Aldon Smith apparently arrested again

[twisted_steel2]

Isn't his gun case supposed to wrap up during this off-season?

Probably, but when football players are involved with crime they seem to allow the lawyers to make things quite convenient for the player.

One thing to consider is the weapons case being pretty much a sure thing. I can still see a deal being worked, but a stint in rehab isn't going to help the weapons charge. That is one of those deals where circumstances can't help him and there is a precedence for it.

With the state of CA having tough gun laws, the star power likely won't help Smith in that one. A felony, no questions asked. Any time the legal system gets a chance to hammer gun charges, they do it as a sign to others.

The attorney might try to get that case strung out really, really far because they know that a penalty is coming. I doubt that the state negotiates a deal that reduces it to a misdemeanor. Maybe one that cuts the jail time to nothing or very small, but gun charges are tough to beat. He either had one that was not allowed in CA or he didn't. He won't be able to say "it was a friend's gun" or claim it wasn't on his property.

Depending on where he was when he bought it, there might even be a record of him purchasing it. We will find out soon enough, but no way does Smith skate on everything.

I really don't know the law well enough to argue your point too strongly, but what you are saying goes against just about every legal opinion I've read on the subject.

As I understand it, the way the law is written is that it would have to be proven that he knowingly went to Arizona to buy the guns in an effort to circumvent the law in CA. Most lawyers I've read who have written about it were a bit surprised he was charged at all with respect to the guns because he was attacked that night and the guns were only found when the police searched the property. It isn't normal that the police are called to the house of a man that was stabbed in his home and then he gets charged for the guns he owns in his closet. That doesn't make them legal, but they wouldn't typically be charged.

Those same lawyers seem to think that the Gun Charge was added in attempt to get a better plea deal in the DUI case and that the gun charge will likely be dropped. Very difficult to prove. It also a response to the Police Department having egg on its face after inviting Aldon and other team members to a Police Function at a shooting range AFTER the incident.

As I said...I don't completely understand the law but the people I've read on the subject who do understand the law don't seem to think the gun charge will stick. I'm not justifying what he's done...just sayin' I don't think its going to turn out the way you think it does.

Just on a side note, and this isn't to you specifically...but its not like Aldon has broken new ground here (ok...maybe saying bomb in an Airport is new. LOL). Marshawn Lynch was no angel in Buffalo. Hit and Run. DUI. Felony Gun possession. There was a reason the Bills were willing to get rid of him. This isn't a slam on Lynch as I'm a Cal Bear fan and I've always liked the guy. I'm just saying that players can start out as knuckleheads and turn themselves around. I just hope it doesn't require him being released to figure it out. If you don't believe me about Lynch BTW...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3909366

Besides all these things being spaced out in time frames unlike Aldon, Lynch didn't injure someone and then flee the scene. He was in a crowded situation where someone claimed he hit them and he went home parked in front of his house and the police officer stated he looked genuinely surprised when the questioned him about it. There was no damage to his car and it wasn't like he tried to hide the vehicle like you would expect someone who just hit someone.

The gun charge was stupid but that was a lifetime ago and he didn't shoot it into a crowd to try and scare people. his DUI was reduced because he blew right at the legal limit. Not nearly twice the limit like Aldon and they didn't find a pot pipe in his center console and prescription drugs too. Not to mention he wasn't passed out cold with his foot smashed to the accelerator while being smashed up against a tree in a residential neighborhood at 7:30 in the morning when kids were going to school and a repeat offender. How long was it between DUI's for Aldon? 8 months?

Trying to use Lynch as an example just makes you look like a complete idiot. There is no justification in the world to compare Lynch's ancient history to Aldon's continuous special Olympics brain power. You must be spending to much time on the webzone justifying Aldon's ignorance. I imagine you are probably typing with your knuckles by now with having worn your fingers down so far from the spinning and manipulating you constantly do to justify your criminal filled team.

How does it feel to look up to the Raiders and Bengals as teams that are better than you? At least off the field anyway.

Haha RichNhansom :th2thumbs:

 

[Marvin49]

Um Marvin.

California law says that if you have a non conforming weapon in your possession, that is not legal in the state of CA, that you broke the law unless you can prove that gun was registered by the owner before a date in 2005. A weapon of such nature (like Smith's) can be possessed in the state if the DOJ has granted an exemption (not typical)

So.. if Smith either had the DOJ approval, or registered the gun prior to 2005, he can have it. Doesn't matter if he fired it or not, if he doesn't have the conditions met, he committed a felony. There are many that find CA laws unconstitutional, including me, but states can do that and punish accordingly. So regardless of what you read about the case and him beating the rap, the fact remains.

