Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? "Cook County Judge John Moran granted a defense request Tuesday to allow Johnson to leave the state as he awaits trial on gun possession charges." If this was a regular Joe (That did not have the luxury of a good\expensive lawyer) this would have never happened. In my opinion he should not be allowed to travel since it is illegal to leave the state or they should have lobbied to have the trial before the playoffs. If you commited or are suspected of a crime you should have to pay consequences LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. I know its an opportunity of a lifetime for any young football player. But it should not excuse him from his legal responsibilities and obligations. Any thoughts on this?
2007-01-23 07:27:09 · 7 answers · asked by melmc1980 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
When there are work-related reasons for travel, it is sometimes allowed. And it would be granted to anyone who could present a valid reason to the court.
Having said that, I agree that in my opinion, he should not be allowed to leave the state. I am pretty sure I would not be. Trouble is humans are judges. They make mistakes.
2007-01-23 07:35:03 · answer #1 · answered by istitch2 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Tank Johnson is accused of a misdemeanor gun violation. Anyone with a lawyer; probably even a public defender can be allowed to travel out of state on business when charged with a mere misdemeanor. Besides remember the old fashioned notion of being innocent before proven guilty.
I believe that in many cases that the rich and famous get special treatment but I do not believe this is a case.
The crime he is charged with is would not be a crime in Texas/ Oklahoma or any other state that follows the second amendment. The big focus should be on why is a free man being charged with merely possessing a handgun.
2007-01-23 07:35:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off - the Super Bowl is in Miami so he is traveling from Indianapolis not "to" Indianapolis.
He is awaiting trial which means he has been charged, but not yet tried. Everyone deserves their day in court before being condemned. Suppose the judge says no you can't go, and then he is found innocent? He was then punished for a crime that he was not found guilty of.
I do not think that celebs or athletes deserve special rights, but I think allowing a person charged with a misdemeanor the means to continue to earn his living (including traveling on business) is his right until the point that he becomes convicted.
Like someone said - anyone with a lawyer could have gotten this allowed.
Besides the man is going to the Super Bowl - not like he could be "making that one up" just to get to go to Miami!
2007-01-23 07:59:12 · answer #3 · answered by Susie D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. There is no way atheletes and hollywood people should get special treatment. If there is sufficient evidence to hold him, then being in the superbowl should have no impact!!!!! He should of thought about the consequences before he committed the crime! (Or put himself in the situation to make the police believe so)
2007-01-23 07:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by vetteman 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
confident there's a double generic for no longer purely athletes yet stars oftentimes. They get to coach themselves in at their discretion and in no way do the time a working guy like myself might do. they have the money and the flexibility to get a solid criminal expert and that they get preferential therapy.
2016-12-12 18:38:37 · answer #5 · answered by claypoole 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe the judge has money on the da Bears.
2007-01-23 07:31:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY.
HE'S NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING UNTIL A JURY SAYS SO. SINCE THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH HIM GETTING PERMISSION TO GO ANYWHERE. YOU SEEM TO WANT TO EXECUTE THE GUY AND HE HASN'T EVEN HAD HIS DAY IN COURT. TAKE IT EASY.
2007-01-23 07:33:11 · answer #7 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