• Robert Taylor
  • 24
  • Aug
  • 09

Last November, Plaxico Burress, a 31-year old NFL Pro-Bowl receiver from the NY Giants, accidentally shot himself in the foot with an unregistered gun he had in his pants at a nightclub in downtown New York City. Last week, he plead guilty to one count of “attempted criminal possession of a weapon,” and will soon begin a two-year prison sentence.

Burress, like so many victims of power-hungry police, plead guilty in the fear of a much larger sentence (in this case, up to fifteen years in prison) for the “crime” of an unlicensed firearm. Because Burress didn’t register his gun with the government, he will now lose two-years’ salary while rotting away behind bars.

At the time of the incident, NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg scolded the Super Bowl winner, arguing that Burress should be prosecuted “to the fullest extent of the law…especially since he is a public figure and a sports hero.” Bloomberg’s glee sums up the tragic aspect of Burress’ sentence: why does American culture enjoy seeing people put in prison?

Probably because they’re so used to the spectacle. As of 2007, the US has 2.3 million people in prison, and another 5 million on parole or probation. The US also holds almost 24% of the global prisoners, despite having only 5% of the population. Either Americans are violent and crazy criminals, or there is something very wrong with our judicial system.

Handing a guy a two year prison sentence for shooting himself in the foot is an extremely disproportionate punishment backed by a prosecutor mentality that grips cops, judges, and attorneys. The severity of the sentence suggests not an effort to seek justice, but an attempt by an ever enlarging police-prison state to make an example, intimidate, and dissuade others from arming themselves. Burress is being put in prison not for harming someone else, but for refusing to have permission from the State to carry his own property. No grievances, complaints, or lawsuits by an individual seeking restitution was filed. How is this a crime?

Instead of prosecuting actual crimes, like murder, rape, and theft (actions that violate person or property), the US spends an exorbitant amount of money policing the populace in three key categories: driving, drug use, and gun ownership. In each of these three, “law enforcement” imposes increasing fines and jail sentences that remind people of who’s really in charge, and add nothing to “safety.” I feel so much safer knowing that our good and noble government is punishing speeders, drug users, unlicensed gun owners, and especially those who choose not to wear a helmet or a seat belt. Lost under this faux-concern for safety is, unfortunately, our liberty.

Government, the only institution with a legalized monopoly of force, “serves and protects” about as well as a cannibal or parasite does, and dares to tax us for this “protection” (kind of like paying off the Mob). For example, the governments’ “war on crime” and “war on drugs” ignore every constitutional protection , while only increasing violent crime, drug use, and drug addiction. The US justice system is obsessed with the idea that if we just put some people in prison for long periods of time, then they will magically be “corrected” for their “crimes.”

And like every government program ever devised, the results are exactly opposite of what was intended. The US police-prison state merely fosters resentment, make its more difficult for the sentenced to be productive members of society, and adds more and more government intrusion into our personal lives.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

» You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

The Drug War Finds A New Enemy - Robert Taylor, 29 July 2009
Orwell’s Britain and America’s Future - Robert Taylor, 9 July 2009
A Vile Uniquely Human - Rob Spectre, 28 October 2009
California Budget Deal Blocked By Illiteracy - Rob Spectre, 22 July 2009
Crooked Kingdom for a Holy Land - Rob Spectre, 2 April 2009
  • Hala Furst
    Can we talk about the 2nd Amendment? Can we? Because I would really like to. Especially after spending the summer in the belly of the Federal beast as an intern, especially after researching the 14th Amendment's effect on our civil liberties in depth.

    First of all, Burress was not charged or convicted of 'the “crime” of an unlicensed firearm' as you put it- he was charged and convicted of the CRIME of having an unlicensed firearm in a public place. He had no license to carry that weapon, at any time, anywhere. He had no conceal and carry permit. Even if he did, this establishment didn't allow them, as all private places are allowed to do. The man SHOT himself- which would indicate that he is not, as many responsible gun owners are, TRAINED. Which means he put others in harms way, the admitted limit of the even the most libertarian philosophy on freedom.

    The Wars on Nouns have all failed, I'll give you that, but you cannot realistically argue that the state does not have a valid interest in protecting its citizens from armed idiots. None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments are absolute. All of them are subject to encroachment under standards ranging from the merely reasonable to the most extreme of situations. The Second is no exception. It started out as a political right intended to keep the power and the vote where it belonged, in the hands of the people. It morphed, via the Civil War, the Black Codes, and the 14th Amendment (and the doctrine of incorporation) into a Civil right, one meant to aid the individual in protecting himself, his property, his family. Since then we have all been negotiating the divide.

    But I will put money on the fact that none of the framers of the Bill or the 14th ever intended that to include some spoiled asshole bringing a weapon he had no need for and no working knowledge of into a crowded dance club. To place this person's actions and the subsequent rightful actions of the police into the framework of "liberty" and a "police-state" is dangerously under-informed, and casts a shadow on some of your otherwise valid assertions.

    I'm from Kansas. I have no problem with guns. My family has owned guns. My parents have both, for various reasons and at various times, fired or been protected by guns. What I have a problem with is people. I have a problem with people like the ones most recently attending the Town Hall meetings armed to the teeth, asserting that their Second Amendment rights allow them to bring an automatic weapon into a confined space to meet the President. No. Just No. Those people have exactly enough knowledge to be dangerous. They know what the words in the Second Amendment mean, in terms of the dictionary, but they have absolutely no understanding of their legal significance, the trajectory of their history, or the intention of their writers. Plaxico Burress is one of those people. Just because a right exists, doesn't mean you get to exercise it everywhere, all the time, for any reason. We live in a society, one in which we all must participate, or all fail. I don't think it is too much to ask of one another that we don't accidentally go shooting off deadly weapons in public places.
  • TDub
    Dude had a handgun. Loaded. Which he brought with him to a trendier nightclub. I'm assuming so he could perform twirly gun tricks at the bar, and fire off a few rounds at the club's shooting range, in between glasses of Cristal? Where due to his, if not inexperience (which I've no way of gauging), his ineptitude - shot himself in the foot.

    How do you imagine the rest of the club-goers felt, after learning Burress was an irresponsible jackass who willingly and knowingly put them all in harm's way, simply so he could accessorize with an image I'm guessing he wanted to portray?

    As best I understand it - he was charged as he was because they cut him a rather large break. I don't imagine he had a permit for concealed carry, for example. I'm personally in agreement with Mayor Bloomberg - Burress' demonstrated decision making skills suck, and other people could have suffered for them. Will it send the hoped-for message? No. It's not likely. But Burress certainly earned far more then a 'tsk tsk' and a sternly shaken finger.

    Why does "freedom" need to demand the acceptance that I should be alright with other people putting me and/or my family at risk due to their negligence and irresponsibility with firearms? Shouldn't I be able to be free to go out for an evening, or just out about town, and not have to worry about getting tagged by a mis-fire or careless jackass? Which freedom trumps which freedom?

    I mean - I can only imagine what might have happened if folks were allowed to attend Shaft shows armed. Club owners and goers alike.
  • Plaxico Burress is the reason the Patriots lost Super Bowl 42.

    This is not injustice.

    This is fucking *karma*.
blog comments powered by Disqus