Author Topic: First time marijuana seller gets 55 years (Read 3301 times)

Suave · « **Reply #120 on:** December 11, 2004, 03:54:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by icemaw
But I am glad he got the 55 years because he was carring a gun.

No, he didn't. You still don't get it.

Suave · « **Reply #121 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:01:33 PM »

Where the guns came from is irrelevant. It wouldn't have affected his sentence at all if they were legally obtained. Which they probably were. All of my firearms have been obtained legally. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of them have been stolen before.

15 years for selling pot while exercising your 2nd amendment rights is 15 years too many.

The laws in question are unconstitutional and immoral. And we have a duty to defend the constitution of the united states of america. Some of you, myself included have sworn an oath to do just that.

Mini D · « **Reply #122 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:07:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
Did he point and threaten somebody with it? No, in fact it's really immaterial what he did with it, since mere ownership is what the law punishes.

Notice addition counts were added for the firearms that he had at his home.

Another incredible mistatement.

Mere presence while a felony is being committed is what you meant to say... right?

Suave · « **Reply #123 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:10:06 PM »

Nope. He could've left it at home. Sentence would've been the same. Thus, mere ownership. Which is just as wrong as being punished because one of his firearms were present.

icemaw · « **Reply #124 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:13:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
No, he didn't.

LOL I know he didnt get the 55 years because he was carring the gun. He got the 55 years for selling the dope.

But I am personally glad that he got 55 years for selling dope.
Because he was carring a gun while commiting a crime.

Does anyone else have trouble understanding what I am saying? Is it just that I am not articulate enough?

Raider179 · « **Reply #125 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:13:51 PM »

Suave I do think that 55 years is harsh but you better know the laws before you go doing stupid stuff like bringing a pistol to a deal to sell an Oz.

Carrying a firearm while selling drugs is not exercising your 2nd amendment rights its called a felony and looks like homeskillet learned that one the hard way.

RedTop · « **Reply #126 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:15:16 PM »

Suave...bottom of page 5 in that court doc plainly states that during the 1st 2 drug deals he had a weapon on him. Once on the console of his car and the 2nd on his person in an ankle holster.

It says that that was 2 counts right there of possesing the firearm while sellinig the dope (a crime).

25 years for each count under 924. Carrying a gun in the commission of a drug deal. That alone was 50 years. Then if you read more they had 3 more 924's on him as well. SO in total it could have been even MORE than 55.

Mini D · « **Reply #127 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:19:25 PM »

P.S. You have to use a very liberal definition of the word "show" when saying he didn't show the gun while selling. It was in site of the officer... even by the judge's description of the incidents.

The act of carrying a weapon to defend yourself from criminals is to be defended at all costs. The act of carrying a weapon while committing a crime should be handled how?

I still think the sentance is harsh. But, it is futile to argue that the mere presence of a weapon should not have impacted the sentance... and should not have been a crime. The act of carrying a weapon while committing a felony is a crime.

Suave · « **Reply #128 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:19:44 PM »

Quote

The five counts consisted of two counts for the Glock seen at the two controlled buys, one count for three handguns found at his home, and two more counts for the two guns found at the home of Mr. Angelos' girlfriend.

It also states that some of the firearms were in fact found in a locked safe. Incredible indeed.

Suave · « **Reply #129 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:21:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
P.S. You have to use a very liberal definition of the word "show" when saying he didn't show the gun while selling.

I never said that. RIF

Mini D · « **Reply #130 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:24:49 PM »

I didn't say you said show suave. Someone else said it. RIF.

mora · « **Reply #131 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:25:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RedTop
SO in total it could have been even MORE than 55.

Hell yeah it could have been over 100 years! It wouldn't have happened as some liberal, criminal loving, ex-hippie would have made a 75 year plea bargain with him.

Suave · « **Reply #132 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:28:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I didn't say you said show suave. Someone else said it. RIF.

Then who is it you are refering to saying he didn't show the gun while selling?

NUKE · « **Reply #133 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:29:31 PM »

The sentence is way WAY extreme. The manditory sentencing guidlines need some kind of mechanism built in to avoid/reverse extreme punishiment like this.

Mini D · « **Reply #134 on:** December 11, 2004, 04:29:48 PM »

LOL!

No suave... I don't have to include a pronoun. Maybe you meant proper noun?

And I don't have to play a technicallity game with you on this. Stop being assenine.

Maybe you'd like to answer the questions I posed instead of insisting you didn't use a term? Right now you're looking pretty damn desperate to prove any point other than the obvious one staring you in the face.