It's that simple. If you want to go down the point of possession and argue that, be my guest, but in the regular world CA is a nasty place to get a gun charge like that. Maybe he has a revolutionary case and argues 2nd Amendment shit, maybe he makes a deal, but it isn't getting dropped and if he goes to trial, he will lose.

As I stated before, I don't understand the law all that well, but when this whole thing happened I assumed that simple possession of the weapon was enough. That makes sense to me.

After several beat writers did some research on the topic and spoke to some lawyers it turns out that they have to prove he intentionally broke the law...IE, went to Arizona for the express purpose of buying a gun illegal in CA and bringing it back. Since he plays games in Arizona, that's difficult to prove.

I totally get what you are saying and as I said before it makes sense, that's just not what I've read.

He isn't allowed to have the weapon. That much is clear (or more precisely, not allowed to have the magazine that was in the weapon). At issue is can he be found guilty of a felony. Let me see if I can find the articles in question. It may shed more light.

 

[Marvin49]

Isn't his gun case supposed to wrap up during this off-season?

Probably, but when football players are involved with crime they seem to allow the lawyers to make things quite convenient for the player.

One thing to consider is the weapons case being pretty much a sure thing. I can still see a deal being worked, but a stint in rehab isn't going to help the weapons charge. That is one of those deals where circumstances can't help him and there is a precedence for it.

With the state of CA having tough gun laws, the star power likely won't help Smith in that one. A felony, no questions asked. Any time the legal system gets a chance to hammer gun charges, they do it as a sign to others.

The attorney might try to get that case strung out really, really far because they know that a penalty is coming. I doubt that the state negotiates a deal that reduces it to a misdemeanor. Maybe one that cuts the jail time to nothing or very small, but gun charges are tough to beat. He either had one that was not allowed in CA or he didn't. He won't be able to say "it was a friend's gun" or claim it wasn't on his property.

Depending on where he was when he bought it, there might even be a record of him purchasing it. We will find out soon enough, but no way does Smith skate on everything.

I really don't know the law well enough to argue your point too strongly, but what you are saying goes against just about every legal opinion I've read on the subject.

As I understand it, the way the law is written is that it would have to be proven that he knowingly went to Arizona to buy the guns in an effort to circumvent the law in CA. Most lawyers I've read who have written about it were a bit surprised he was charged at all with respect to the guns because he was attacked that night and the guns were only found when the police searched the property. It isn't normal that the police are called to the house of a man that was stabbed in his home and then he gets charged for the guns he owns in his closet. That doesn't make them legal, but they wouldn't typically be charged.

Those same lawyers seem to think that the Gun Charge was added in attempt to get a better plea deal in the DUI case and that the gun charge will likely be dropped. Very difficult to prove. It also a response to the Police Department having egg on its face after inviting Aldon and other team members to a Police Function at a shooting range AFTER the incident.

As I said...I don't completely understand the law but the people I've read on the subject who do understand the law don't seem to think the gun charge will stick. I'm not justifying what he's done...just sayin' I don't think its going to turn out the way you think it does.

Just on a side note, and this isn't to you specifically...but its not like Aldon has broken new ground here (ok...maybe saying bomb in an Airport is new. LOL). Marshawn Lynch was no angel in Buffalo. Hit and Run. DUI. Felony Gun possession. There was a reason the Bills were willing to get rid of him. This isn't a slam on Lynch as I'm a Cal Bear fan and I've always liked the guy. I'm just saying that players can start out as knuckleheads and turn themselves around. I just hope it doesn't require him being released to figure it out. If you don't believe me about Lynch BTW...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3909366

Besides all these things being spaced out in time frames unlike Aldon, Lynch didn't injure someone and then flee the scene. He was in a crowded situation where someone claimed he hit them and he went home parked in front of his house and the police officer stated he looked genuinely surprised when the questioned him about it. There was no damage to his car and it wasn't like he tried to hide the vehicle like you would expect someone who just hit someone.

The gun charge was stupid but that was a lifetime ago and he didn't shoot it into a crowd to try and scare people. his DUI was reduced because he blew right at the legal limit. Not nearly twice the limit like Aldon and they didn't find a pot pipe in his center console and prescription drugs too. Not to mention he wasn't passed out cold with his foot smashed to the accelerator while being smashed up against a tree in a residential neighborhood at 7:30 in the morning when kids were going to school and a repeat offender. How long was it between DUI's for Aldon? 8 months?

