Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Suave on December 10, 2004, 02:43:36 PM
-
On November 16, Utah Judge Paul G. Cassell gave a 22-year sentence to a
murderer who beat an elderly woman to death with a log.
Two hours later, he sentenced nonviolent, first-time-offender Weldon
Angelos, age 24, to 55 years and a day in essence, a life sentence.
Weldon’s crime? Selling a small amount of marijuana to a Utah
undercover policeman.
How was this possible? It was yet another horror story created by
America’s savage mandatory minimum sentencing laws, imposed by Congress
during the “get tough on drugs” mania that seized Congress in the 1980s.
Angelos wore a small pistol in an ankle holster when he sold the
marijuana. Although he didn’t use, threaten to use, or brandish the weapon,
that triggered the federal mandatory minimum laws, and sent his sentence
skyrocketing.
Angelos’ mandatory 55 years is based on three firearms-related charges:
for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional
firearms at his apartment. Federal law require a five-year
mandatory-minimum sentence for the first charge and a 25-year term for each count
thereafter.
Under federal law, Judge Cassell had no choice but to impose the 55
years.
Cassell is no softie on crime. He’s a Bush appointee, former
prosecutor, and death penalty advocate.
But he was horrified by what the law forced him to do to Weldon
Angelos. So horrified, in fact, that he wrote a 67-page memorandum denouncing
the mandatory sentencing and asking Bush to commute the sentence to a
more reasonable (in his mind) 18 years.
Under federal law, Judge Cassell noted, an airplane hijacker would get
24 years. A bomb-detonating terrorist would get a 19-year sentence. A
three-time child rapist would get 15 years.
"Is there a rational basis for giving Mr. Angelos more time than the
hijacker, the murderer, the rapist?" Judge Cassell wrote. “To sentence
Mr. Angelos to prison for the rest of his life is unjust, cruel, and even
irrational."
From The Liberator Online.
-
Thats pretty lame, but it sounds like he had other gun charges on his record. he was a fool for having one with him when he was dealing.
Still 55 years for selling pot is stupid, we should end the stupid wastefull war on drugs and use the money to fight the war on terror.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Thats pretty lame, but it sounds like he had other gun charges on his record. he was a fool for having one with him when he was dealing.
If I'm understanding this correctly, having it on his posession isn't an issue. The fact that he owned guns and kept them at his apt would've still earned him the minimum 55 year sentence.
-
Did this person have a jury?
I have read somewhere that not only was it the jury's duty to judge the individual charged, it was the jury's duty to judge the law itself. It was framed in the constitution that the ultimate judge of government law was the Jury. The Jury has the power to throw cases out or court or perhaps better said, possess the power to find the accused innocent of unjust charges, thus have the power to change law. Over the years state/fed prosecutors and judges have stopped informing or even allowing Jurys to complete their given rights under the law and judge the laws themselfs..
Any among us know of this?
-
I have to say that it seems like the gun charges are the ones racking up the years on him. So in that case although its still rediculous you cant make this a thread about someone getting an insane amount of jail for marijuana possesion.
-
Sounds like another set of laws similar to the automatic weapon and silencer restrictions. Those laws were targeted towards gangster activity. Drug-gun laws today appear to be targeted towards driveby shooting gun toting drug dealers. Not that this fellow was one, but he met all the criteria.
I would think there should be some flexibility in the law for the judges discretion. I suspect the law needs to be revised. I do have to wonder, why would this fellow walk around with a gun? Afraid someone would steal $300.00 from his last sale, or was he a 'tough guy' who also sold pot?
Regards,
Malta
-
If you read the article it states that the judged was forced by federal law to hand out a sentence that even the judge found ridiculous.
In most places I think that the jury's job is only to determine guilt, sentencing is left to the judge.
-
Originally posted by stantond
I do have to wonder, why would this fellow walk around with a gun?
Why is irrelevant, he's an american.
If he wants to walk around with a gun the bill of rights says that is a-ok.
-
Originally posted by RTStuka
I have to say that it seems like the gun charges are the ones racking up the years on him. So in that case although its still rediculous you cant make this a thread about someone getting an insane amount of jail for marijuana possesion.
The two tie together. Without the marijuana the gun charges for those in his apartment would be nonexistant and the penalty for carrying without a permit would not be 5 years I'd bet.
If I understand it correctly, the lengthy mandatories are for the guns while selling drugs. If you take the drugs out the whole thing falls apart.
That said, having read more about this guy he wasn't a good guy who was doing a slightly naughty. Still, the sentence is way over the top.
Frankly the mandatory "tough on crime" crap isn't working because it stuff the jails with low level, easily replaced people while the head honchos cut deals to avoid them.
I recall reading about an 18 year old girl who got a 20 year sentence for driving a guy to a meeting. That was her first offense and the guy going to the meeting got off with less than a quarter her sentence. She didn't even have any drugs on her and it was unclear if she knew what the meeting was about.
-
thats insane...
-
I am sure he was just collecting the guns and only planned to use them in ranges or for hunding, right? Maybe the judge should have waited until he killed some kid playing at the playgrownd during some drive by. Then we could give him the justified 19 years in preason instead of this redicilus 55 years.
Yes, is sounds redicilus but I am not going to miss him. Lets say he got the 18 instead of 55. He would be 42 when he came out of jail only to end up back in there within a year or so. The judge just saved us some time an money.
(edit) He will probably be out in 5 anyway
-
What bothers me about this, aside from the stupid anti marijuana laws. Is that what is being punished here isn't violent or antisocial behavior. What is being punished is gun owning.
Hypothetical situation.
Lazs is a gun owner, gets busted for selling a dime bag, or a liter of home brew ale.
Beetle also gets busted for the same crime.
However Lazs recieves a dramatically worse punishment because he has firearms in his home.
What is the deciding factor that determined the difference of punishment? Which person exercises his 2nd amendment rights.
-
Our tax dollars at work, keeping the streets safe from evil plant growers!
-
Both sets of laws are crap, you should have to USE or brandish a gun to get the harder penalties not just own them.
Aresting people for a drug far more mild the booze is lame on so many levels.
-
I disagree with the war on drugs. I disagree with mandatory minumums. I don't think the punishment fit the crime. But... if you're going to sell drugs, or even use them or grow them for strictly personal use it pays to know how the law works. This isn't some big secret. handsomehunk.
Charon
-
And the lesson in all this is never to carry a gun when your doing a drug deal.
Especially Pot!
