CB Jack Jones Arrested at Logan for Having 2 Firearms in His Bag

[YTF]

FWIW, I have a license in MA. I cannot fathom a world where one forgets about two guns anywhere.

But I think that it bears repeating that the rest of the country is not like the northeast. My daughter did a month contract at King's Dominion outside Richmond. First time we entered the park to see her show, there was a 4x8' sign advising to leave your guns in your vehicle. Of course there are signs at Foxboro and Fenway saying that guns are prohibited. But this shocked the hell out of me for two reasons: the size of the sign, and the "leave your guns in your car" messaging. Like, it's assumed there that there's a decent number of people planning to enter a children's amusement park carrying. And the message wasn't "hey jackass, this isn't a place for guns". It was more "hey bud, just a reminder that of course we all have guns, but it would be best if you left it in your car, rather than carrying here."

tl;dr; same planet, different worlds. Dudes forgetting that they had guns on them is not uncommon, depending on where you live.

That's not to excuse Jones at all. The laws are in place for a reason, and we should enforce them as a society. I just wanted to point out that Jones isn't even the first guy associated with the NFL to get grabbed for forgetting his guns in a carry-on. (https://apnews.com/article/3f64d891791866bf1e4e052bc255f392).

Oh, I fully get it. In fact for a time (back in the 90's I think) that it seemed that this was an issue with NBA players every few months. Exaggeration of course, but frequently enough that when it happened I would think, "Again?". That said it's just hard to believe that in this day and age two guns in a bag heading to the airport can be over loooked.

 

[Ale Xander]

FWIW, I have a license in MA. I cannot fathom a world where one forgets about two guns anywhere.

But I think that it bears repeating that the rest of the country is not like the northeast. My daughter did a month contract at King's Dominion outside Richmond. First time we entered the park to see her show, there was a 4x8' sign advising to leave your guns in your vehicle. Of course there are signs at Foxboro and Fenway saying that guns are prohibited. But this shocked the hell out of me for two reasons: the size of the sign, and the "leave your guns in your car" messaging. Like, it's assumed there that there's a decent number of people planning to enter a children's amusement park carrying. And the message wasn't "hey jackass, this isn't a place for guns". It was more "hey bud, just a reminder that of course we all have guns, but it would be best if you left it in your car, rather than carrying here."

tl;dr; same planet, different worlds. Dudes forgetting that they had guns on them is not uncommon, depending on where you live.

That's not to excuse Jones at all. The laws are in place for a reason, and we should enforce them as a society. I just wanted to point out that Jones isn't even the first guy associated with the NFL to get grabbed for forgetting his guns in a carry-on. (https://apnews.com/article/3f64d891791866bf1e4e052bc255f392).

What is the parking lot security like there and in other similar large cap (pun not intended) places, you would think there would be a lot of vehicle breakins, no?
it’s like a giant sign saying”guns in trucks”

 

[Rovin Romine]

In no conceivable world am I a lawyer, but to what degree can ignorance be used as a valid excuse for breaking any law?

Usual caveats that this is a general overview apply here - there are always going to be exceptions and nuances, and so this is not legal advice.

Most criminal laws requires mens rea to be established - that is, a guilty mind. (Some few criminal laws are what one would call "strict liability" where just physically doing the thing (the actus reus), regardless, is enough.)

Mens rea is usually broken down into: 1) Deliberate/Premeditated/Intended, 2) Knowledge, 3) Recklessness (willful blindness), 4) Negligence. My purpose in framing it this way is to convey that different crimes may have specific mental states that have to be proven. I think most people would be most familiar with this concept via murder trials. Was the killing (the physical thing) intended, or accidental? And so was it murder or manslaughter?

(There's a whole convoluted digression to be had here re: transferred intent, and the various mental states and standards each jurisdiction might have for the same crime. There are general patterns, but it's very jurisdiction specific. But for our purposes, we just have to know the required mental state depends on the crime itself - often that is written right into the statue.)

