the majority) have the right to elect officials to enact laws for their personal safety and well being. Would that democratic process just get thrown out the window because it doesn’t fit someone’s ‘personal freedom’ to own a gun?

I can honestly answer that with a resounding no. The government would be disolved or I would rather die. because a referendum like that would be first off illegal, second off unconstitutional and third off immoral. I and other firearms owners would prefer to fight things within the courts as the step of civil war would be a last ditch effort with results that would not be able to be backed away from easily. It would mean the dissolving of our government and while that might not be a bad thing it would be an act that would be irrevocable and have to be handled with some severe and serious consideration.

And I sincerely doubt that you would get above 30% in a referendum like that and almost all of them would be in urban areas.

[Slytovhand]

Thats truely what you hear when you hear a person defend their constiutional right to be able to defend themselves? Wow you have a very strange POV on the us. Having a firearm does not mean what you are saying it means. It means you are to hold yourself to a higher standard than just some gunslinging nutjob. There are laws against using that firearm to just go out and murder someone. There are laws against using a firearm irresponsibly. Just because a person does posess a firearm does not make them an irresponsible or violent person. The two are not interlinked.

Oh - very true, very true. Unfortunately, the problem with the whole gun-control argument is that it isn't really directed against those responsible law abiding people. It's against giving the 'nutjobs' easier access to those guns. I noticed in your "Your in Charge" thread, that you put legalisation of all drugs directly above everyone has a gun... thus, if someone gets smacked off their head on something, and go on a shooting spree, that it's 'ok'... and everyone needs to fend for themselves. In the interests of making the place a bit safer, it would be easier (in lieu of the legal wrangling that you also appear to despise), to stop the easy access of weapons, rather than give them to everyone. At the very least, I would think licensing and registration mandatory. (oh, btw, when stricter gun control laws were introduced into this country, and our Olympic shooting teams still mentioned to get medals.. including gold )

Honestly (as againstly lyingly ), I would love to agree with your entire argument and 'right to bear arms'.... but humanity isn't all that responsible. Hell... take a look at what we're doing to the planet. Take a look at how we (the human race) treats itself... in the broader world view.... We (humanity as a whole) isn't ready to deal with that level of responsibility... yet. If we were, this entire thread wouldn't be here (of course... neither would CS )

It is not so much the property that is being defended but ones home and family and own life. Suppose you are in your home and someone breaks in. You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family. If they are in your home then you know they are already hostile to you so shooting them is valid and understandable. The same can be said if you ar ein your car and someone breaks into it or attacks you. they have forfeited their life by threatening yours.

Pass... I can't agree with that. Oh - the bit about 'or attacks you' is obviously a yes. But to say because someone has entered your house, they have forfeited their life by threatening yours... nope! As I said... your TV isn't worth someone's life. But if someone enters your house, yeah... you've got a 'right' to yell out to them that you have a gun, and even to discharge (if you have one) into the roof/floor. But not to automatically shoot them just for being in there (even with intent to....steal??). Now... you did say "You do not know what they are going to do to you or your family". Well... I have other weapons available to me... like kitchen knives (not that I want them to get that close...). I also happen to have a sword (blunt, but still). But even if I had a gun, I still don't want to start a shooting match...

No the thing is to increase education and responsibility. Especially as child related firearm incidents are rather inflated by the anti-firearm organizations.

Inflated or not, 1 is still 1 too many. See above for 'responsibility'.

I can honestly answer that with a resounding no. The government would be disolved or I would rather die. because a referendum like that would be first off illegal, second off unconstitutional and third off immoral. I and other firearms owners would prefer to fight things within the courts as the step of civil war would be a last ditch effort with results that would not be able to be backed away from easily. It would mean the dissolving of our government and while that might not be a bad thing it would be an act that would be irrevocable and have to be handled with some severe and serious consideration.

And I sincerely doubt that you would get above 30% in a referendum like that and almost all of them would be in urban areas.

Umm - I have to guess which the 'resounding no' refers to... cos I threw a few different questions in at once...bad me

I find it sad (and scary) that, given that hypothetical, you would rather die, or (if I read correctly) go to civil war, if 70% of your population voted for stricter gun control laws. (of course... I may have mis-read you there...). Even if the majority were from the urban areas, would that really matter if the law was passed? After all, hopefully, all laws are made with the benefit of society as a whole in mind, not just for individuals.. which means, by definition, that the individual has to give up certain freedoms in order for that society to function effectively.