Its not like Heroin where the buyer might just kill you to get it if you for some reason dont sell it to him
-
Are you upset because there are logical inconsistencies in America? You better get yourself a truckload of tums.
The justice system in America is neurotic at best.
-
Hahah...rot in jail ****face.
Did anyone of you idiots realize that he also killed someone?
-
No.
Nope, not really Drunky :)
-
Legalize it, control it, distribute it in a controlled eviroment...
No need for a crime...
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Did this person have a jury?
I have read somewhere that not only was it the jury's duty to judge the individual charged, it was the jury's duty to judge the law itself. It was framed in the constitution that the ultimate judge of government law was the Jury. The Jury has the power to throw cases out or court or perhaps better said, possess the power to find the accused innocent of unjust charges, thus have the power to change law. Over the years state/fed prosecutors and judges have stopped informing or even allowing Jurys to complete their given rights under the law and judge the laws themselfs..
Any among us know of this?
The fed statutes have given the prosecution the upper hand. The judges and juries on many issues only decide guilt. The law decides sentence. The judges hands are tied by law. He may not use his discretion.
I disagree with this by the way.
-
Don't break the law.
-
Rot in jail law breaker.
We don't take kindly to law breakers around here.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
Hahah...rot in jail ****face.
Did anyone of you idiots realize that he also killed someone?
Your reading comprehension skills suck, Drunky.
"On November 16, Utah Judge Paul G. Cassell gave a 22-year sentence to a
murderer who beat an elderly woman to death with a log.
Two hours later, he sentenced nonviolent, first-time-offender Weldon
Angelos, age 24, to 55 years and a day in essence, a life sentence."
See Drunky? The murderer was a different guy- and, after the Judge sentanced the murderer, who was not named, BTW. he took a two hour lunch, came back in and sentanced FIRST TIME offender Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison.
The article never said Weldon Angelos murdered anybody. Now who's the idiot? :aok
-
He should still rot in jail. He's a law breaker and law breakers deserve to go to jail.
Rot in jail, rot in jail.
I'm watching you Airhead. Break the law and I'll narc on you and you'll rot in jail, rot in jail.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Why is irrelevant, he's an american.
If he wants to walk around with a gun the bill of rights says that is a-ok.
This is the most ignorant statement that I have seen in a long time.
Karaya
-
So we're entitled to bear firearms as long as we remain perfectly stationary ?
-
I think the boat left and some of you slipped into the water.
A. HE sold drugs (I can give a rat's *** about the amount)
B. "Angelos wore a small pistol in an ankle holster when he sold the marijuana. Although he didn’t use, threaten to use, or brandish the weapon, that triggered the federal mandatory minimum laws, and sent his sentence skyrocketing. "
This is the most horsechit I have EVER seen. Come on. I own a handgun.
Here are two Questions NONE of you have asked are the following: 1. Was it EVEN registered to him? 2. Did he have a CCW for this? My guess. Possibly on the first, No way in hell on the second.
Flame away boys. I don't defend criminals, the idiot got busted, I don't care. I abide by the laws.
Karaya
-
Ok, but that doesn't explain how that one sentence in reference to americans and firearms is ignorant.
Let me guess, you're one of those who think that the 2nd amendment is wrong and that we should have a note from mommy or government saying that it's ok to have a firearm.
And I'm guessing you think people who sell marijuana should go to jail too.
And I'm also guessing that you voted for kerry or bush.
I have firearms in my home, none of them are registered as far as I know. Sometimes I even move them around. Should I go to jail for 55 years?
Or would I need to plant and care for a particular type of plant to warrant that ?
Thank goodness this counry was founded by unregistered gun owning, non marriage license having, irreligious pot smokers and not people like you.
-
I aint gonna flame. I'm used to America. One guy skips VietNam by going to Canada, - he's a traitor that should be shot. Another guy skips the draft by using his daddy's politcal influence to jump ahead of a 6 month waiting list to get in the national guard - hell he's President. Just give me a tums and don't screw with me. Also don't expect America to make sense - out test scores reflect it.
This is a great reason for spirituality. God is not flawed. America IS. Yea many countries in the world are worse, but in comparison to God, America (an any man made country) is a snake pit with hypocritcal, sinful, predatorial vipers in public service.
If there's one lesson in the Bible, its mans intrisic ability to distort and corrupt. Why would this country be different than any other?
And Marlet, if you can walk through the pearly gates, all I can say is, I don't wanna go. You seem to be a very miserable judgemental soul. I could think of no worse of hell than spending eternity with such misery.
May Jesus Christ impale you with such judgement.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Ok, but that doesn't explain how that one sentence in reference to americans and firearms is ignorant.
Let me guess, you're one of those who think that the 2nd amendment is wrong and that we should have a note from mommy or government saying that it's ok to have a firearm.
And I'm guessing you think people who sell marijuana should go to jail too.
And I'm also guessing that you voted for kerry or bush.
I have firearms in my home, none of them are registered as far as I know. Sometimes I even move them around. Should I go to jail for 55 years?
Or would I need to plant and care for a particular type of plant to warrant that ?
Thank goodness this counry was founded by unregistered gun owning, non marriage license having, irreligious pot smokers and not people like you.
Karaya has a point. A very good point.
If I read it right Karaya agrees with the punishment.
People who sell marajauna are criminals. No gray area here.
People who have guns on their person are supposed to have a permit. Doubt that guy did.
People who carry a firearm during a drug sale are subject to harsher penalties according to the law.
Is 55 years for 1st time a bunch? Yes.
Is it warranted by the crime? IMO not when measured against Murder. But I don't think there are as many Murderers as there are Drug dealers. Even the Local Yocal lil Dime bag dealer.
Law is the Law. Break it you get in trouble.
At least thats what I take from Karaya's comments.
Tough Laws if you break em. NOTHING if you don't.
-
If the laws are wrong, the moral thing to do is to change them. Not abide by them blindly.
"Oh he broke an unconstitutional law and now he's going to prison for life, but whaddya gonna do."
-
Originally posted by Suave
If the laws are wrong, the moral thing to do is to change them. Not abide by them blindly.
go ahead and change the law then. Why are you wasting your time here?
Abide by them blindly? lol.
The law is probably the result of liberal gun grabbers anyway. I thought being tough on gun crime was good.