So that's what it is. Proving mens rea is just as varied, and is often accomplished solely by circumstantial evidence, given the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Otherwise, we'd only get murder convictions when there was a confession by the killer that they had the required mental state at the time the killing happened.

And that bring us to your question.

First off, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, at the end of the submission of evidence to the jury, if that evidence supports another equally non-criminal possibility, the jury should be acquitting.

There are somewhat rare "mistake of fact" defenses, where the accused believed "something else" was going on. As a practical matter, that usually requires a defendant to testify and be subject to cross examination.

There are very rare "mistake of law" defenses.

There are very rare "out of my gourd" defenses, which are not so much a mistake of law or fact but a complete obliviousness to reality that precludes forming any intent at all. (Insanity defenses do not work nearly as well TV portrays - they are often just a pause button.)

But generally, circumstantial evidence will work - what did the defendant say or do? What's a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Juries get that.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

FWIW, I have a license in MA. I cannot fathom a world where one forgets about two guns anywhere.

These guys don't operate like you and I would. First, we would never travel with two guns. Maybe he has a friend also carry for protection (dumb). He's been flying around the country for a few years and hasn't brought guns through security yet. So either these are the first guns he ever purchased - potentially why he has two, he's just an idiot that thought he could bring them in his carry on - or he knew not to bring guns onto a plane and just forgot they were in his bag.

If it was the latter, I wouldn't pretend to know what the life of an NFL player is like. Maybe he was going to some events, casinos, clubs, wherever for a handful of days, loaded up his clothes and handguns for protection and then just used the same bag when heading to the airport. A few nights of clubbing and casinos without ever taking the guns out of his bag might make him a little forgetful before boarding.

Again, it's just an example and not to excuse the situation. He still wouldn't have been properly licensed to travel with the firearms, and he still should have had them stored properly (locked travel case, trigger lock, in trunk on road and safe at hotels if not on his person). I'm simply pointing out that if you're vacant enough to forget one gun, forgetting the second one probably isn't that large of a leap.

Edit - I know it was a different time, but the way the press handled Switzers situation and the way it is currently handling Jones' is pretty stark. Maybe his lawyer is onto something...

He pleaded guilty Tuesday to a misdemeanor for having a loaded, unlicensed .38-caliber handgun in his luggage on Aug. 4 as he prepared to fly to the team’s summer camp in Austin.

Carrying a weapon into an airport is a third-degree felony, punishable by 2-10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, but the offense generally is handled as a misdemeanor if there are no prior felonies or weapons charges.

Same situation. For old, white guy Switzer, "usually a misdemeanor"...no big deal.

For Jones? Cut him! He's going to jail! Don't want him on the team, what a piece of shit!

 

[Patriot_Reign]

But you run into a slippery slope problem. If you say a small knife is fine, what about a larger knife, or a smaller gun? Last year over 6,500 guns (18 guns a day) were found in airport security across the country, 88% of which were loaded. TSA started putting up signs to remind passengers not to carry guns through secure areas of the airport because it was happening so often. So, by your logic, all of those people should go to prison.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/interesting-numbers-relevant-to-jack-jones-situation/

Knives don't require a license to carry around, but I think we're getting into the weeds here.
In the CBS article I didn't see any stats of how many of the firearms were legally owned versus illegally. Understand that MA doesn't require the registration of out of state weapons, but curious to see how the DA considers that they were loaded and in his personal carry on (as opposed to unloaded and in locked boxes in checked luggage).
Honestly this is making my head spin

 

[Ale Xander]

These guys don't operate like you and I would. First, we would never travel with two guns. Maybe he has a friend also carry for protection (dumb). He's been flying around the country for a few years and hasn't brought guns through security yet. So either these are the first guns he ever purchased - potentially why he has two, he's just an idiot that thought he could bring them in his carry on - or he knew not to bring guns onto a plane and just forgot they were in his bag.

