Comments on: Looking Ahead to Watson v. US http://dailywrit.com/2007/08/looking-ahead-to-watson-v-us/ Fri, 17 May 2013 23:31:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Bochicko Savy http://dailywrit.com/2007/08/looking-ahead-to-watson-v-us/comment-page-1/#comment-696 Bochicko Savy Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:04:01 +0000 http://dailywrit.com/2007/08/20/looking-ahead-to-watson-v-us/#comment-696 I am doing court cases for my government class. I was presented this case about a week ago. I am considered the Chief Justice in our role play therefore all i have been doing the past week is reading about Watson v. U.S. The first thing i’d like to bring to attention is the fact that i do not belive that Watson should get full sentencing for use of a weapon when the weapon has not been fired or brandished. He simply needed the gun, and delivered what he could to get it. I believe he should get a sentence for having a weapon without a permit and intent to distribute, but i believe that’s as far as this case should go. People these days take things too literally. I mean, this isn’t that big of a deal. These types of things happen all of the time. Many people have weapons that do not have permits, instead of trying to justify and specify what the word use means, I say we just come to an agreement of the word “use” so that these cases can be easily dealt with for future references. An analogy for example, Buy anything, what’s on the back? Directions, the reason there is directions is so you can properly “USE” the item that you have recieved..You dont officially USE the item untill you put something in motion, therefore, i belive the word use in this case should be considered pulling the trigger or brandishing.

Thankyou.

]]> By: Michael Allen http://dailywrit.com/2007/08/looking-ahead-to-watson-v-us/comment-page-1/#comment-398 Michael Allen Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:56:15 +0000 http://dailywrit.com/2007/08/20/looking-ahead-to-watson-v-us/#comment-398 Splitting hairs in law only serves to prove my point. It takes two lawyers and a judge to decide what the people are expected to already know. Of course a jury will decide guilt or innocence. But, the judge will determine sentencing after the lawyers have done their jobs. And that is always constant, the only thing constant in law. If a man has a gun, pulls the gun out or uses the gun, what’s the difference? It was a drug deal. Our laws are already stiff on the war against drugs.

]]>