Judge frees gang member, orders him to write report on gun violence

[ATruepatriot]

He’s getting to write his wrong.

A Brooklyn gangbanger got busted with a loaded, stolen revolver in a caught-on-video incident — but a softie judge cut him loose with little more than a homework assignment, The Post has learned.

Judge Ellen Edwards rejected a prosecution request to set bail at $25,000 for Ismail Abraham, 18, following his arrest in East New York, law-enforcement sources said on Friday.

Instead, Edwards gave Abraham an 8 p.m. curfew and told him to compose a “report on gun violence in the community,” sources said.

It was unclear how many pages Abraham has to write, or when his assignment is due.

Abraham is a member of the “G Stone Crips” and has four prior arrests that are sealed, including two for gun possession during the past year, sources said.

“It just goes to show you how out of touch these judges are,” said a retired NYPD detective who formerly worked in the high-crime neighborhood.

“She should have to sit in jail until he finishes the report. She probably won’t have to make plans for a long time.”

Abraham was arrested around 4:20 p.m. Tuesday when cops saw him toss a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver loaded with five bullets to the ground outside a Newport Street house, court papers say. see also

Surveillance video also shows him ditching the gun — which was reported stolen in Chicago — while trying to run away down an alley, sources said.

Edwards put the teen back on the street at his arraignment on Wednesday, sources said.

The move came a day after she overruled a prosecution request for $100,000 bail in the case of a teacher charged with repeatedly molesting an 11-year-old girl in his class...

https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/judge-...-gun-violence/

[ATruepatriot]

Cool... Thanks judge! I promise I will never do it again!

[Schifference]

His lawyer probably paid the judge off.

[Superfluous Man]

Softie judge?

This so-called "gangbanger" is not charged with anything other than exercising his right to bear arms. Two of his four previous arrests are for the same victimless crime. There should be no punishment at all.

[ATruepatriot]

His lawyer probably paid the judge off.

I think it is the new change in the wind. I think it is a criminal society and culture accepting crime as acceptable and normal.

[Superfluous Man]

I think it is the new change in the wind. I think it is a criminal society and culture accepting crime as acceptable and normal.

A crime, properly defined, is something that has a victim.

[specsaregood]

This so-called "gangbanger" is not charged with anything other than exercising his right to bear arms. Two of his four previous arrests are for the same victimless crime. There should be no punishment at all.

That's the angle he should take on his report. Pointing out that with abundance of violence in his neighborhood it is only sensible to carry a gun in order to defend oneself.

[Superfluous Man]

That's the angle he should take on his report. Pointing out that with abundance of violence in his neighborhood it is only sensible to carry a gun in order to defend oneself.

Good idea.

And that's the other angle that I'd like to have seen addressed in the article. I assume that the judge has certain expectations for what qualifies as an acceptable report. And the fact that the topic is "gun violence" leads me to think that she's looking for something anti-2nd Amendment.

[Brian4Liberty]

A Brooklyn gangbanger got busted with a loaded, stolen revolver

The real crime here is theft. Who stole the gun? A reasonable judge or prosecutor would charge him with theft, unless he has a receipt or can identify who gave him the gun.

[Brian4Liberty]

Judge Ellen Edwards rejected a prosecution request to set bail at $25,000 for Ismail Abraham, 18, following his arrest in East New York, law-enforcement sources said on Friday.

But you should see the punishment she dishes out at certain times of the month...

[ATruepatriot]

The real crime here is theft. Who stole the gun? A reasonable judge or prosecutor would charge him with theft, unless he has a receipt or can identify who gave him the gun.

Problem is... Known convicted gang criminals in possession of stolen firearms are the whole anti-gunner basis behind also removing the right to keep and bear arms from lawful citizens who have the legal right to keep and bear arms. To be soft on illegal gun possession or gun crimes facilitates and excuses even more crimes like this that will eventually be used against law abiding citizens who have not committed a crime...

Am I really the only one to see this cause and effect?

[Superfluous Man]

Am I really the only one to see this cause and effect?

Perhaps. But even if you're right, it's no excuse.

If there's a real crime that they have enough evidence to charge this man with, then like Brian said, charge him with that. If the only charge is that he was exercising his right to bear arms, then there's no crime there. It's not his possession of a gun that's the problem, it's the existence of a law that says he can't.