-
There are three branches of goverment in the United States. When one tries to neuter another, the idealogy fails. We hear about legislative judges, but we don't hear much about Congress passing laws that take away judicial powers (i.e., mandatory sentencing). Mandatory sentencing is a knee jerk reaction plain and simple. It weakens the Uited States, but it gives victims a false sense of progress. Mandatory sentencing seldom works as designed. But as a rule we're a stupid people and hardly notice.
But then we just yell louder.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
But as a rule we're a stupid people and hardly notice.
But then we just yell louder.
You don't have to be so hard on liberals....they are not all stupid people.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
There are three branches of goverment in the United States. When one tries to neuter another, the idealogy fails. We hear about legislative judges, but we don't hear much about Congress passing laws that take away judicial powers (i.e., mandatory sentencing). Mandatory sentencing is a knee jerk reaction plain and simple. It weakens the Uited States, but it gives victims a false sense of progress. Mandatory sentencing seldom works as designed. But as a rule we're a stupid people and hardly notice.
But then we just yell louder.
It worked in this case. There's 55 years I don't have to worry about that guy carrying a gun and selling dope.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
go ahead and change the law then. Why are you wasting your time here?
Abide by them blindly? lol.
The law is probably the result of liberal gun grabbers anyway. I thought being tough on gun crime was good.
So you're saying you disagree with the law, and it's probably the other guys fault we have such a stupid law. But the suggestion that it should be changed makes you lol.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
And Marlet, if you can walk through the pearly gates, all I can say is, I don't wanna go. You seem to be a very miserable judgemental soul. I could think of no worse of hell than spending eternity with such misery.
May Jesus Christ impale you with such judgement.
Hmmmm......Ive read 2 posts of yours in this thread , and in my opinion......as they say here...........
Pot meet Kettle
-
Well if only liberals are taking math and science tests, I guess you could be right. But if the little Republican spawn is taking them, we're all stupid.
-
Originally posted by Suave
So you're saying you disagree with the law, and it's probably the other guys fault we have such a stupid law. But the suggestion that it should be changed makes you lol.
Nope.
I'm saying that its the law and I will abide by it. I'm saying that it's funny that anti-gun activists are the ones who create these laws against guns, yet they seem to be the same people that cry when people go to jail.
I love it. Liberals are "compassionate" so they create laws that will end gun crime, then whine when the law is actually enforced.
Poor pothead got busted with an evil gun. I'm glad he's going to jail. We need tougher gun laws.
-
Originally posted by Suave
If the laws are wrong, the moral thing to do is to change them. Not abide by them blindly.
Typical of a person who thinks they are above the law just because they don't like it.
That reminds me of...... liberals.
You are saying you will not abide by laws you don't personally agree with? Classic.
I demand a recount!
-
>>It worked in this case. There's 55 years I don't have to worry about that guy carrying a gun and selling dope.<<
Yea, and in 4 posts from now you'll be *****ing about your taxes and feeding this guy for 55 years.
We have a genetic defect somewhere.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>It worked in this case. There's 55 years I don't have to worry about that guy carrying a gun and selling dope.<<
Yea, and in 4 posts from now you'll be *****ing about your taxes and feeding this guy for 55 years.
We have a genetic defect somewhere.
Yep, I will. It's better than having him on the street, though. Ideally, he should be on a chain gang, working in the south west. They could do the jobs the crimaliens are doing now, thus eliminating 2 problems.
-
>> Ideally, he should be on a chain gang, working in the south west. <<
Think meager thoughts and have a meager existence. IDEALLY, he shouldn't have been addicted to drugs, and IDEALLY, there should be no profit in drugs.
-
Just leagalize the crap......
Then we can all have 7-11's on one corner and Dope-n-Munchies on the other.
Heak leagalize all the drugs. Then maybe the IDIOTS will OD faster and save us all the time and money we invest on the Drug War and Prisons.
That make ya Happy Tweety and Suave?:rolleyes:
-
Yea Redtop, it WOULD make me happy and is something columnist/author William F. Buckley Jr. endorsed years ago. You can't save people from their own stupidity.
-
I am for tough sentancing of crimes with firearms... If the firearm is simply at your home that is not a firearms crime tho in my opinion.
I haven't heard of this tough of a sentance for not even using a gun in a felony... especialy a non violent felony.
I suppose that it is all drug related.. part of the "war on drugs"... I don't agree with this if that is the case... all felonies should be treated equally except where violence is involved and then all vilolent felonies involving firearms should be treated with stiff mandatory penalties.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>> Ideally, he should be on a chain gang, working in the south west. <<
Think meager thoughts and have a meager existence. IDEALLY, he shouldn't have been addicted to drugs, and IDEALLY, there should be no profit in drugs.
It was scocities fault he was a drug addict and turned to selling. He surely wasn't making any money on it at all. He was probably a deprived child and was beaten and abused. His mom was probably a hooker and his dad beat her as well. Possibly his dad was his moms pimp. Oh , what a country we live in. We as a country should have seen that and taken care of that problem. We should all be ashamed at our not thriving to keep things like this from happening.
We should make laws that all drug offenders should go thru a 12 step program on the first offense. IF a gun was involved make gun training a part of the program as well. That way they know how to properly use the firearm and can apply for a license to carry after they have completed the course.
2nd time make them repeat the course but throw in "I will try not to do this again and not be on drugs even though the money makes it a great temptation" on a spiral notebook. 50 sheets only as anything more than that could be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
3rd time is 2 steps above plus..and hold on..MANDATORY SOUP KITCHEN LINE WORK for 4 sundays over the course of one year.
Thats getting tough on those drug dealing people. By golly by gum.
-
Blah blah, or you could just admit that no law will prevent a moron from drinking antifreeze if he wants to.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Blah blah, or you could just admit that no law will prevent a moron from drinking antifreeze if he wants to.
Yeah, laws are pointless. Now I get it.
-
Ding Ding!!!!!!
Correct sort of. BUT , if you make the law KNOWN to be tough , and no room to move on the law , doesn't that send a message when things like this happen?
I understand that people will do what they want whenever they want regardless. Totally understand it. Laws are to keep honest people honest. Law abiding citizens don't fear the law. They respect it.
But why not make it so if you break a certain law...you WILL suffer a penalty? Why *****foot around with it like they did for so many years?
Ill admit 55 years is tough , but it is the law. AND , the guy I would bet KNEW if he got busted he was going to jail. It is illeagle no 2 ways around it. And a Gun involved , whether threating or not , makes it even worst. Its a simple thing.
If ya do the crime ya do the time. End of Story , Case Closed.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Typical of a person who thinks they are above the law just because they don't like it.