And having a referendum would be illegal and unconstitutional?? Weird. Personally, I couldn't think of anything thing that should be more legal (having the entire populous of a country making a decision about a law).

Immoral?? WTF??? What's the argument for that??


Speaking of this 'right'... (and a bit OT), does that right extend outside the US? (legally, obviously not, but since you used the term... morally?)


Slyt

[rahmota]

and everyone needs to fend for themselves. In the interests of making the place a bit safer

People who are armed and trained are able to defend themselves. Firearms make it easier for those who are not physically capable of wielding a sword or bow or xbow to defend themselves.

We (humanity as a whole) isn't ready to deal with that level of responsibility... yet

So? The irresponsible ones die the responsible ones live the world becomes a better place. The equation balances itself out.

But if someone enters your house, yeah... you've got a 'right' to yell out to them that you have a gun, and even to discharge (if you have one) into the roof/f

So aperson has no right to defend themselves in their own home? Their own home is not their castle? That a person's home can be invaded and violated and their lives threatened with impunity? Yelling at them just lets them know where you are and if they are in your home and caught by you then they most likely have hostile intent and then you are a target. Discharging a firearm into the roof or floor is irresponsible as that can result in collateral damage not to mention damage to your own property. Also unless you are using the right kind of rounds there is an increased chance of collateral damage to bystanders in apartment buildings. low velocity rounds will enter the human body but not exit. Also using fragmentation rouds will enter the body but not penetrate walls.

I find it sad (and scary) that, given that hypothetical, you would rather die, or (if I read correctly) go to civil war

*shrug* Thats you. I personally find it honorable, decent, and responsible to be willing to die to defend my constitutional and human rights. When a government ceases to be the servant of its citizens then it deserves to fall.

there...). Even if the majority were from the urban areas, would that really matter if the law was p

yes because laws that are passed and might work in the urban environemtns usually do not work or are not right for rural environments. Sometimes it works out the zame way the other way.

passed? After all, hopefully, all laws are made with the benefit of society as a whole in mind, not just for individuals.. which means, by definition, that the individual has to give up certain freedoms in order for that society to function effectively

Yes individuals have to give up SOME freedoms for society to function but the balance must always, always be in favor of the individual over the good of society. Society is made up of the individual working in concert as a whole. Not the body politic dictating from the top down.

And having a referendum would be illegal and unconstitutional

Yes the second amendment protects the citizen's right to bear arms. To change that would require certain steps and methods to be passed namely passing an amendment to the constitution a simple referendum would not be constitutional which would mean it would be illegal as you cannot change the constitution by just popular vote.

Speaking of this 'right'... (and a bit OT), does that right extend outside the US? (legally, obviously not, but since you used the term... morally?)

Well yes the human right to defend oneself by whatever means required extends to all human citizens. if the bad guys have firearms then the good guys need them. Otherwise you always have what happens when unarmed people go against armed people.....

[BlackIronCrown]

Human life seems to have an incredibly low value. What is it worth? A television? A pack of cigarettes??

In all seriousness, the human body is worth $4.50-$5 American. That is the value if broken down into its material components and sold on the open market.

And before you ask, this does not include intangibles like knowledge. Such things as knowledge and experience cannot be measured and thus cannot be given a price tag. Thus, they have no monetary value as such.

Ok – assuming that there are people who don’t have that level of responsibility, who or what is to limit their ‘right’ to carry and misuse a firearm? It scares me to death that it could be anyone I walk past in the street who has an attitude.

This is what most people who advocate the loosening of gun control don't understand. There is no limit. None. The only thing stopping someone from just letting forth full auto is a) whatever "morals" or "ethics" they might accidentally have, usually none and b) fear of the law. If you don't have either of those - and a lot of Americans don't - then it becomes a free-for-all.

And it also scares the crap out of me to think that our law enforcement officers, who are there to help protect it’s citizens, could easily get killed because someone got their hands on such a weapon – because it was so readily available (and by ‘readily available’, I don’t mean the paper work.. I’m talking about Joe or Jane Blog owns a gun quite legally, and then just hands it over to Harry who goes for a joy ride and doesn’t want to get pulled over, and then panics!) Especially when the argument gets put forth that the enforcement agencies might, just might, turn against it's citizens.. that alone is supposed to justify the added risk the police have to face?

Correct. Let's face it - your average gangbanger outweighs the average firepower of a cop, usually through dirty dealing from the National Guard selling stocks out the back door. Armor-piercing, full-auto - it's all available on the streets if you know who to ask.