If it was the latter, I wouldn't pretend to know what the life of an NFL player is like. Maybe he was going to some events, casinos, clubs, wherever for a handful of days, loaded up his clothes and handguns for protection and then just used the same bag when heading to the airport. A few nights of clubbing and casinos without ever taking the guns out of his bag might make him a little forgetful before boarding.

Again, it's just an example and not to excuse the situation. He still wouldn't have been properly licensed to travel with the firearms, and he still should have had them stored properly (locked travel case, trigger lock, in trunk on road and safe at hotels if not on his person). I'm simply pointing out that if you're vacant enough to forget one gun, forgetting the second one probably isn't that large of a leap.

Edit - I know it was a different time, but the way the press handled Switzers situation and the way it is currently handling Jones' is pretty stark. Maybe his lawyer is onto something...



Same situation. For old, white guy Switzer, "usually a misdemeanor"...no big deal.

For Jones? Cut him! He's going to jail! Don't want him on the team, what a piece of shit!

Also Switzer was caught in Texas and this is Massachusetts.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Usual caveats that this is a general overview apply here - there are always going to be exceptions and nuances, and so this is not legal advice.

Most criminal laws requires mens rea to be established - that is, a guilty mind. (Some few criminal laws are what one would call "strict liability" where just physically doing the thing (the actus reus), regardless, is enough.)

Mens rea is usually broken down into: 1) Deliberate/Premeditated/Intended, 2) Knowledge, 3) Recklessness (willful blindness), 4) Negligence. My purpose in framing it this way is to convey that different crimes may have specific mental states that have to be proven. I think most people would be most familiar with this concept via murder trials. Was the killing (the physical thing) intended, or accidental? And so was it murder or manslaughter?

(There's a whole convoluted digression to be had here re: transferred intent, and the various mental states and standards each jurisdiction might have for the same crime. There are general patterns, but it's very jurisdiction specific. But for our purposes, we just have to know the required mental state depends on the crime itself - often that is written right into the statue.)

So that's what it is. Proving mens rea is just as varied, and is often accomplished solely by circumstantial evidence, given the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Otherwise, we'd only get murder convictions when there was a confession by the killer that they had the required mental state at the time the killing happened.

And that bring us to your question.

First off, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, at the end of the submission of evidence to the jury, if that evidence supports another equally non-criminal possibility, the jury should be acquitting.

There are somewhat rare "mistake of fact" defenses, where the accused believed "something else" was going on. As a practical matter, that usually requires a defendant to testify and be subject to cross examination.

There are very rare "mistake of law" defenses.

There are very rare "out of my gourd" defenses, which are not so much a mistake of law or fact but a complete obliviousness to reality that precludes forming any intent at all. (Insanity defenses do not work nearly as well TV portrays - they are often just a pause button.)

But generally, circumstantial evidence will work - what did the defendant say or do? What's a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Juries get that.

Aren't most cops pretty attuned to this? Unless a person absolutely knows to shut up and say nothing but "lawyer," most people try to at least say something and I think most cops are decent at knowing how to figure out if someone did something knowing without making it seem like they are getting the defendant to admit to scienter.

If Jones came out of the box and said, "holy shit, I forgot I packed those," and stuck to it, then he's preserved the defense, but in a large number of cases, don't they try to offer something that they think is exculpatory but is really inculpatory?

"These your guns"? Or "what were you thinking here"? Or "do you have a permit for these"? Or "have you travelled with these before"? Are all questions that unless the defendant invokes his right to remain silent are very likely to lead to answers that establish knowledge.

If the truth here is that Jones actually did forget they were in the bag then he likely said that and stuck to it. If that wasn't the truth, unless he refused to answer questions, then there's a good chance the mens rea defense is no longer viable.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Aren't most cops pretty attuned to this? Unless a person absolutely knows to shut up and say nothing but "lawyer," most people try to at least say something and I think most cops are decent at knowing how to figure out if someone did something knowing without making it seem like they are getting the defendant to admit to scienter.