You mention that he's a known convicted gang criminal. But the "gang" part is completely irrelevant. And the only crimes we're told he's been convicted of are previous instances of this very same non-crime of exercising his right to bear arms. We're told there were two other prior convictions, but not what those were. For all we know, they could have been drug possession, or some other non-crime.

If the public sees people like him as excuses to support gun restrictions, then what that shows us is the task we have before us in educating the public not to be so easily manipulated by fear mongering over "known convicted gang criminals in possession of stolen firearms."

[ATruepatriot]

Perhaps. But even if you're right, it's no excuse.

If there's a real crime that they have enough evidence to charge this man with, then like Brian said, charge him with that. If the only charge is that he was exercising his right to bear arms, then there's no crime there. It's not his possession of a gun that's the problem, it's the existence of a law that says he can't.

You mention that he's a known convicted gang criminal. But the "gang" part is completely irrelevant. And the only crimes we're told he's been convicted of are previous instances of this very same non-crime of exercising his right to bear arms. We're told there were two other prior convictions, but not what those were. For all we know, they could have been drug possession, or some other non-crime.

If the public sees people like him as excuses to support gun restrictions, then what that shows us is the task we have before us in educating the public not to be so easily manipulated by fear mongering over "known convicted gang criminals in possession of stolen firearms."

Again... There is a problem when a criminal possesses a stolen firearm. Here is why... If he or anyone else uses that firearm for a crime such as murder the original purchaser of that firearm can be held also responsible. The laws suck as they are now and I agree. But I could go to jail for something someone who stole my firearm committed. Because of this all firearm violations should be punished to the extent of the law. Now before you say if it was reported as stolen you are off the hook, there are states now like Ca that STILL hold you responsible and liable because you obviously did not legally secure your firearm also committing a crime allowing it to be stolen and are also guilty and responsible for the actions of the person who stole it.

No it isn't right, but as it stands that's how it is. And personally I do not want to do time for a criminal who stole my gun when he had no right to have it in the first place.

[Superfluous Man]

Again... There is a problem when a criminal possesses a stolen firearm.

How are you defining the word "criminal" here? We aren't told what this man's previous crimes were, aside from the others that were also illegal gun possession.

I agree that possessing a stolen gun, or a stolen anything else, is a problem. But it's not necessarily the case that the person possessing it is the one who stole it. They could have bought it completely innocently in a private sale. I hope that you're not for requiring people to pass background checks to do private sales, because I think that's where the line of argument you're using leads.

The laws suck as they are now and I agree.

But a big part of the reason for the laws as they now are is to be able keep criminals from being able to buy guns. To support laws that prohibit criminals from possessing guns, if those laws are to be enforceable, pretty much requires background checks like we have.

[ATruepatriot]

How are you defining the word "criminal" here? We aren't told what this man's previous crimes were, aside from the others that were also illegal gun possession.

I agree that possessing a stolen gun, or a stolen anything else, is a problem. But it's not necessarily the case that the person possessing it is the one who stole it. They could have bought it completely innocently in a private sale. I hope that you're not for requiring people to pass background checks to do private sales, because I think that's where the line of argument you're using leads.



But a big part of the reason for the laws as they now are is to be able keep criminals from being able to buy guns. To support laws that prohibit criminals from possessing guns, if those laws are to be enforceable, pretty much requires background checks like we have.

This is where I have to explain that I am well versed in Firearm laws and rights. I have been a collector and gunsmith since I was 10 years old. I apprenticed into it from my father. For many years I held a legal FFL in the state of Ca before background checks until they started screwing me around with just plain deceptive BS obstruction designed to discourage transactions. The very last thing I would support is more failed laws against firearms and firearm transactions. But I have already been to jail a couple times for the actions of others and held responsible for those actions. It cost me a lot of money to keep from being convicted.

Yet those who have been convicted of an illegal act are allowed a pass for the second and third illegal act of the same? If I had been convicted I would not be allowed to posses a firearm acquired legal or not, stolen or not. If you are not allowed to posses a firearm at all how is opps I got with a stolen firearm several times OK, when you are not supposed to be in possession of one AT ALL? Let alone a hot one? At some point the free market principle of "buyer beware" needs to come into play. You have no idea how many private purchases of a very good deal I turned down because the seller would not sign a bill of sale and put his driver's license or ID card number on it. DON"T DO IT WITHOUT IT. Been there... and it's getting even worse because of $#@!s like this guy who was just given a slap on the hand.

