|Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By Spade:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
If a news organization went to the DC police and asked them if they could borrow a magazine to use in a news story, and the police okayed it, and the news organization returned it to the police after the show, it would be hard to argue that he would be "in possession" of it in any meaningful sense. The point would be such a technical one, that a judge would dismiss it, even if a prosecutor wanted to purse it, is my guess.
IF they borrowed it from law enforcement, I don't really see it as being substantially different from a news story showing a reporter shooting full auto or something. Just because news footage shows the reporter standing with an NFA gmu or dealer sample doesn't mean they are somehow "in possession" of an NFA item that doesn't belong to them, because the owner is presumably standing right off camera.
My point is just that IF they actually went to the trouble of talking to LEO and borrowing it from them, I am not that outraged about it.
IF they didn't do that, then I completely agree that David Gregory should be charged with a crime.
There's no "a cop gave it to me" exemption for "possession".
Please read what I wrote.
We're not talking about someone saying a cop GAVE it to him, and basically owning it or having it long-term I'm talking about a reporter TEMPORARILY BORROWING one for the brief time to shoot a news story and then returning it. In that hypothetical case, it's not clear that it would rise to the standard of "possesssing" that would be enough for a prosecutor or judge to gie a shit about. My point is that it wouldn't really be any different from a cop at the range letting some kid shoot his AR or something like that. Obviously that kid is not in illegal possession of an AR for the few minutes e is holding it.
The argument would become so technical that it would be pointless. If a cop had let David Gregory touch a magazine, is that a crime? What about if he left him hold it for 5 minutes? What about loaning it for 2 hours? What if a cop was AT the studio, just off-camera? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that TECHNICALLY a law might have been broken, but it would be in such an ambiguous way that no judge or prosecutor would care ... IF in fact we are talking about borrowing it temporarily from law enforcement.
Okay, fine, whatever. That's great and you might be right.
But who cares?
From Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
It doesn't matter if he's technically okay. We should hammer it anyway. The perception is what counts. Use 3,4,5, and 12.