If Jones came out of the box and said, "holy shit, I forgot I packed those," and stuck to it, then he's preserved the defense, but in a large number of cases, don't they try to offer something that they think is exculpatory but is really inculpatory?

"These your guns"? Or "what were you thinking here"? Or "do you have a permit for these"? Or "have you travelled with these before"? Are all questions that unless the defendant invokes his right to remain silent are very likely to lead to answers that establish knowledge.

If the truth here is that Jones actually did forget they were in the bag then he likely said that and stuck to it. If that wasn't the truth, unless he refused to answer questions, then there's a good chance the mens rea defense is no longer viable.

Mostly yes. But often it's not really preserving the defense, so much as not voiding a reasonable doubt the defense can point out. (Sort of a semantic distinction, and sort of not.)

I'd expand as to how that might percolate into evidence before the ultimate fact-finder, but it's really expansive, implicating the 5th and miranda warnings. In general though, absent body-cameras, sometimes it's quite tough to introduce exculpatory statements the defendant made to an officer without opening up fairly large cans of worms. But sometimes it can be done - even without the defendant testifying.

 

[The Mort Report]

Knives don't require a license to carry around, but I think we're getting into the weeds here.
In the CBS article I didn't see any stats of how many of the firearms were legally owned versus illegally. Understand that MA doesn't require the registration of out of state weapons, but curious to see how the DA considers that they were loaded and in his personal carry on (as opposed to unloaded and in locked boxes in checked luggage).
Honestly this is making my head spin

There are laws for the size of the knife you can carry by location. For instance in Boston you can’t carry a knife with a blade larger than 2.5 inches

 

[GB5]

One of the things that will work in his favor at least in the short term is that if he and his lawyer are actually going to try this case, meaning no plea bargain, I imagine they will have almost no problem at all extending this until after the upcoming season is played.

 

[Myt1]

There were some good bits in there, but like, maybe if you don't want people to pay attention to social media trolling that your client is a thug. . .perhaps you shouldn't use the word "thug" 50+ times in the interview?

If there truly are good facts, like your client being cooperative and transparent with the police - perhaps make more of that.

Rosemary’s got one speed, and it ain’t slow.

 

[GB5]

One of the things that will work in his favor at least in the short term is that if he and his lawyer are actually going to try this case, meaning no plea bargain, I imagine they will have almost no problem at all extending this until after the upcoming season is played.

 

[Bleedred]

On good authority, I'm told that all charges are going to be dropped. I apologize, but I cannot share my contact, but it's very solid.

 

[Galway Sox Fan]

On good authority, I'm told that all charges are going to be dropped. I apologize, but I cannot share my contact, but it's very solid.

Is Patriots Unfiltered your source? Heard it there too.

 

[Justthetippett]

What's the basis to drop them rather than plead out to something minor? It's not in dispute that he was in possession of the firearms right?

If true that's quite a break for him personally.

 

[Bleedred]

Is Patriots Unfiltered your source? Heard it there too.

It is not

 

[luckiestman]

On good authority, I'm told that all charges are going to be dropped. I apologize, but I cannot share my contact, but it's very solid.

Has to be wrong, I was assured this gentleman was getting locked up

 

[sodenj5]

What's the basis to drop them rather than plead out to something minor? It's not in dispute that he was in possession of the firearms right?

If true that's quite a break for him personally.

“Dropping charges” seems pretty dubious.

I can understand not getting locked up for a dumb mistake, but no legal issues whatsoever seems like a bit of a stretch. I would assume a plea deal to something minor would be his path forward, not getting off free and clear.

There are plenty of people significantly smarter about legal issues here than me that can weigh in.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

On good authority, I'm told that all charges are going to be dropped. I apologize, but I cannot share my contact, but it's very solid.