That reminds me of...... liberals.
You are saying you will not abide by laws you don't personally agree with? Classic.
I demand a recount!
No that's not what I'm saying. It's a puzzle, figure out what I meant. I spoke directly and used literal syntax so it may prove difficult for you.
I'm sorry, I forget what I'm supposed to call myself. Are liberals defending the right to bear arms and championing the return to constitutional legislature now? Somebody help me out.
-
>>Yeah, laws are pointless. Now I get it.<<
That leap of logic accounts for comments that we are a stupid people. Laws governing how you interact with others, i.e, laws protecting others rights ARE needed. Laws governing how you interact with yourself are ridiculous. While no law should say you cant get stoned, laws SHOULD say, you can't drive or expect government relief if your life is committed to being stoned.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am for tough sentancing of crimes with firearms... If the firearm is simply at your home that is not a firearms crime tho in my opinion.
I haven't heard of this tough of a sentance for not even using a gun in a felony... especialy a non violent felony.
I suppose that it is all drug related.. part of the "war on drugs"... I don't agree with this if that is the case... all felonies should be treated equally except where violence is involved and then all vilolent felonies involving firearms should be treated with stiff mandatory penalties.
lazs
You constitution toting liberal !
-
What's a leap of logic?
Maybe people should be allowed to get stoned because it's their body, right? Well drugs are illegal to sell, produce or buy, so that kind of negates that as an argument.
-
I dont really care if people get stoned or not so long as they dont try to rob me or car jack me and kidnap/rape my children.
-
Wait til you see a law this tough on drunk driving. :eek:
-
Well our courts seem to think that getting stoned and owning a gun is much worse than car jacking or rape and murder.
Of course pot addiction leads to horrible things things like rape and murder and gun ownership.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
He should still rot in jail. He's a law breaker and law breakers deserve to go to jail.
Rot in jail, rot in jail.
I'm watching you Airhead. Break the law and I'll narc on you and you'll rot in jail, rot in jail.
Well, I don't live in some back asswards state like Utah or Texas Drunky, so I'm beyond the reach of your frontier justice. In fact where I live what he did wouldn't even get a parking ticket....and that's if we'd tolorate undercover cops busting people from dime bags, which we don't. We send them after crank labs.
Rot in Texas, Rot in Texas... I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Wait til you see a law this tough on drunk driving. :eek:
That would be a step in the right direction. But I'd be surprised if that ever happens.
-
If I may shed some light on Airheads ghastly allusion. Dildos are illegal in texas, because they are three dimensional depictions of parts of the human body that are clearly evil.
-
Me to. To many lawmakers that would not pass a test if given.:lol
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Well, I don't live in some back asswards state like Utah or Texas Drunky, so I'm beyond the reach of your frontier justice. In fact where I live what he did wouldn't even get a parking ticket....and that's if we'd tolorate undercover cops busting people from dime bags, which we don't. We send them after crank labs.
Rot in Texas, Rot in Texas... I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.
:rolleyes: where are ya from again?
-
>>I dont really care if people get stoned or not so long as they dont try to rob me or car jack me and kidnap/rape my children.
<<
Or drive while they are stoned ( i don't care if they're stoned on Budweiser or crack). We have enough laws in this country governing how people can interact with others. We just don't enforce them. This stupidity that JackDaniels is legal but pot isn't is nothing but money in the pockets of politicians.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
:rolleyes: where are ya from again?
Mendocino County, California. Cultivation of 25 plants is legal, posession of 2 pounds is legal, with a Dr.'s note and a resigstration card from the County.
We're allowed to own dildos, too.
-
But without that "Dr. Note" is it still leagle to have 25 plants or 2 pounds? What is the limits? Can ya have a gun when your smoking a joint?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.
Hahahah, not only is that disgusting, it's ****ING ILLEGAL. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL YOU LAWLESS FELON, YOU.
I will have you know that the Supreme Court has been arguing and decided that national dildo laws override individual state laws concerning dildos, you ****ing law breaker.
As I type this I'm pulling an Udie and calling the FBI to report you for unlawfull dildo use.
Rot in Cali, rot in Cali with all your crank lab makers.
Hahaha, the water is blue. I say again the water is blue.
Copy, the water is blue. The owl is in the watchtower. I say again, the owl is in the watchtower.
Watch for the blackhelicopters Airhead. The hippie has already turned you in for your recycled paper scam and now I've called 'them' also.
Goodbye my friend. Enjoy the inside of a 0.00189 mile by 0.00198 mile concrete room, you illegal didlo user.
-
suave... I admit to be a constitutionalist but not a liberal. I am against making some felonies like "hate crimes" or drug crimes have any special treatment. I am not against increassed penalties in felonies where a gun actualy is part of the crime. drug, theft or otherwise.... violent felonies are an even more serious matter.
no crime tho that simply has involves a firearm but causes no injury should be equal in sentancing to any crime that involves grave injury or death. but then... I think most of those sentances are too light.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RedTop
But without that "Dr. Note" is it still LEAGLE to have 25 plants or 2 pounds? What is the limits? Can ya have a gun when your smoking a joint?
Actually, I'm not sure what is 'leagle' these days.
-
He broke the law. Let him rot in jail. I hope they take him to clean up the highway.
-
Bush broke the law and he's president (our first President with a criminal record). Go figure.
Taking politics out of it, do you think we have an aristocracy problem (i.e., its not what you know but WHO you know)?
-
Angelos wore a small pistol in an ankle holster when he sold the
marijuana.
====
Thats all I needed to know.
poor bastard should have dropped the pistol, married a studmuffin and mover to canada. He would have had it made in the shade.
-
The very issue of minimum mandatorys is before the Supreme Court--blakley v. washington is the case being reconsidered.
It has caused havoc in the federal courts.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
suave... I admit to be a constitutionalist but not a liberal. I am against making some felonies like "hate crimes" or drug crimes have any special treatment. I am not against increassed penalties in felonies where a gun actualy is part of the crime. drug, theft or otherwise.... violent felonies are an even more serious matter.
no crime tho that simply has involves a firearm but causes no injury should be equal in sentancing to any crime that involves grave injury or death. but then... I think most of those sentances are too light.
lazs
Allow me to introduce my friend. Sarcasm, meet Lazs. Lazs, Sarcasm.
-
I'm thinking about criminal arguments.
