HawkShack.com

I was sorry to see him go, maybe I shouldn't have been. Dude just got busted for having an Uzi in his Lambo SUV. Sorry but thats a bit too thug for this old man.

According to PFT he was also arrested in March on a gun charge.
He’s either living in the wrong neighborhood or has a continual problem making good decisions.

Maybe Pete and John felt something that is now showing up.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Maybe Pete and John felt something that is now showing up.

what you said, and the $$$ he wanted (and got from KC) probably had a little to do with it, too. just saying.

But guys, Frankie was just making sure he would have protection against all those racist cops out there. Surely you can't fault him for that! No wait, that doesn't make sense, does it? All the racist cops are gone. In fact, all cops are gone. Defunded.

He’s claiming the Uzi belongs to a member of his security team.
It’s possible I guess but how could someone forget that?

I'm not convinced that this is as bad as some are making it out to be. He had a gun in a handbag in "plain sight" of the officer but is charged with carrying a concealed weapon? How can that be? I also did not see whether or not the gun was loaded, which is an important factor in determining his intent.

If that's all they have on him, a violation of a gun law, and it's not connected to some other crime or illegal activity, then I think that this incident is a tad overblown.

If it's an actual post 86 select fire Uzi they are banned for sale or possession in the US.

And the charge is "felony illegal possession of a firearm", not "carrying a concealed weapon".

c_hawkbob wrote:If it's an actual post 86 select fire Uzi they are banned for sale or possession in the US.

Isn't that model considered a sub machine gun?

c_hawkbob wrote:And the charge is "felony illegal possession of a firearm", not "carrying a concealed weapon".

Ahh, I guess I didn't read the article thoroughly enough. That does make a difference.

But I'm still not clear on what makes it a "felony". I always thought that it had to be in association with the commission of some other crime, like the difference between trespassing and felony trespassing.

One of the problems with all these gun laws is that there's so many of them and they differ, sometimes dramatically, from state to state and even from city to city. You can't expect everyone to be aware of every little nuance.

But on the other hand, if you're going to buy an exotic weapon like an Uzi, you should probably do a little homework on it.

c_hawkbob wrote:If it's an actual post 86 select fire Uzi they are banned for sale or possession in the US.

NorthHawk wrote:Isn't that model considered a sub machine gun?

Yes, that's why I specified post 86. Made before 86 you can technically own one (though it's difficult). 800-1000 rounds per minute can do a lot of damage.

The fact that this is the second time he's been stopped for a minor traffic violation and the second time he's been arrested for the same charge (having a illegal gun in plain sight') should eliminate the "I didn't know.... blah blah blah" defense. I'll be surprised if he doesn't try the BLM defense that he was racially profiled by the white police and therefore he's not guilty.

I think we would need to know why he was stopped in the first place.
Was there something wrong with the vehicle like burned out tail light or was it just a black man driving a $300,000
Lamborghini SUV? If he hadn't fixed the problem then it's his own fault, but I agree with you that he should have
learned his lesson and covered up the gun. It was stupid not to learn from the first time he was charged.

NorthHawk wrote:I think we would need to know why he was stopped in the first place.
Was there something wrong with the vehicle like burned out tail light or was it just a black man driving a $300,000
Lamborghini SUV? If he hadn't fixed the problem then it's his own fault, but I agree with you that he should have
learned his lesson and covered up the gun. It was stupid not to learn from the first time he was charged.

Clark was pulled over for an alleged vehicle code violation near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Adams Boulevard in Los Angeles, which is south of downtown, LAPD spokesman Tony Im said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nf ... uxbndlbing

My guess is that would be something like opaque windows or lowering the chassis too close to the ground.

At 11:45 p.m. Pacific Time on March 12, Clark and Charles Phillip Smith were pulled over on 223rd Street in West Carson, California, for failing to display a front license plate, according to an arrest summary report from the California Highway Patrol.

Neither the CHP report nor a department spokesperson specified whether Clark or Smith was driving the vehicle, a 1993 Toyota Supra.

A 1993 Supra? It might be tricked out and be worth a lot of money, I suppose but I would have thought a guy with a $100M contract would drive
something much better. Maybe Clark was the passenger in March, but he still should have learned from the gun incident then.

At 11:45 p.m. Pacific Time on March 12, Clark and Charles Phillip Smith were pulled over on 223rd Street in West Carson, California, for failing to display a front license plate, according to an arrest summary report from the California Highway Patrol.

Neither the CHP report nor a department spokesperson specified whether Clark or Smith was driving the vehicle, a 1993 Toyota Supra.

NorthHawk wrote:A 1993 Supra? It might be tricked out and be worth a lot of money, I suppose but I would have thought a guy with a $100M contract would drive something much better. Maybe Clark was the passenger in March, but he still should have learned from the gun incident then.

I still think this incident is way overblown. Sure, he should have known better and he probably deserves a hefty fine. But was anyone hurt or put in any kind of physical jeopardy due to his actions? Was there any property damage? Did he steal anything or cheat someone or some business out of any money? It's a victimless crime.

The only thing that would change my opinion would be if the gun were loaded as it would suggest that he was out looking for trouble and/or was careless with a dangerous weapon if there was an accidental discharge or if it fell into the wrong hands.

Just how out of proportion could it be? I haven't heard any talk of suspension, who do yo think is making a bigger deal of it than it is?

c_hawkbob wrote:Just how out of proportion could it be? I haven't heard any talk of suspension, who do yo think is making a bigger deal of it than it is?

You, for one. I think calling him a thug is a bit premature until we learn a little more about the incident.

No, I'm sorry but carrying an Uzi in a Lambo is about as thug as it gets IMO. If you think that's over the top you're about as touchy as they come.