The US security services now have the right to walk into your home, handcuff you, take you away, detain you with no access to legal aid, no right to contact anybody, not even the right to tell someone what’s happened to you – with no charges laid. They can currently keep you there indefinitely, and for no reason at all.

Actually, have to argue it. It may APPEAR to be that way through the media, but that's not true. If you're NOT an American citizen, yes, that is possible. If you ARE an American citizen, it can't happen. Habeas corpus has been defined as to not to apply to non-citizens by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

[crazylegs]

So aperson has no right to defend themselves in their own home? Their own home is not their castle? That a person's home can be invaded and violated and their lives threatened with impunity? Yelling at them just lets them know where you are and if they are in your home and caught by you then they most likely have hostile intent and then you are a target.

Seeing as (in the UK) the majority of burglars are doing it to fund their drug habit I can assure you they are considerably more scared of encountering resistance of any description in the house than you are of them. They will be weakened (by the drug habit) so detaining them is perfectly feasible without the use of firearms (it comes down to training, I can take down a 20stone self defense expert because of my training. Before you state I'm a strapping young man, my BMI is lower than 18.5, I am mediacally speaking underweight.

Unless you catch them in the kitchen (thats really unlucky) then shouing at them will probably work AS LONG AS YOUR VOICE CARRIES AUTHORITY.

[Pedersen]

Actually, have to argue it. It may APPEAR to be that way through the media, but that's not true. If you're NOT an American citizen, yes, that is possible. If you ARE an American citizen, it can't happen. Habeas corpus has been defined as to not to apply to non-citizens by the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Unless, of course, they find a little loophole which allows them to hold a US citizen indefinitely without charging said citizen with a crime.

[IDrinkaRum]

In my neck of the woods, in the states, we have a lot of "home invasion" burglaries. These types of burglaries are where the perpetrators (and there are usually at least 2 to 4) get into the home either by forcing open a window or door or just knocking on the door and the homeowner just randomly answers said door & a scuffle ensues as the criminals force themselves into the house and subdue the person who answered the door.

If I'm in another part of the house & I hear the scuffle, I'd do a couple of things. 1) grab the phone. 2) get a gun (if I had one - we do not) or find a weapon of some sort. 3) find someplace to hide and call 911 and report what is happening.

Let me tell you - 9 out of 10 home invasion burglaries do not end happily for the family/owners of the house that has been burglarized.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks for the link, Pedersen.. that was the sort of thing I was thinking of.

I have had a thought...

Most if not all of us seem to be of the opinion that at least a major part of the reason for carrying a gun (not the 2nd Ammendment bit, nor the 'so the government doesn't take over) is against crime, and that crime comes from society's woes...


Well... last estimate places the US at having around 280 Million guns... about 1 for every person there (and that's only the known element, btw).

so... take the average price on each gun (and I'll be fairly conservative...hahahaha) and say $100.

There's $28 (US)Billion dollars... (English would have a million million equal 1 billion..... that's why they don't have as many billionaires...)

How about ammunition?

Factor another, say. $100 per weapon (no doubt you'd go through a stack more than that....)

But there's another $28 billion dollars.

So...there's $36 Billion.

How would that go in fixing some of the social issues that would give rise to the crime that the guns are supposed to defend against?


Just a thought....

[BlackIronCrown]

Unless, of course, they find a little loophole which allows them to hold a US citizen indefinitely without charging said citizen with a crime.

I would agree on that EXCEPT...after being held for 5 weeks to serve as a material witness for the other 7 guys arrested and indicted (and held because he was considered to be hostile and a flight risk), he himself was indicted and plead guilty, guilty, guilty.

Got a reduced sentence, though, for testifying against his former co-conspirators.

(I feel really bad for all his supporters who said he was innocent. What an awful surprise.)

[Zyanya]

I would agree on that EXCEPT...after being held for 5 weeks to serve as a material witness for the other 7 guys arrested and indicted (and held because he was considered to be hostile and a flight risk), he himself was indicted and plead guilty, guilty, guilty.

Got a reduced sentence, though, for testifying against his former co-conspirators.

(I feel really bad for all his supporters who said he was innocent. What an awful surprise.)

Given the choice between being held for the rest of your life while you proclaim your innocence or getting out of jail in a short time but pleading guilty, which do you think you would pick if you were already well aware the system was corrupt?


Not saying I think he is innocent, just pointing out something that may have been a consideration.