Take for example someone who loads a 2 1/2 ton automobile with a drunk driver. He thinks, heck I'm just going home and don't drive fast. I'm not going to kill anyone, I just don't feel like walking or waiting for a cab.
Or perhaps a guy that sells stuff more to feed his own drug use than to make a profit. He thinks, I'm gonna carry a gun for personal safety from insane drugggies with no money. I'm not going to kill anyone, just protectect myself.
Or even a CEO who gets a file containing evidence of vascular abnomalities related to a drug his company produces. He's thinks, these studies must be wrong. I'll thry to get the scientist to shut up and try to look into it more.
All drugs. One guy becomes President, one guy's stock plummets, and one guy gets 55 years. We have an aristocracy problem, not a drug problem. I'd guess there will never be a war on aristocracy.
-
BTW, Martlet, I apologize for my earlier remarks to you. That was out of line.
-
I'm thinking about criminal arguments.
Take for example someone who loads a 2 1/2 ton automobile with a drunk driver. He thinks, heck I'm just going home and don't drive fast. I'm not going to kill anyone, I just don't feel like walking or waiting for a cab.
====
you know what tweed, your a typical liberal, always looking for an excuse. Your fortunate people who believe in the theory "Dont tread on me" dont populate the mainstream anymore or you would be plowed over like soft dirt on the first day of spring....oh how I long for the days of old....
-
Yeager, I'm not a liberal. I not a neocon either. I'm a fiscal conservative libertarian devil's advocate.
And don't be sure about plowing over me.
I have a 45 gov, with a black talon up front and hardballs behind that will solve any problem 75 feet from me.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Legalize it, control it, distribute it in a controlled eviroment...
No need for a crime...
Exactly why it wont be legalised.
Cant control it.
No Way the big corperations can make money off of it When your average neighborhood grower can grow stuff in his closet at 5 times the quality they can
-
Originally posted by RedTop
But without that "Dr. Note" is it still leagle to have 25 plants or 2 pounds? What is the limits? Can ya have a gun when your smoking a joint?
No, but generally condoned and not raided. They had cases this year where they busted 100 plant gardens and, because the cultivator had a card, they only pulled 75 plants- and our County DA won't prosicute for 75 plants.
What the Dr's note gets you is a card issued by Mendocino County. It permits you to cultivate 25 plants, 50 if you're in a Marijuana Compassionate Use Club.
As far as CWPs go, they're easier to get here than anyplace in California- it takes a weekend course and an excuse as vague as "self protection."
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Bush broke the law and he's president (our first President with a criminal record). Go figure.
Taking politics out of it, do you think we have an aristocracy problem (i.e., its not what you know but WHO you know)?
And Kerry is a traitor who according to the constitution should'nt even be holding public office
get off the high (no pun intended) horse tweety
Ask TK
-
Lesson here,
Don,t get caught sellin drugs in Utah.
A dude i know got caught with Meth,Mary-Jane,and some nose candy,and he had a shotgun in his trunk,while bein stopped for DUI investigation.
Don,t get caught with drugs in Utah.
That same Dude got 72 years Mandatory.:aok
-
It would be easier for you to just execute all criminals.
In here an average time to sit for a "life" sentence is 12 years. Your sentences are equally ridiculous.
-
suave... I have been accused of having liberal ideas before.
The whole point is that we treat some crimes as worse than others... we add penalties based on severity. I think everyone feels that violent criminals should be punished more than non violent ones and that those using a weapon in crime need to be made examples of.
I don't think that commiting crimes with a gun strapped on your ankle is very smart. I don't agree that selling pot in that amount should be a felony but... not my call.
Again... I don't think the gun penalties should be added to any crime where the gun was not actually used in the crime. That is wrong. Adding penalties to gun crime is right if it is not done as badly as this appears to be.
There is a huge difference for instance in having a rifle rack in your truck and getting a fellony drunk driving (injuring someone) and doing the same thing but taking out the rifle and holding off the police when they get there.
It should be up to the discretion of the prosecutor and judge to decide if a gun crime has been committed maybe.
lazs
-
Thank goodness, more guns off the street!
He should have gotten a 100 years for carrying those dangerus small cheap concealable weapons, not to mention possising the arsenal at his hom, err I mean compound...
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Karaya has a point. A very good point.
If I read it right Karaya agrees with the punishment.
People who sell marajauna are criminals. No gray area here.
People who have guns on their person are supposed to have a permit. Doubt that guy did.
People who carry a firearm during a drug sale are subject to harsher penalties according to the law.
Is 55 years for 1st time a bunch? Yes.
Is it warranted by the crime? IMO not when measured against Murder. But I don't think there are as many Murderers as there are Drug dealers. Even the Local Yocal lil Dime bag dealer.
Law is the Law. Break it you get in trouble.
At least thats what I take from Karaya's comments.
Tough Laws if you break em. NOTHING if you don't.
You read my post right.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Mendocino County, California. Cultivation of 25 plants is legal, posession of 2 pounds is legal, with a Dr.'s note and a resigstration card from the County.
We're allowed to own dildos, too.
This explains every post. Say no more.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Well, I don't live in some back asswards state like Utah or Texas Drunky, so I'm beyond the reach of your frontier justice. In fact where I live what he did wouldn't even get a parking ticket....and that's if we'd tolorate undercover cops busting people from dime bags, which we don't. We send them after crank labs.
Rot in Texas, Rot in Texas... I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.
Uh, I have a buddy who is CHP. The moron sold to an undercover officer, who probably DID NOT have a CCW for an ankle holster with a revolver (prolly .38). You are truly a tool, if you think the "Non-Parking Ticket California Officer" would NOT arrest. You're off your rocker man. Just set the crack pipe down and step backwards. My buddy said he'd be looking at 5 years MINIMUM.
You are confusing "Medicinal Use" with "Drug Trafficing" or "Posession of Illegal Substance with the Intent to Distribute". I
Again, I OBEY the laws of the land.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Well, I don't live in some back asswards state like Utah or Texas Drunky, so I'm beyond the reach of your frontier justice. In fact where I live what he did wouldn't even get a parking ticket....and that's if we'd tolorate undercover cops busting people from dime bags, which we don't. We send them after crank labs.
Rot in Texas, Rot in Texas... I smoke pot through my dildo. In Texas that'd be double life.
California should be cede from the Union, if you put it that way. I've spent a couple of weeks in Texas back in 1990. California is about as *** backward as you can get. You just don't know when to put the shovel down. Keep digging, and take the dildo out of your ***.