Someone called Toucher and Rich this morning at 8am or so and said the same thing. They had a source "very close to the case on the legal side" that said they'd be dropped. I'm guessing everyone's source is the same and someone either full of shit or talks too much.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Has to be wrong, I was assured this gentleman was getting locked up

For a long time.

At least he was cut from the team, though. That was inevitable.

 

[soxhop411]

On good authority, I'm told that all charges are going to be dropped. I apologize, but I cannot share my contact, but it's very solid.

you called it
https://www.masslive.com/patriots/2023/09/da-drops-charges-against-patriots-cb-jack-jones.html

With Week 1 looming, Jack Jones has taken care of his legal situation.


The Patriots cornerback moved his court date up to Tuesday morning and agreed to a deal in Boston Municipal Court. In exchange for a nolle prosequi — a formal document where prosecutors drop charges — Jones agreed to one year of pre-trial probation and 48 hours of community service.
Back in June, prosecutors said Jones brought two loaded guns into Logan Airport and tried to get them through TSA screening in a bag with his name on it. He was initially charged with two counts each of: Possession of a concealed weapon in a secure area of an airport, possession of ammunition without a Firearm Identification Card, unlawful possession of a firearm, carrying a loaded firearm, and possession of a large-capacity feeding device.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

View: https://twitter.com/michaelFhurley/status/1699166549150470262?s=20


Never thought he'd beat these charges. Damn. She's good.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Justice!

 

[RedOctober3829]

https://x.com/_andrewcallahan/status/1699168177157009689?s=46&t=IVL2VrlFgLlpc3mjGGto8Q

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Will he be reprogrammed to not be a shithead during his probation?

 

[Shelterdog]

For a long time.

At least he was cut from the team, though. That was inevitable.

I'm persistently amazed by how many Pats fans think (1) the Pats are a super moral organization who cut players for off-field reasons other than being a freaking serial killer and (2) well represented individuals who break the law but aren't, like, serial killers are going to get crushed by the criminal justice system.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I'm persistently amazed by how many Pats fans think (1) the Pats are a super moral organization who cut players for off-field reasons other than being a freaking serial killer and (2) well represented individuals who break the law but aren't, like, serial killers are going to get crushed by the criminal justice system.

Right. I mean, the playbook for this is so public that even I knew what it said. This was a slamdunk. His lawyer today:

"(The Commonwealth) has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence... and determined that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jones had knowledge that he possessed the firearms in his bag at the time of the incident."

Me several weeks ago:

The few legal sites I looked at seemed to all point to a similar strategy for defense. The prosecutor needs to prove he was aware of the guns in his bag. Not sure how hard it is to prove, but this appears to be the most common route taken by defenses on a charge like this.

We've seen it time and again on these boards. The desire to shout down at anyone from their horse is a strong SoSH trait.

 

[Patriot_Reign]

Seems like an impossible standard for the prosecution. He's carrying a bag on his person with two loaded weapons inside of it, at what point does personal responsibility not exist?

If someone gets pulled over with 100 pounds of coke in their trunk is the DEA going to say 'our bad' when the driver just says he doesn't know how it got there?

edit: Just read this on the MassLive article: “The Commonwealth has been provided documentation and verified that Mr. Jones purchased both firearms lawfully in the state of Arizona and has taken steps to become a lawful gun owner in the state of Massachusetts within this 60-day period.”

Don't remember hearing about the state having a grace period for obtaining your LTC when having been out of state or just moving to the state. So seems more fair now I guess.

 

[RorschachsMask]

I hope he can grow the fuck up. Both for his own good, and selfishly, because he’s incredibly fun to watch on the field.

 

[Van Everyman]

So when does Goodell suspend him for 12 games using his Article 46 authority?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Seems like an impossible standard for the prosecution. He's carrying a bag on his person with two loaded weapons inside of it, at what point does personal responsibility not exist?