Trying to use Lynch as an example just makes you look like a complete idiot. There is no justification in the world to compare Lynch's ancient history to Aldon's continuous special Olympics brain power. You must be spending to much time on the webzone justifying Aldon's ignorance. I imagine you are probably typing with your knuckles by now with having worn your fingers down so far from the spinning and manipulating you constantly do to justify your criminal filled team.

How does it feel to look up to the Raiders and Bengals as teams that are better than you? At least off the field anyway.

Oi.

OK...couple things.

1) I'm a fan of Lynch. I wasn't intending to slam him nor was I impying a 1 to 1 ratio of Aldon to Marshawn. Aldon has been a moron of the first order.

2) Aldon didn't shoot into the crowd either.

3) On the DUI, I didn't say it was exactly the same. Not only did was Aldon freakin unconscious at the wheel, but he has MULTIPLE DUIs. As for the hit and run, Aldon hasn't done that at all. Chris Culliver did. IMO, he's a moron as well.

4) Oh please. I'm not defending Aldon. How many times in this thread have I called him a moron, called him a special kind of stupid, or expressed concern about him as an alcoholic. I am sick of this sh*t. I'm sick of a 49er being in trouble with the law every 30 days or so. It's embarrassing. My comparison to Lynch wasn't because I was trying to justify. It was because I am hoping he can turn it around the way Lynch did. You can explain away all this stuff just as you accuse me of doing with Aldon, but the fact remains that at some point Lynch "got it". The degree at which he didn't get it to begin with is clearly different.

 

[Laloosh]

Marv, it's obvious that you acknowledge he's a tool. What's also obvious is that you're fine with him going unpunished if it means more wins for your team of criminals. I'm not judging, it just comes through in your posts whether you like it or not.

 

[Marvin49]

Marv, it's obvious that you acknowledge he's a tool. What's also obvious is that you're fine with him going unpunished if it means more wins for your team of criminals. I'm not judging, it just comes through in your posts whether you like it or not.

I guess so.

I'm not saying he should or should not be punished though. Just sayin' I hope he turns it around and that I don't THINK the gun charge will stick based on what I've read.

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

 

[Laloosh]

Marv, it's obvious that you acknowledge he's a tool. What's also obvious is that you're fine with him going unpunished if it means more wins for your team of criminals. I'm not judging, it just comes through in your posts whether you like it or not.

I guess so.

I'm not saying he should or should not be punished though. Just sayin' I hope he turns it around and that I don't THINK the gun charge will stick based on what I've read.

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

:229031_shrug:

 

[RolandDeschain]

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

See, comments like this keep a lot of people ragging on you. It's an irrefutable fact that the 49ers are more appropriate for a criminally related nickname than the Seahawks, yet you're sitting here implying the only reason you don't refute it is because you're on a Seahawks forum when everyone knows damned well the reason you CAN'T refute it is because it's a truthful statement.

Stop dodging and just take your medicine.

 

[chris98251]

Well we could start calling them The San Francisco 49 to Lifers.

 

[Marvin49]

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

See, comments like this keep a lot of people ragging on you. It's an irrefutable fact that the 49ers are more appropriate for a criminally related nickname than the Seahawks, yet you're sitting here implying the only reason you don't refute it is because you're on a Seahawks forum when everyone knows damned well the reason you CAN'T refute it is because it's a truthful statement.

Stop dodging and just take your medicine.

LOL.

No...I'm just not interested in having that conversation. 2 guys have been arrested this offseason. That hardly makes for a "team of criminals".

I'm embarrassed though. In a big way. I hate even having to have this conversation. I was hoping for a quiet offseason. So much for that idea.

 

[Ziggyy108]

Well we could start calling them The San Francisco 49 to Lifers.

Wow this is one of the greatest posts I've ever seen on any forum

 

[RichNhansom]

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

See, comments like this keep a lot of people ragging on you. It's an irrefutable fact that the 49ers are more appropriate for a criminally related nickname than the Seahawks, yet you're sitting here implying the only reason you don't refute it is because you're on a Seahawks forum when everyone knows damned well the reason you CAN'T refute it is because it's a truthful statement.

Stop dodging and just take your medicine.

LOL.

No...I'm just not interested in having that conversation. 2 guys have been arrested this offseason. That hardly makes for a "team of criminals".