Karay
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Thank goodness, more guns off the street!
He should have gotten a 100 years for carrying those dangerus small cheap concealable weapons, not to mention possising the arsenal at his hom, err I mean compound...
You don't know what he "had at home". Say a Sawed off shotgun? A Fully-automatic weapon? More weapons without permits? Bottom line, when you are a FELON, you never LEGALLY FIRE, POSSESS, or PURCHASE a Handgun (not sure on AR's and such).
I agree with the punishment. ALOT hasn't been said, but I think this idiot deserved what he got.
Keep the sarcasm up. Turn a blind eye to stupidity and allow law breakers. Sorry, I refuse too.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
This explains every post. Say no more.
Karaya
Well, but of COURSE!! There HAS to be SOME explination if others don't think exactly as you do! It must be brain damage from drug abuse!! It could not POSSIBLY be that someone could have a difference of opinion than YOU, because...YOU are always RIGHT!!
FWIW you have no idea what I do- but one thing I used to do is write law enforcement and PAL grants. What I do now required a DoJ background check and State licensing. Getting pulled over with alcohol on my breath, or a roach in my astray, by the CHP (who still arrests for pot in motor vehicles) and I lose my State license to operate my business.
-
Being a homeless bum and sleeping in dumpsters on the beach requires licensing???
:)
What do you do Airhead?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Well, but of COURSE!! There HAS to be SOME explination if others don't think exactly as you do! It must be brain damage from drug abuse!! It could not POSSIBLY be that someone could have a difference of opinion than YOU, because...YOU are always RIGHT!!
FWIW you have no idea what I do- but one thing I used to do is write law enforcement and PAL grants. What I do now required a DoJ background check and State licensing. Getting pulled over with alcohol on my breath, or a roach in my astray, by the CHP (who still arrests for pot in motor vehicles) and I lose my State license to operate my business.
Wrong, you post for shock value. I am NOT always RIGHT, but thanks for taking the easy way out.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Uh, I have a buddy who is CHP. The moron sold to an undercover officer, who probably DID NOT have a CCW for an ankle holster with a revolver (prolly .38). You are truly a tool, if you think the "Non-Parking Ticket California Officer" would NOT arrest. You're off your rocker man. Just set the crack pipe down and step backwards. My buddy said he'd be looking at 5 years MINIMUM.
You are confusing "Medicinal Use" with "Drug Trafficing" or "Posession of Illegal Substance with the Intent to Distribute". I
Again, I OBEY the laws of the land.
Karaya
Uh, I have several buddies who are CHP- one of my cousins is CHP, and I have an uncle who's retired CHP.
I also have a nephew who is Ukiah PD. I've known the North Section Watch Commander for Mendocino co. Sheriffs Dept., Tom Allman, for over 20 years. I've known the Sheriff for 20 years, and worked with both the Ukiah POA and Mendocino County Deputy Sheriffs Association many times when we published program books for celebrity basketball fund raisers. My sister is engaged to a Deputy DA who prosicutes drug charges. I volunteer work on grant and ordinance writing, and am currently working on a draft to get Ukiah another K-9 unit.
In Ukiah, if a Cop sees a nickel bag pot transaction, he will maybe investigate for weapons or other drugs- if none are present he may, or may not, confinscate the pot, depending upon the attitude of the perp.
Now you can sit on your fat bellybutton in front of your monitor and call me a liar if you like, but if you're willing to come up here I'd be more than happy to set up an interview with our law enforcrment community and our DA's office and you can hear what I'm saying directly from them.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wrong, you post for shock value. I am NOT always RIGHT, but thanks for taking the easy way out.
Karaya
I agree- you're often wrong, but more than that you're also offensive and insulting and incapable of rational debate without resorting to name calling. It's one thing to call me names because you don't like my opinions, especially in the lack of a reasoned response, and it's another to challange a statement (like you did with Reagan) because I'll do a Google and, if in error, admit it and stand corrected- but what you do, in the day-to-day conversations here, is insult, name call and denegrate anyone that has a difference of opinion with you.
And then you accuse ME of posting for shock value? At least I can engage people in a rational debate without resorting to profanity or name calling. I haven't seen you do that yet.
-
Sounds like both of you are doin the same thing.
Ones the Pot,and ones the Kettle.
You guys decides who's what,either way you cut it,don,t carry a gun concealed while in the act of selling DOPE.
Thats how the law stipulates,How many Law Enforcement officers
do you know that feel better knowing wether the dope dealer has a gun or doesn,t have have a gun.:aok
-
Our District Attorney, Norm Vrooman, and our County Sheriff, Tony Craver, were both elected by pledging to uphold this ordinance. Like I said- here the Narcs are busy with the crank labs and don't have time to bust for dime bags.
MARIJUANA ORDINANCE FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY
Section 1: FINDINGS.
The people of Mendocino County find as follows:
* WHEREAS Cannabis sativa (marijuana) is a beneficial plant with a respectable heritage and hundreds of well-known industrial, medicinal and recreational uses;
* WHEREAS two decades of marijuana law enforcement in Mendocino County has not stopped cultivation here but has unnecessarily marginalized a large number of otherwise law abiding citizens who grow and use marijuana;
* WHEREAS those who grow for personal use are not responsible for violent incidents sometimes associated with marijuana cultivation, but are vulnerable to theft;
* WHEREAS The Institute of Medicine has found that marijuana has bona fide medical uses and is not a gateway to hard drug addiction;
* WHEREAS law enforcement has carried out investigations, confiscations, and arrests against persons cultivating and using medical marijuana under Proposition 215 in Mendocino County;
* WHEREAS the cities of Berkeley and San Francisco have longstanding ordinances which instruct police to minimize the priority of marijuana enforcement.
Section 2: PURPOSE
The ordinance codified in this chapter will:
A. Instruct the county government to support all efforts toward the decriminalization of marijuana;
B. Instruct the county sheriff and district attorney to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority with respect to other crimes;
C. Establish a maximum limit of plants and weight for cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal use in Mendocino County, and prohibit the expenditure of public funds for enforcement of marijuana laws against cultivators and users in possession of quantities below that limit.
D. Remove the fear of prosecution and the stigma of criminality from people who harmlessly cultivate and/or use marijuana for personal medical or recreational purposes.
E. Extend police protection to those growing or possessing marijuana for personal use;
F. Provide for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale.
THEREFORE: the purpose of this chapter is to establish Cannabis enforcement policy for Mendocino County.
