Friday, April 3, 2015

Shaneen Allen Pardoned by Gov. Christie

Shaneen Allen
Shaneen Allen

Ammoland

We did it! Thanks to your phone calls and e-mails Shaneen Allen was granted a full pardon by Governor Christie.

The single mother who became victim to New Jersey’s ridiculous and draconian gun laws can finally get her life back.

But our fight is not over! As I stated in my January meetings, “We will stop at nothing and keep fighting for our rights with absolutely no compromise.” This is evidence of our success and Shaneen would not have been pardoned if it was not for our members’ persistent and consistent fight for freedom.

18 comments:

  1. Better late--even unconscionably late--than never, I guess, Governor.

    He eventually got around to doing the right thing, but I still wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody wants you to piss on them, even if they were on fire. What a fucked up thing to say. Let hate rule.

      Delete
    2. You're right, FJ. Kurt likes to say fucked up things, I suppose, he thinks it impresses people.

      The fact is, a pardon is too much. She broke the law, and even if we accept her unbelievable defense, that she didn't know it was illegal to carry in Jersey, she still broke the law. I suppose Big Chris is looking to pick up some voters with this travesty of justice.

      Delete
    3. And here we see that while Mike is in favor of not sending people to jail, he definitely wants them to bear their mark as a criminal for the rest of their lives.

      Travesty of justice? For exercising mercy in a case? On behalf of a single mother? What kind of sick person wants a single mother to bear infamy for the rest of her life just so that he can sleep easier knowing she'll no longer be able to touch a gun?

      Delete
    4. "Bear infamy?" You oughta look the word up. You sound like Kurt now.

      Delete
    5. What is your problem with my statement that you want the woman to bear a judgment of infamy for the rest of her life?

      Infamy attaches as part of conviction of a felony. It is this infamy that renders one unable to own a weapon, hold offices of trust, vote, etc. Under our current system, you don't get your wish of lifetime disarmament of Ms. Allen without her being declared infamous for this "crime".

      Delete
    6. Even referring to a felony conviction as "infamy" is ridiculous exaggeration. But, where did I say she needed to have a felony conviction. A misdemeanor slap on the wrist with time served would have done the trick for me. And that would have been must more just that a full pardon. Why is ignorance an excuse in this case (of course I never believed for a second that she was truthful about that, but assuming she was...)?

      Delete
    7. Even referring to a felony conviction as "infamy" is ridiculous exaggeration.

      No it's not. Try getting a decent job with a felony conviction. In some states, a felon cannot even vote (not to mention the lifetime forcible disarmament thing).

      By your standards, who is legitimately eligible for a pardon?

      Delete
    8. The fact is, a pardon is too much. She broke the law . . .

      Since you apparently believe that pardons should only be issued to people who haven't broken the law (because the very purpose of pardons apparently baffles you), I'd love to see your reaction to this:

      For the third time this year, Governor Christie has issued pardons to out-of-state residents charged with violating New Jersey’s strict gun laws – clearing three people Wednesday and again wading into a controversial issue that has dogged him on the campaign trail.

      He's of course still a transparently anti-gun sack of filth, trying desperately to hide from his pro-genocidal tyranny record, but his dishonorable motives notwithstanding, saving these people from the horror of the New Jersey "justice" system has made the universe a better place.

      Delete
  2. What, no absurd allegations that Ammoland photoshopped her picture to make her look less black to appease their racist readers this time?

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/shaneen-allen-catches-break.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know, I don't think I've ever deleted a comment of yours, but this one came close. Usually you leave that petty gotcha stuff to Kurt, yours usually have a bit more substance to them.

      Delete
  3. It's a very interesting question. Why is it illegal to brandish a gun or fire a warning shot when confronted with a physical threat? It just seems like common sense. It is a far nicer thing to do than to kill your attacker. Also, it avoids a messy murder trial, not to mention saving a life.

    Christie is okay. Guys like him need to kick some ass on the rest of the party elite. He should be okay to be president in 2020. Way too fucking soon right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it illegal to brandish a gun or fire a warning shot when confronted with a physical threat? It just seems like common sense. It is a far nicer thing to do than to kill your attacker. Also, it avoids a messy murder trial, not to mention saving a life.

      While I agree that any situation that justifies the use of deadly force should legally justify the mere threat of its use, I wonder if you have Ms. Allen's case confused with Marissa Alexander's, in Florida. That's the high profile "warning shot" case.

      Gun laws--the racist misogynist's weapon of choice.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reminder. Ms. Alexander paid dearly for her "crime," indeed.

      Delete
    3. Actually Kurt, I actually wonder if Alexander's warning shot was a warning or poor marksmanship considering that it ended up hitting the wall beside his head. It also ended up fairly near the kids also as I recall.
      I'm pretty ambivalent about warning shots because intentionally missing makes it a challenge in picking a safe place for the bullet to go.

      Delete
    4. True, SSG. I wasn't commenting on Ms. Alexander's guilt or innocence, because I don't know enough to make an informed comment

      I also hear you regarding the problems with warning shots, but I do reject the legal philosophy that says that if you can get by with just a warning shot, you were never in danger of death or great bodily harm, and thus no shot at all was justified in the first place.

      Delete
    5. "I also hear you regarding the problems with warning shots, but I do reject the legal philosophy that says that if you can get by with just a warning shot, you were never in danger of death or great bodily harm, and thus no shot at all was justified in the first place."

      And that along with the safety issue legislating warning shots into the mix also introduces many more complicating factors in an event such as this. Most of the time, when shots are fired and it isn't a justified use of deadly force, someone is going to get charges with some form of aggravated assault.
      By throwing in an allowance for someone to legally use deadly force before there is even a perceived threat, but just a possible future threat promises to open a whole new can of worms in my opinion.
      One good example of the utility of allowing them would be to look at their use, or rather polices that law enforcement uses in regards to the use of warning shots.
      I personally don't see myself using them in a self defense situation, be it specifically allowed or not.

      Delete
    6. "because I don't know enough to make an informed comment"

      Who are you kidding, Kurt? You make all kids of comments about situations you don't have enough information about.

      Delete