The NFL might fine him for tarnishing the image, but that's peanuts to Clark.
I don't see any suspension but I also don't know what the penalties are for the charge he faces.

c_hawkbob wrote:No, I'm sorry but carrying an Uzi in a Lambo is about as thug as it gets IMO. If you think that's over the top you're about as touchy as they come.

First of all, with regards to my being 'touchy', you asked me to be specific and I gave you an honest answer. If I were touchy, I would have called you out in my first reply to your OP.

Secondly Clark wasn't "carrying" a Uzi, which would suggest that he had it on his person. It was in the back seat of his car, in plain sight, which would indicate that he wasn't trying to elude the law, and we don't even know if he owns it or not. Clark claims that his body guard owns the gun. Lots of fill in the blanks.

I have a disagreement regarding our affinity for the pursuit of the perpetrators of victimless crimes, and on the surface, this seems to be one of those occasions.

Seems like you want to everybody the benefit of the doubt, unless you don't. You always assume Russ and Pete are putting on a façade, that they say what they say for the consumption of the listener or to further some ulterior motive rather than because it might be true ... where's their benefit of the doubt

c_hawkbob wrote:Seems like you want to everybody the benefit of the doubt, unless you don't. You always assume Russ and Pete are putting on a façade, that they say what they say for the consumption of the listener or to further some ulterior motive rather than because it might be true ... where's their benefit of the doubt

I'm not giving Clark the benefit of the doubt. I'm simply saying that I don't have enough information to come to the conclusion that he's a thug. Was the gun loaded? Is the gun his, and if it is, where and how did he come about it and was he aware that it is illegal? What was his purpose for acquiring it? Answer some of those questions and I might join you in your assessment.

I'm also making a general statement regarding victimless crimes.

Your comparison of my attitude towards Pete and Russell to the situation with Clark is pure nonsense.

I don't think it is, not intending to offend, just pointing out that you have different standards for level of proof when it comes to things that you have already decided you believe.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't think it is, not intending to offend, just pointing out that you have different standards for level of proof when it comes to things that you have already decided you believe.

Different standards of proof? I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Let's just drop the subject.

As you wish.

Clark was formally charged with felony possession of an assault weapon. if convicted he could get 3 years and be subject
to NFL discipline. So even if he gets a fine, he might miss some time under league conduct rules.

Herbie Teope
@HerbieTeope
·
37m
Can confirm LA County District Attorney's office today charged Chiefs DE Frank Clark on one felony count of possession of an assault weapon.

Per the DA spokesperson, the current charge is for the March incident, as
@SamMcDowell11
previously reported, and NOT the June incident.

Which means charges for the June incident have yet to be filed. Frank could be in a whole lot of trouble.

I had a friend that got DUI's on successive weekends. Had the same judge for both cases ... didn't tell him about the second one when he faced him on the first. The judge was furious the second time, my buddy lost his license for 3 years and was fined thousands.

I suspect Frank's June incident may have influenced the filing of these charges from the March incident.

Evidently, there is no 2nd amendment in LA. If Clark would of been stopped in Texas, it wouldn't have mattered what he had in the car.

jshawaii22 wrote:Evidently, there is no 2nd amendment in LA. If Clark would of been stopped in Texas, it wouldn't have mattered what he had in the car.

Same problem Plaxico Burress had in NYC. There's a huge variance in gun laws from state to state and even from city to city. Do they have a phone app to alert you to what laws you're breaking when you go from one jursidiction to another?

That's a felony charge guys, not a state charge.

But I guess it's a state statute that makes it a felony so ...

c_hawkbob wrote:That's a felony charge guys, not a state charge.

But I guess it's a state statute that makes it a felony so ...

I'm a little confused by your post. Clark was charged with violating a California state law:

Clark was specifically charged with possession of a concealed firearm in a vehicle, a violation of California law. The code indicates there could be jail time and/or a fine.

https://arrowheadaddict.com/2021/06/22/ ... questions/

I can't speak to JS's point regarding if the traffic stop were have been made in Texas as I don't know enough about Texas law to offer an opinion. But I do know that there's a lot of variance in gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels of government. Here's one:

In an Eyewitness News exclusive, a Marine veteran is fighting for his freedom after his arrest on gun charges.

Even though the firearm was legal, it wasn't registered in New Jersey. Now he's asking the governor to step in.

To combat gang violence, New Jersey lawmakers several years ago tacked on mandatory sentences for gun-related offenses.

No longer do you have to be in the process of committing a crime with a gun to end up behind bars, simply possessing an un-permitted gun in the state can make you a felon and a prisoner, even if you're like decorated Marine Sergeant Pompey.

https://abc30.com/7-on-your-side-invest ... e/1873555/

Don't know what you're confused about. I made a statement that the charges were felony charges and then allowed that they were a felony according to state statutes. Just fleshing out the facts, trying not to be myopic.

c_hawkbob wrote:Don't know what you're confused about. I made a statement that the charges were felony charges and then allowed that they were a felony according to state statutes. Just fleshing out the facts, trying not to be myopic.

Here's what I'm confused about: That's a felony charge guys, not a state charge.

Your statement is a little confusing because one part is true (the charge is a felony) and the second part is false (it is, indeed, a state charge as it was a State of California law that was broken).

But no big deal. Like you, I'm just fleshing out the facts.

Id be a lot more worried about an uzi in the hands of some MAGA crackpot. Hell the rioter in chief is giving speeches spreading lies. Meh. Much ado about not a whole lot.

And of course he was profiled. Anyone want to tell me where to put a front plate on a car like that? if he were speeding or didn't signal or something OK but that's a hot pencil prick cop looking for a contact to harass a well to do black man, maybe arrest him.