Section 3: DECRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS IN CALIFORNIA
It is the desire of the people of Mendocino County that the cultivation for personal use of Cannabis be decriminalized in California. In this context, the board of supervisors is directed to lobby state and federal governments for the immediate decriminalization of the personal use of Cannabis, specifically by repealing Sections 11357, (possession), 11358, (transportation), and - 11359, (cultivation), of the California Health and Safety Code. The people also urge the Sheriff and District Attorney to publicly support such decriminalization.
Section 4: LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY OF CANNABIS
Through its budgetary authority, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors shall seek to ensure that the Sheriff's Office and the District Attorney give lowest priority to the enforcement and prosecution of marijuana laws.
Section 5: SHERIFF OFFICE ARRESTS AND CITATIONS
The Board of Supervisors shall use its budgetary authority to ensure that the Sheriff's Office makes no arrests and issues no citations for violations of the above state Health and Safety Code sections in any single case involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plant or the equivalent in dried marijuana.
Section 6: DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROSECUTIONS
The Board of Supervisors shall use its funding authority to ensure that the District Attorney shall not prosecute any violations of the above state Health and Safety Code sections nor seize any property in any single case involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana.
Section 7: EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR CANNABIS ENFORCEMENT
Neither the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, nor the Sheriff, nor the District Attorney shall spend or authorize the expenditure of any public funds for the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of any person, or the seizure of any property in any single case involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana, nor shall the Auditor Controller or the Treasurer- Tax Collector approve any such requests for such expenditures of public funds, or authorize or approve the issuance of any form of payment should such expenditures be made.
Section 8: REPORTING
The Board of Supervisors shall instruct the Sheriff's Office and District Attorney to report on December 1 of each year regarding marijuana law enforcement and prosecution activities engaged in by themselves and by state, federal, and/or other law enforcement agencies within the County of Mendocino.
Section 9: SERVERABILITY
The people of Mendocino County intend that in case a court of competent jurisdiction should find one or more of the above Sections illegal, the remaining Sections remain in full force and effect.
-
I vote against mandatory sentancing whenever a ballot is presented. It almost always shows itself to be excessive.
That said... I find the article quoted at thes start of this thread laughable. Why is it that people can't let cases stand on unbiased merit?
"Small amount of marijuana": 3 sales of 1/2 lb each. They then found 3 additional pounds in his home as well as 2 "suckers" of an opiate material.
At 2 of the sales, he brandished the weapon: had it on the console next to his hand once, and lifted his pant leg to show it to the buyer on the second purchase. The third purchase is unknown if he had the gun or not, so no charges were pressed.
When they searched his home, they also found a stolen firearm in addition to the large amounts of marijuana.
This person was offered a 15 year plea deal (most likely out by 6 1/2 with that type of sentance) and turned it down.
-
BTW, for anyone that want's to read the judge's summary:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/angelos.pdf
The sentance was excessive, but the article quoted was incredibly misleading in order to make it look worse.
-
Yeah, he should've gotten in trouble for the fentanyl suckers, but nothing for pot and the firearms.
For all I know some of my firearms could've been stolen. And if somebody wants to sell pot, or any other agriculture products and carry a gun while doing it, it's well within his constitutional rights.
-
* WHEREAS those who grow for personal use are not responsible for violent incidents sometimes associated with marijuana cultivation, but are vulnerable to theft;
Have u ever grown POT?
If i caught someone stealin my crop,Damn straight they are gettin shot at.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
BTW, for anyone that want's to read the judge's summary:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/angelos.pdf
The sentance was excessive, but the article quoted was incredibly misleading in order to make it look worse.
Angelos carried a handgun to two $350 marijuana deals; the third when police found several additional handguns at his home when they executed a search warrant. For thses three acts of possessing (not using or even displaying) these guns, the government insists that Mr. Angelos should essentially spend the rest of his life in prison......
The court believes that to sentence Mr.Angelos to prison for the rest of his life is unjust, cruel, and even irrational.
This is quoted from the pdf that mini linked.
-
Read further suave. The judge had a meaning of "displaying" that meant something other than "showing". He contradicts himself somewhat further down when he describes the individual incidents.
-
BTW... that summary is a very good read. It shows the process by which the 55 year sentance was derived. It's a gnarly combination of the senate and the Supreme Court. There's no one guilty party, and there's no direct agenda. This is all coming from 36 year old legislation. That and a series of USSC desions on how to interpret "gun used during a crime".
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's no one guilty party, and there's no direct agenda.
Weldon Angelos is guilty...
-
What a stupid arse. Carring a gun to protect an ounce of dope.
He deserves his sentence. If he was just a casual user dealer he wouldent have needed or used the gun. However when the decision was made to carry the gun. He made the decision that he would more than likely kill anyone trying to stop him or take away his dope. People that carry guns in the comission of a crime have an intent on using them if needed. With no regard to anyones life. How many time have we heard of some child shot down by stray bullets from some loser with a gun. As far as I am concerned carry a gun in the comission of a crime go to jail for life.
A life sentence for selling a couple ounces of dope no. Doing it while carring a gun YES! The gun is the issue not the dope.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
What a stupid arse. Carring a gun to protect an ounce of dope.
He deserves his sentence. If he was just a casual user dealer he wouldent have needed or used the gun. However when the decision was made to carry the gun. He made the decision that he would more than likely kill anyone trying to stop him or take away his dope. People that carry guns in the comission of a crime have an intent on using them if needed. With no regard to anyones life. How many time have we heard of some child shot down by stray bullets from some loser with a gun. As far as I am concerned carry a gun in the comission of a crime go to jail for life.
A life sentence for selling a couple ounces of dope no. Doing it while carring a gun YES! The gun is the issue not the dope.
So, carrying a gun while selling potatoes; perfectly legal. Carrying a gun while selling marijuana; life in prison. This is the way you think it should be?
What if marijuana was legal. Do you still feel that he should get a life sentence for carrying a gun, or possesing guns in his house? And remember, even if he wasn't carrying one of his firearms, he still would've gotten the same 55years.
-
Also I surmise from your reply that you don't think americans should have the right to shoot people who are trying to rob them of anything.
If that's the case, I won't waste anymore time trying to comunicate with you.
-
If Dope was legal he would not have been arrested. Owning or carring a gun legally no problem. Carring a gun in the comission of a crime should carry the maximum penalty. Remember he didnt show it or use it because he didnt have to. If the need to use it had been there he he would more than likely used it. If he had and say you or someone you know or love might have been standing near by and been hit how would you feel then?