If someone gets pulled over with 100 pounds of coke in their trunk is the DEA going to say 'our bad' when the driver just says he doesn't know how it got there?

edit: Just read this on the MassLive article: “The Commonwealth has been provided documentation and verified that Mr. Jones purchased both firearms lawfully in the state of Arizona and has taken steps to become a lawful gun owner in the state of Massachusetts within this 60-day period.”

Don't remember hearing about the state having a grace period for obtaining your LTC when having been out of state or just moving to the state. So seems more fair now I guess.

Different laws. Possession of cocaine is always illegal (though hypothetically if you could prove that you stole the car and didn't know about the drugs... might get off).
For Jones it's much simpler, the law says you have to "knowingly" bring it in:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section12F

Probably in part so you don't have to arrest everyone who forgets a pocketknife or boxcutter in their backpack.

This is common in laws like this, which is one reason that if you get pulled for extra screening they ask you "did you pack this bag... did anyone else have control of this bag".

 

[Patriot_Reign]

Don't disagree with you, it's why I added the edit from the MassLive article.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Mike Reiss adds this:

“In addition, they noted an exemption for those requiring a firearm identification card and were "provided documentation and verified that Mr. Jones purchased both firearms lawfully in the state of Arizona and has taken steps to become a lawful gun owner in the state of Massachusetts" within a mandated 60-day period.”

https://x.com/mikereiss/status/1699194049712820242?s=46&t=IVL2VrlFgLlpc3mjGGto8Q

 

[brendan f]

At least he was cut from the team, though. That was inevitable.

The dunderhead media should be called out for this. I'm talking specifically about Jeff Howe and whoever his "sourcing" was, but I'm sure there were a lot of others who got this completely wrong. They were wrong about him getting cut, they were wrong to presume his guilt, and they should be held accountable.

 

[BigJay]

Exactly. My guess is he doesn't spend a second in prison. He'll have to turn in his guns & agree not to have any in the future, pay fine, community service, and a lengthy probation.

Well, almost got it. Gets to keep his guns, and a short probation.

 

[nattysez]

Interesting that they announced it today rather than doing a Friday-before-the-long-weekend news dump.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Interesting that they announced it today rather than doing a Friday-before-the-long-weekend news dump.

Why would they want to dump good news on a Friday news dump?

 

[Reverend]

they were wrong to presume his guilt, and they should be held accountable.

We can agree the media made some stupid conjectures that, as @Kenny F'ing Powers suggests, misapprehend how shit actually works, but that doesn’t mean we have to completely lose our minds and all perspective.

They’re not going forward with charges. But nobody is disputing that he tried to board a plane with two guns, not in lock boxes, that were loaded. I mean; he could have just fucking put them in a checked bag instead of carry on and most likely none of this happens.

Hey, he may be a great guy and hopefully he’s a good player, but we don’t have to pretend that he’s not a fairly colossal shithead here.

 

[brendan f]

Will he be reprogrammed to not be a shithead during his probation?

Hey, he may be a great guy and hopefully he’s a good player, but we don’t have to pretend that he’s not a fairly colossal shithead here.

I don't know why people are calling him a "shithead." A shithead is a really bad person. I'm not sure what a "fairly colossal shithead" is because that means a sort of really really bad person. At any rate, we still know very little about what happened. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, we certainly don't know that he tried to bring guns through security, only that he was found with guns. And guess what? That's exactly why the charges were dropped.

If people are attempting to equate "shithead" with "ignorant," even that ascribes a minor version of intent. He may have just done what all of us do at some point in our life--make a really bad mistake. Unless we learn more, I'm not sure how we can make judgements about his character.

 

[DJnVa]

Interesting that they announced it today rather than doing a Friday-before-the-long-weekend news dump.

Cuz that's for bad news?

EDIT: or what KFP said.