I'm embarrassed though. In a big way. I hate even having to have this conversation. I was hoping for a quiet offseason. So much for that idea.

Well three actually. One was arrested for drunk in public about a week after the super bowl but you have also had Kaep and Patton in the news (probably unjust but still) and a ton of FO embarrassment to add to the fire. But lets lot let facts get in the way.

Truth is it is getting hard to keep up with all the negative press they are constantly getting. I'll let you in on a little secret too, I check the NFL forum more than any other forum looking for the next embarrassing event for your team. It's very comical because even if I don't see anything new I still get a chuckle that it is perfectly valid to keep up with the ongoing ticker that is the time bomb down in the bay area.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. LMFAO.

 

[loafoftatupu]

After several beat writers did some research on the topic and spoke to some lawyers it turns out that they have to prove he intentionally broke the law...IE, went to Arizona for the express purpose of buying a gun illegal in CA and bringing it back. Since he plays games in Arizona, that's difficult to prove.

Oh, so the Beat writers did some research? Spoke to some lawyers?

Marvin, please. Your wrong, if that were the case, every assault weapon fanatic in Cali would do it..

Not a single line about intention. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30500-30530
30605. (a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault
weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or
by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a first violation of these
provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two
firearms in compliance with Section 30945 and the person meets all of
the following conditions:
(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the
assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon.
(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of
this article.
(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon
within one year following the end of the one-year registration
period established pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 31100,
in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to
Sections 18000 and 18005.


Seriously. He jacked it up.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I'm seriously starting to think Marvin is the red haired freak lead singer of the Rock group the Spin Doctors.
He is spinning so much Bill O'Reilly of the Spin Zone is tearing up with pride for Marvin.

 

[253hawk]

:laugh:

@AdamSchefter 49ers are not expected to pick up the fifth-year option on LB Aldon Smith's contract, per league source.

 

[chrispy]

Obviously he's an elite player and the 49rs are a better D with him on the edge. That said, I think the real question here is how the team reacts, not just if he plays in '14 for them. They have a young QB that likes to be in the spotlight and that's backfired (rightly or wrongly- I'm not judging yet) on him. If the team sees the organization going easy on ASmith, wouldn't there be a liklihood that other players might justify questionable actions too?

It's so easy to get distracted. On the other hand, there's also a chance to build the chip-on-the-shoulder mentality when the odds are stacked against a good team. They have a lot of draft capital. They have a very talented core. If they use the loss of a pro-bowl player to re-focus, they could be more dangerous.

I like to rag on the 9rs as much as the next guy. I think Smith is an idiot. I hate Harbaugh on the sidelines. I like the drama between Carroll and Harbaugh as well as ADB/Sherm and Harbaugh. I like the physicality of the games. Now, on top of all that, I'll enjoy watching: a team beat the odds and come together, or a rival epicly fail while on the brink of ultimate success.

I think this stuff makes football more fun to follow than other sports. It's the ultimate team sport and how the team itself functions usually determines success.



My prediction on what happens to ASmith is that he'll never get cut. He hasn't hurt anyone else yet and a lot of other players have done a lot more/worse stuff and still played. Would Bill Parcells ever have cut LT? They might try to restructure. They might trade, and there would be plenty of eager buyers for a trade. No way does he get cut over a DUI and some other issues that haven't played out in court yet. Obviously, a trade would mean he would end up across the country in a different Division and probably different Conference. If I were GM, I'd try to rework his deal with the expectation of some sort of suspension- extension with more incentives and behavioral incentives. If I thought he could play this season while the legal situation plays out, I'd keep him until the trade deadline and see if the team is playoff bound. If not, deal him, and his recently re-worked deal, to the highest bidder.

 

[Marvin49]

On the "team of criminals" line...I'll just leave it alone and realize where I am.

See, comments like this keep a lot of people ragging on you. It's an irrefutable fact that the 49ers are more appropriate for a criminally related nickname than the Seahawks, yet you're sitting here implying the only reason you don't refute it is because you're on a Seahawks forum when everyone knows damned well the reason you CAN'T refute it is because it's a truthful statement.

Stop dodging and just take your medicine.

LOL.

No...I'm just not interested in having that conversation. 2 guys have been arrested this offseason. That hardly makes for a "team of criminals".

I'm embarrassed though. In a big way. I hate even having to have this conversation. I was hoping for a quiet offseason. So much for that idea.

