Lakeisha Gadson was already doing time, says the minister who buried her son, even though a jury acquitted the Roxbury mother yesterday of the most serious charges in connection with her boy’s tragic shooting death. Prosecutors accused Gadson of recklessly causing the death of her 8-year-old son, Liquarry Jefferson, by letting an older son stash a loaded gun in their apartment.She's still going to be sentenced for having lied to the cops initially about what happened. But, at least she's not going to jail for manslaughter.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
She was acquitted because she applied for, her record checked, and acquired a green light for a firearms license from the local police.
ReplyDeleteNope.
She was acquitted because she kept her weapon registration up-to-date.
Nope.
She was acquitted because she followed MA safe storage laws.
Nope.
She was acquitted because she acquired the firearm through a licensed dealer.
Nope.
She was acquitted because she allowed the police to conduct a firearms safety inspection in her home.
Nope.
She was acquitted because she lied to the police with at least three different stories to cover for her armed robber boyfriend who gave the weapon to her eldest son since he would be the "man of the house" while he was in jail. (speculation)
Nope.
She was acquitted because MA gun laws are ineffective, unenforceable, unconstitutional, and unpalatable to the MA public.
Yes.
See, and you say gun laws are to prevent "Gun Violence" and stop the "Flow" of guns into criminal hands.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile when a real-deal criminal gets caught in violation of DOZENS of gun control laws all charges are dismissed.
Gun control laws are just for harassing lawful people. This case proves it.
So MikeB, how is this a positive outcome?
ReplyDeleteA child has died.
The mother (who lied to the police about how the weapon used to cause the death of her child got into the house, and who the owner of the weapon was) is not convicted on any of the gun laws that she broke.
1.How is the mother not getting convicted for manslaughter a good outcome?
2.Why is it that you celebrate her not being convicted here, yet you lament others not being convicted or having their rights revoked in other (less clear-cut) cases?
3.What law would have worked to protect the child?
4.What law would have successfully convicted the mother for her part in this tragedy?
5.What do you think should have been the perfect outcome for this incident (new legislation, her rights revoked, etc.)?
I really am curious as to how you see this as a positive, so please answer.
Thank you.
Anon, MikeB is pro-criminal, and anti-lawful citizen. So in his books a woman guilty of multiple gun infractions for nefarious reasons is a "Victory", just as how he considers somebody who shoots a serial rapist in self defense a "Loss".
ReplyDeleteWell, one thing is I don't think this one was as simple as some of the others. The teenage son makes the assignment of blame a bit messy. Plus, I always feel for the folks who lose a loved one and are then charged with a crime in relation to it. I don't think you'll find any examples of my lamenting a light sentence for someone like that. You'll definitely find examples of my complaining when the parental responsibility is not even mentioned, and when those are white folks in gun friendly states, you'll see I complained the most.
ReplyDeleteBut even in those cases, I'd say some kind of government supervision and forfeiture of the guns is the appropriate punishment, definitely the irrevocable loss of the right to own firearms.
So, because she's black, in a gun-unfriendly state, she gets to shirk her responsibility as a parent? A little "white guilt" going on there?
ReplyDeleteSo much for the equal application of the law.
So who holds more responsibility--the mother or the guy who's gun was stolen so it could be diverted to the black market?
ReplyDeleteAnd how is that not "less messy"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr, Your silly attempt to paint me as the one condoning unequal sentencing is just that, silly.
ReplyDeleteWhen I black guy gets a too heavy sentence, I don't like it. When a white guy gets a too light sentence, I don't like that.
When these things happen, which they do frequently, I question if there's racism going on.
What's your problem with that exactly?
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWhen I black guy gets a too heavy sentence, I don't like it. When a white guy gets a too light sentence, I don't like that.
When these things happen, which they do frequently, I question if there's racism going on.
What's your problem with that exactly?
I won't presume to speak for RuffRidr (who most certainly does not need a spokesman, and even more certainly will not be aided by one of my limited talents), but my problem is that "when [a] black guy gets a too heavy sentence . . . [and] When a white guy gets a too light sentence . . . " is evidently more offensive to you than the opposite.
How is it not racism to impose unequal demands for justice, based on race?
Zorro, You'll have to do better than that. I'm not proposing unequal sentencing based upon race and you know it. I'm questioning whether racism is the motive behind some of these cases.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteI'm questioning whether racism is the motive behind some of these cases.
I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that blacks, Hispanics (and presumably other minorities) are treated more harshly in the courts than white people. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Washington state law barring felons from voting, on the grounds that it's racially discriminatory, because blacks are prosecuted and incarcerated vastly more than (equally criminal) whites. That was based on a study of the justice system in Washington, but it's hard to imagine that things are much better in other states. The implications of this finding, regarding race and felon disarmament laws, like the Gun Control Act of '68, can be a discussion for another time.
And, yes--that discrimination is unacceptable, and being outraged over it is perfectly understandable.
What I object to is that you don't just call for making the punishment fit the crime, whatever the race of the accused--you specify that blacks being prosecuted too harshly, and whites not harshly enough, is what bothers you.
Why not take race out of it altogether?
Keep in mind that make sense to take chances if you're thinking of getting a sizegenetics. You intend to ensure that you choose to get the top end sizegenetics people also need to remember that your person who offers you this sizegenetics is someone who is honest, one who are usually trusted and one who will be discreet. Be sure that guarantee they begin to are someone who you will definitely like performing on you in addition. There are numerous profiles out there of gay men who perform these tasks. You could take your pick belonging to the very best should you go online for the site that offers this style of service through a reliable and discreet agency.
ReplyDeletehttp://buysizegeneticsonline.tumblr.com/
Eight most incredible web page varieties http://toptriactolreview.com/
ReplyDelete