Comments on: PoP Pontificates

By: Odentex

Odentex — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:02:02 +0000

HBD: I think the problem is there may be a loophole if the offense is under 22-4504 (carrying a concealed weapon) since the amendment in the bill only covers 22-4503 (carrying an illegal weapon). Because part of the “problem” is that the US Atty and PD’s will always be looking for a way to bargain down a tough case, something like this could result in everything being charged under 4504 to avoid the mandatories. A repeated violation of 4504 gets you a higher maximum (10), but no minimum at all. Tah-dah, you’ve found a way to avoid the tough new mandatories in 4503.

My view is that if the US Atty can’t prove their case they shouldn’t bring it, and if the evidence is sufficient they shouldn’t be afraid of a fight on the occasional offender that insists on a trial.

By: Neener

Neener — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0000

I spoke to people about this individual. He is no longer a minor, apparently, but he… gosh, not sure what I can morally share here, he is not mentally fit to recognize how his crimes hurt others. They sent him to a group home but he doesn’t recognize rules and he ran away. I do not believe he belongs in the district, but needs to be sent to a program out of the city.

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:36 +0000

“And Peter Nickles is sounding less angry about his full in-box.”

Maybe his secretary finally finished printing them all out.

By: Christina

Christina — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:35:30 +0000

Update on the multiply-arrested young man that started all this: the Post wrote a story about the letter-writing campaign, and stated that the teen was still in custody as of last Friday evening. Turns out that he had been released Friday afternoon and is still at large.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/24/teen-robbery-suspect-is-back-on-the-street/

And Peter Nickles is sounding less angry about his full in-box.

By: HBD

HBD — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:53:51 +0000

Odentex,

I thought the crime bill provided a 2 year minimum for someone who had a prior felony conviction (which I guess, could be possession of a firearm without a license) and then a higher minimum, I think 5 years, if the prior felony was violent.

Was I reading that incorrectly?

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Perhaps THAT’S the part that’s “out of context” — I would think Nickles knows his way about a Crackberry. I’d be surprised if he’s printing out all his emails.

But just the idea that its all out of context — like he’s saying “Oh, that dumb reporter, what I *meant* to say is that I understand their concerns entirely and we’re taking action!” Um, no. I suspect the reporter made him sound like an insensitive boor because he kinda was being that way, at least in the interview.

By: 900sQuincy

900sQuincy — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:18:38 +0000

another minor point: it says a lot that nickles a)has a person he refers to as “my secretary,” and b)has her print out all his emails. Not the most sensitive, progressive guy.

By: DC_Chica

DC_Chica — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:06:45 +0000

lol – I wondered the same thing, I also thought it was funny that he printed them out! Maybe he’s just not used to getting alot of emails? If one of my parents got fifty emails in the same day they would freak out — of course, they’re also both in their 60’s and not very tech-savvy…

By: Christina

Christina — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:24:54 +0000

Totally not the most important message in this thread, but it annoys me how Mr. Nickles is saying that his quote was taken “out of context.” Exactly what was the “out of context” part — that he’s annoyed by organized letter-writing campaigns, or that he told his secretary to put them in a pile?

By: ENTPdc

ENTPdc — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:27:06 +0000

…