Well three actually. One was arrested for drunk in public about a week after the super bowl but you have also had Kaep and Patton in the news (probably unjust but still) and a ton of FO embarrassment to add to the fire. But lets lot let facts get in the way.

Truth is it is getting hard to keep up with all the negative press they are constantly getting. I'll let you in on a little secret too, I check the NFL forum more than any other forum looking for the next embarrassing event for your team. It's very comical because even if I don't see anything new I still get a chuckle that it is perfectly valid to keep up with the ongoing ticker that is the time bomb down in the bay area.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. LMFAO.

Not saying nothing to see here. Already said it was embarrassing.

 

[Marvin49]

After several beat writers did some research on the topic and spoke to some lawyers it turns out that they have to prove he intentionally broke the law...IE, went to Arizona for the express purpose of buying a gun illegal in CA and bringing it back. Since he plays games in Arizona, that's difficult to prove.

Oh, so the Beat writers did some research? Spoke to some lawyers?

Marvin, please. Your wrong, if that were the case, every assault weapon fanatic in Cali would do it..

Not a single line about intention. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30500-30530
30605. (a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault
weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or
by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a first violation of these
provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two
firearms in compliance with Section 30945 and the person meets all of
the following conditions:
(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the
assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon.
(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of
this article.
(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon
within one year following the end of the one-year registration
period established pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 31100,
in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to
Sections 18000 and 18005.


Seriously. He jacked it up.

LOL. Dude. I believe you.

Trying to find the article I read. I'll link it as soon as I can find it.

 

[loafoftatupu]

After several beat writers did some research on the topic and spoke to some lawyers it turns out that they have to prove he intentionally broke the law...IE, went to Arizona for the express purpose of buying a gun illegal in CA and bringing it back. Since he plays games in Arizona, that's difficult to prove.

Oh, so the Beat writers did some research? Spoke to some lawyers?

Marvin, please. Your wrong, if that were the case, every assault weapon fanatic in Cali would do it..

Not a single line about intention. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=30001-31000&file=30500-30530
30605. (a) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault
weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or
by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a first violation of these
provisions is punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars
($500) if the person was found in possession of no more than two
firearms in compliance with Section 30945 and the person meets all of
the following conditions:
(1) The person proves that he or she lawfully possessed the
assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon.
(2) The person has not previously been convicted of a violation of
this article.
(3) The person was found to be in possession of the assault weapon
within one year following the end of the one-year registration
period established pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 31100,
in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to
Sections 18000 and 18005.


Seriously. He jacked it up.

LOL. Dude. I believe you.

Trying to find the article I read. I'll link it as soon as I can find it.

Marvin.. Buddy, you know we love you here man. I know you read something that favored the possibility of Smith getting off. I am not disputing that. I am disputing that what you read was anything close to accurate. As a member of another community with primary focus of gun laws in any given state, it is discussed and experiences are shared. Never, ever, EVER has any one of them ever mentioned intention. All they do is post the factual law how it is written and those who have either broken it or charged with it share their experiences.

I posted you the actual wording of the law, with a link to a term of definitions from CPC. You read an article from a beat writer who talked to lawyers. I am not saying Aldon can't beat it, I am saying he isn't going to beat it based on the inability to prove intent. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever heard, so do yourself a favor and don't repeat. Cause' we like you and stuff.

 

[loafoftatupu]

Marvin.. Buddy, you know we love you here man. I know you read something that favored the possibility of Smith getting off. I am not disputing that. I am disputing that what you read was anything close to accurate. As a member of another community with primary focus of gun laws in any given state, it is discussed and experiences are shared. Never, ever, EVER has any one of them ever mentioned intention. All they do is post the factual law how it is written and those who have either broken it or charged with it share their experiences.

I posted you the actual wording of the law, with a link to a term of definitions from CPC. You read an article from a beat writer who talked to lawyers. I am not saying Aldon can't beat it, I am saying he isn't going to beat it based on the inability to prove intent. That has to be one of the most stupid things I have ever heard, so do yourself a favor and don't repeat. Cause' we like you and stuff.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO IT. THEREFORE INNOCENCE IS ASSURED.

 

[RolandDeschain]

It isn't relevant in this particular case, but I'm actually annoyed with how much the law cares about intent in a variety of ways. For instance, you can get life in prison for intentionally running over someone with your car and killing them, but if you're simply drunk at the time and didn't mean to, you can get very little time in prison, or even none.