Actions like this hand over clips full of ammo to those who oppose gun rights and who would use them against those of us trying to make the effort to be lawful gun owners. It was indeed a bad call and judgement. All those laws imposed on us might actually discourage illegal gun use and the anti-gun stigma if they were actually enforced. This was not enforcement, it was a reward for repeated offenses.

[Swordsmyth]

This is where I have to explain that I am well versed in Firearm laws and rights. I have been a collector and gunsmith since I was 10 years old. I apprenticed into it from my father. For many years I held a legal FFL in the state of Ca before background checks until they started screwing me around with just plain deceptive BS obstruction designed to discourage transactions. The very last thing I would support is more failed laws against firearms and firearm transactions. But I have already been to jail a couple times for the actions of others and held responsible for those actions. It cost me a lot of money to keep from being convicted.

Yet those who have been convicted of an illegal act are allowed a pass for the second and third illegal act of the same? If I had been convicted I would not be allowed to posses a firearm acquired legal or not, stolen or not. If you are not allowed to posses a firearm at all how is opps I got with a stolen firearm several times OK, when you are not supposed to be in possession of one AT ALL? Let alone a hot one? At some point the free market principle of "buyer beware" needs to come into play. You have no idea how many private purchases of a very good deal I turned down because the seller would not sign a bill of sale and put his driver's license or ID card number on it. DON"T DO IT WITHOUT IT. Been there... and it's getting even worse because of $#@!s like this guy who was just given a slap on the hand.

Actions like this hand over clips full of ammo to those who oppose gun rights and who would use them against those of us trying to make the effort to be lawful gun owners. It was indeed a bad call and judgement. All those laws imposed on us might actually discourage illegal gun use and the anti-gun stigma if they were actually enforced. This was not enforcement, it was a reward for repeated offenses.

If this judge let's everyone of on firearms charges then I might agree with SM but as it stands it sounds like she is just coddling criminals while she would have thrown the book at SM if he was the one caught with a gun in her jurisdiction.

Unequal application of the law is adding insult to injury, it would be bad enough if she let "honest citizens" off and threw the book at those she considered "criminal scum" but to do the reverse is extremely evil.

[ATruepatriot]

If this judge let's everyone of on firearms charges then I might agree with SM but as it stands it sounds like she is just coddling criminals while she would have thrown the book at SM if he was the one caught with a gun in her jurisdiction.

Unequal application of the law is adding insult to injury, it would be bad enough if she let "honest citizens" off and threw the book at those she considered "criminal scum" but to do the reverse is extremely evil.

It was a move towards an agenda... If he walks and kills someone later she cannot be blamed for her compassionate failed judgement, the gun will. Fit's right into the narrative and false rationality of why guns need to go. Carefully aimed cause and effect to an end.

[Swordsmyth]

It was a move towards an agenda... If he walks and kills someone later she cannot be blamed for her compassionate failed judgement, the gun will. Fit's right into the narrative and false rationality of why guns need to go. Carefully aimed cause and effect to an end.

Exactly.

[ATruepatriot]

Exactly.

I am a firm believer that we need to remove absolute immunity and implement The Code of Hammurabi when it comes to judges.

The Code of Hammurabi #5

5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

YES...! ABSOLUTELY! lol

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

[Swordsmyth]

I am a firm believer that we need to remove absolute immunity and implement The Code of Hammurabi when it comes to judges.

The Code of Hammurabi #5

5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.

YES...! ABSOLUTELY! lol

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

The details would be important but something like that would be very good, power without responsibility is a recipe for disaster.

[ATruepatriot]

The details would be important but something like that would be very good, power without responsibility is a recipe for disaster.

The biggest offense is the no questions asked and ability to exclude any evidence they choose period. You have no idea how many folks I have seen go to prison just because a judge did not allow the evidence that could have cleared them. They claim to be God and there is not a damned thing you can do about it but plea out for a lesser punishment. Even if you are rich and pay for the best representation, if the evidence is not allowed you are screwed. Yep... They have WAY WAY too much power.

[Swordsmyth]

The biggest offense is the no questions asked and ability to exclude any evidence they choose period. You have no idea how many folks I have seen go to prison just because a judge did not allow the evidence that could have cleared them. They claim to be God and there is not a damned thing you can do about it but plea out for a lesser punishment. Even if you are rich and pay for the best representation, if the evidence is not allowed you are screwed. Yep... They have WAY WAY too much power.

How they ever were allowed those powers I shall never understand, there should have been a revolution.