Meet the asshat who sent an innocent man to prison for 15 years

View Comments (28)

• O'Reilly last night unearthed that this guy was a career criminal with a lot of beefs even as near as 2011. He took his son to a lot of these things (which was discussed in an above newstory) and this 15 year deal was actual a federal charge, if he had gone by the state charge it would have been longer. Also the fact that the state dropped the charges showed some partiality that would have not gone to most people. It is interesting because basically Mr. O was essentially stating that this guy was not an innocent guy at all and he should have gotten the book and that the reason why the NY time and others are using this story as a way to reduce time for criminals all around. Not sure about the reasoning behind why they would do this, but it is interesting that they omitted a lot of things.

• Rely on your stuff. Your headline is misleading if not incorrect. Not your usual stuff, which I find humorous and usually accurate. I do agree that the feds stuff is punitive, but this "victim" exercised extremely poor judgement and contrary to your statement and the first author, admitted to the burglary that caused the problem in the first place. Not exactly a great example for the excellent points about federal statutes. Just sayin'.

  • Well, let's think about it, and let's think about it in the context of understanding that bureaucrats are always good at finding excuses for their irrational behavior. Was the man innocent of everything in his life? No, and he freely admits that. Was he innocent of the crime for which he is going to prison for 15 years? Yes. Helping the old lady next door get rid of her junk after her husband dies does not make you a person who intended or conspired or otherwise possessed shotgun shells... and if we could please allow a bit of logic into this, without a shotgun those accidental shotgun shells were a danger to nobody. As far as the crime for which he was prosecuted, he was guilty of nothing more than being lazy and not getting rid of them fast enough. And let's be honest, would YOU know exactly how to dispose of shotgun shells? I wouldn't. You certainly can't throw them in the trash. Most of us use them, we don't throw them away. One more thing: the asshat, trying to justify himself, claims the shells raised issues of public safety. Bullshit. HOW? Was he afraid the poor guy was going to throw them at somebody?

    This is a perfect example of what gun control under federal statutes will be like. Overzealous prosecution of the letter of the law ignoring the intent of the law, by federal prosecutors who are infamous for being the worst cretins and lowlifes in the legal profession.

    • I agree that he should have never stolen and he should have gone to prison for that alone which perhaps would have been considerably less time. However he did go to prison for that crazy time because of the shells and that is out of control.

• Wait-a US Attorney who will win at all costs? WHo'd a thunk it. These guys (attorneys) are all fucking douchebags. They are self-serving sociopathic narcissists who should themselves be imprisoned! That is all

• I agree. You pay your debt to society through a prison term and probation, at the end of which ALL of your rights as a citizen should be restored. That said, if you become a repeat offender, you should have to surrender those rights.

  • However I would have exceptions of people that regardless of serving time and probation should never regain full rights as citizens and people should always have their eyes on them so to speak: child molestors, those who commit crimes against children and non-adults, those who commit crimes against the elderly, the mental and physically handicapped and I would even include those that murdered, raped/violated more than one person during the first crime or subsequent times after the first crime, but before being caught the first time. Why? I think child molestors and those that commit crimes against children is obvious, it takes an specially evil type of person that cannot be rehabilitated to do anything to children. I say the same for the elderly, infirm and handicapped. When a person goes on to hurt more than one person even if it is before being caught for the first time it is a person that WANTS to inflict as much pain as they can on human beings and such a person is in my opinion not to be trusted... Murder and rape are especially evil crimes against the humanity of a person and murder especially is very final and the victim can never recover from that. However if they murdered or raped just one person even though disgusting, if that was his or her extent of evil doing I can see their rights being returned after serving time for that one crime or one person being hurt or murdered.

  • bvogel, that makes too much sense, therefore, it should happen, but it never will.

• Don't forget that the reason mandatory sentencing laws were put in place was because judges (particularly liberal judges) couldn't be trusted to exercise the type of discretion that appears to be called for in this case.

• Probation, as I see it, is still part of the sentencing. You're really not a "free man" if you need to answer to someone for an extended period of time. Saying that...a parolee should not have the right to vote either.

• This is where I feel completely powerless to make a difference. I could write to asshat Killian but would it make any difference? In this case prosecution and persecution are indistinguishable.

  BTW, this is the same clown who said posting something mean about Muslims might be a criminal action.

• With any type of felony,not just violent ones, a person cannot possess a firearm, nor can they possess ammo, which leads me to this...

  While in prison (or probation?), a felon loses their right to vote, and most certainly are not protected by the Constitution of illegel search and siezure. Having served their time, they are able to walk out through the prison gates a free person, and they get their Constitutional rights back. Why not the right to possess a firearm?

  Laws can't trump the Bill of Rights...can it?

  • It's an interesting topic for discussion, no doubt. It varies state to state. Some states let felons vote, some don't, some say they can vote but they have to apply for the right (and don't ask me what the criteria are). The states seem to be more consistent about not allowing them guns. Naturally, since liberals seem to be winning the philosophical wars and they hate guns. If I'm reading you correctly you think a free man who's done his time should have all his rights. I agree. But that still leaves a lot of gray area: much of a felon's "time" is spent on probation after he's out of prison - what do you do with that?

    • End probation. Let people serve their sentences.

• People like this are the worst America has to offer. An immoral asshole with the power of the state is a nasty combo. This guy really needs to answer for this one.

• Cleaned up but still stealing, because the article said they found stolen items (below - at the end). The article never addressed it after that.

  Then Young became a suspect in burglaries at storage facilities and vehicles in the area, and the police searched his home and found the forgotten shotgun shells as well as some stolen goods.

  • You're right, the NYSlimes failed to mention that. This article does: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/21/a-few-shotgun-shells-landed-a-man-15/

    But it's still draconian. He didn't steal much, they weren't armed robberies, and he admits he screwed up and deserves time. Prosecutors dismissed the burglary charges so they're largely irrelevant to the story. The lawyers could get the much more draconian 15 years without chance of parole so they went for that - forget about justice, forget about the overcrowded penal system, forget about the hundreds of thousands of violent felons walking the streets after early release.