 

[cshea]

I don't know why people are calling him a "shithead." A shithead is a really bad person. I'm not sure what a "fairly colossal shithead" is because that means a sort of really really bad person. At any rate, we still know very little about what happened. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, we certainly don't know that he tried to bring guns through security, only that he was found with guns. And guess what? That's exactly why the charges were dropped.

If people are attempting to equate "shithead" with "ignorant," even that ascribes a minor version of intent. He may have just done what all of us do at some point in our life--make a really bad mistake. Unless we learn more, I'm not sure how we can make judgements about his character.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call him a shithead but this wasn't an isolated incident. He plead guilty to a burglary charge in 2018. He was essentially kicked off the USC football team after his sophmore season for poor academic performance. Last season the Patriots suspended him for being late and missing rehab time. Then the gun thing.

None of this means he's a bad person but I don't think it can be totally dismissed as a one-off.

 

[BigJimEd]

I also don't think not knowing where your guns are is a very good excuse. Very irresponsible at a minimum.

 

[Shelterdog]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to call him a shithead but this wasn't an isolated incident. He plead guilty to a burglary charge in 2018. He was essentially kicked off the USC football team after his sophmore season for poor academic performance. Last season the Patriots suspended him for being late and missing rehab time. Then the gun thing.

None of this means he's a bad person but I don't think it can be totally dismissed as a one-off.

I think the suspensions were all after he was on IR, but yes, he's had some maturity problems and there are a lot of reasons to doubt his professionalism and judgment.

It terms of guessing whether someone I don't know is a shithead, I'm much more worried about, for example, Barmore's restraining order.

 

[Reverend]

I don't know why people are calling him a "shithead." A shithead is a really bad person. I'm not sure what a "fairly colossal shithead" is because that means a sort of really really bad person. At any rate, we still know very little about what happened. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, we certainly don't know that he tried to bring guns through security, only that he was found with guns. And guess what? That's exactly why the charges were dropped.

If people are attempting to equate "shithead" with "ignorant," even that ascribes a minor version of intent. He may have just done what all of us do at some point in our life--make a really bad mistake. Unless we learn more, I'm not sure how we can make judgements about his character.

Yeah, we’re using the term differently, with respect to connotation anyway. An emphasis on being excessively to the point of, well, behaving like a jackass. I don’t have any opinions as to his character. And yeah, we all mistakes, but as @BigJimEd points out, the best case scenario here is that he didn’t know where his two loaded guns were. That seems, well, not great. Grossly irresponsible and reckless is the upside here.

 

[radsoxfan]

I got pre trial probation and 40 hours of community service in 2002 for a fake ID in Boston.

The same thing for Jones + 8 hours. Strong work.

 

[Jimbodandy]

I got pre trial probation and 40 hours of community service in 2002 for a fake ID in Boston.

The same thing for Jones + 8 hours. Strong work.

Too bad you weren't a SoSH member back then. These guys would have gotten you CWoF and a ride in a duck boat.

 

[LoLsapien]

Yeah, we’re using the term differently, with respect to connotation anyway. An emphasis on being excessively to the point of, well, behaving like a jackass. I don’t have any opinions as to his character. And yeah, we all mistakes, but as @BigJimEd points out, the best case scenario here is that he didn’t know where his two loaded guns were. That seems, well, not great. Grossly irresponsible and reckless is the upside here.

Piling on here, in the absence of being an active duty service person, the burden of proof is 100 percent on the individual in question to demonstrate that they are not, in fact, a shit head. This isn't Moscow or Kiev. If you're acting in self defense you don't reach for TWO gats. You don't bring a loaded gun in a gift bag for a dear friend. This isn't a his and hers type situation bringing a loaded gun along for your wife or partner. He probably wasn't heading to a school shooting historical re-enactment and if he was then seriously... what a shit head. This is a New England Patriots, we employed a guy Aaron Hernandez. Loaded guns and CTE are a terrible combination. We simply don't need shit heads like this on our team.

 

[Dogman]

And we are done.