-
Originally posted by icemaw
Carring a gun in the comission of a crime should carry the maximum penalty.
Would 300 years be ok? Better make it 600 if the perp has a dildo in his house.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
If Dope was legal he would not have been arrested. Owning or carring a gun legally no problem. Carring a gun in the comission of a crime should carry the maximum penalty. Remember he didnt show it or use it because he didnt have to. If the need to use it had been there he he would more than likely used it. If he had and say you or someone you know or love might have been standing near by and been hit how would you feel then?
Reading is fundemental, he would've gotten the same punishment had he left his gun at home.
Just answer my question. Potatos, zero years, pot, life in prison.
If I had a loved one who was shot as a result of a man defending himself from a violent criminal then I would put my blame on the criminal. Not on the man who was rightly defending himself and his property. That would be asenine.
Many innocent bystanders are wounded from bullets that come from police firearms. I don't blame the police in most cases. But then again I seem to employ a type of logic that appears to becoming obsolete.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Also I surmise from your reply that you don't think americans should have the right to shoot people who are trying to rob them of anything.
If that's the case, I won't waste anymore time trying to comunicate with you.
How did you come to that conclusion. Look I am an old dope smoker from way back and I think the laws on it are crazy. How ever never in my whole life have I ever valued it more than someones life. If someone was breaking into my house and threatining my loved ones I am going to put him in the grave. Protecting you home and familly is not a crime. Selling dope or potatos for that matter if they were illegal in the possesion of a gun is a crime and the perp should bo locked up for good.
Because he values his illegal goods or deeds more than your! life.
-
You still don't understand that he didn't get 55 years for carrying.
Which would still be wrong and uncostitutional.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
. Selling dope or potatos for that matter if they were illegal in the possesion of a gun is a crime and the perp should bo locked up for good.
Priceless.
-
I'm sure he values his life more than his weed. Thus we can deduce by order of importance what his prime motive for exercising his 2nd amendment rights was.
Being robbed on the street is no safer than being robbed in your home.
-
Look I will make I will make it simple.
55 years for selling a couple ounces of dope = BAD
in other words I agree with you.
55 years for comitting a crime while carring a gun = GOOD
-
So you realize that even if he wasn't carrying the gun he would've gotten 55 years? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.
I just want to make sure that you understand he didn't get 55 years for carrying a gun while selling in pot. He got 55 years for being a gun owner who sells pot.
The firearms could've been in a safe in his house, he would've still gotten 55 years.
-
Yes and I think its stupid!
But I am glad he got the 55 years because he was carring a gun.
If he had not been carring the gun I would be outraged at his sentence. Because of the gun hes is going where he belongs.
Its not the fact that he was selling dope and carring a gun its the fact he was comitting a crime and carring a gun that makes me glad he got the sentence. Whether I think the law is stupid or not the law is the law. He left his house that day to commit a crime. He took the gun to kill anyone that tried to stop him.
-
Lets see....
We have 3 different sales....
We have 18k , guns , 3pounds of dope.
We have more guns at another place , more cash , and duffle bags with residue.
Mandatory sentences for certain parts. Court Snetences for others. 55 Years.
He was offered 15 and refused and was told he would get hammered and yet still went to trial.
So we have 5 guns (I think it was) , the Gloc he was seen with at all 3 deals. ANd all the rest they found.
I'd say he made a bad decision ALL THE WAY around.
Although I can see that it is a harsh sentence for a 1st time offender. (IMO Simply cause he hadn't got caught) it still is in the guidlines set down.
He obviously had done this before , and would have continued doing it. Eveidence certainly as outlined in that Court Doc. suggests that he was a Drug dealer with no intentions of quitting anytime soon.
So he got busted and is paying a heavy price. I don't see where your arguement is.
The guns were stolen. Thats illegal to own them. Then throw in the Dope on top of it.
Sorry...I just cant see where you have an argument.:confused:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I didn't say you said show suave. Someone else said it. RIF.
-
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.:rolleyes:
-
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?
-
The sentence is way WAY extreme. The manditory sentencing guidlines need some kind of mechanism built in to avoid/reverse extreme punishiment like this.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Still 55 years for selling pot is stupid, we should end the stupid wastefull war on drugs and use the money to fight the war on terror.
LOL
-
Originally posted by Raider179
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.
It's still exercising your second amendment right. They've just made it a felony to do so while selling certain types of plant parts.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
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.
Ok Grunherz
-
It also states that the guns were stolen. Yet another point.
Harsh or not , it is the law. He should have taken the 15 years.
That would have negated 5 924 counts and just been basically 3 times selling to an ondercover cop.
I have to ask this.....
Do you honestly believe that with 5 guns , over 18k in cash , 3 duffle bags that had residue , 3 pounds of Dope and selling it 3 times to the same undercover cop , that this guy is somehow getting screwed?
Sounds like to me as I said before , this is his first time getting caught. DEFINATLY not his first rodeo.
-
Yes I think getting arrested for selling pot and owning guns is getting screwed.
And it doesn't matter how he acquired the guns as the law applies to firearms regardless of how they are obtained.
-
Wow suave... namecalling now?
I think you're a bit confused as to exactly what you're arguing about suave.
Felons do not have the right to carry firearms. Not during the felony, and not after the conviction for the felony.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Yes I think getting arrested for selling pot and owning guns is getting screwed.
And it doesn't matter how he acquired the guns as the law applies to firearms regardless of how they are obtained.
So there we have it...ya just think he is getting screwed. EVEN tho he obviously broke the laws. So your not going to argue the ponit that the law is wrong just tough. Correct?
Your other statment is correct. Legal ownership wouldn't have matterd. He brings it to a drug deal , then bang , thats a bad thing whether you own it properly or not. Because your are committing a crime while having that firearm.
2nd ammendment doesn't wash here tho. It also doesnt wash in ANY crime even if you owned the gun legally. Im pretty sure anyways.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow suave... namecalling now?
Stop being assenine
I know you have need to turn discussions into arguments, but I'm not going to argue. Good day.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Your other statment is correct. Legal ownership wouldn't have matterd. He brings it to a drug deal , then bang
Or in this case if you leave it at home in a safe.
And yes I believe the law is wrong and immoral.
-
How did I know you would say that suave.
You're still being assenine. Look it up the definition of the word before saying I'm calling you a name. But feel free to throw your argument out the window and try arguing "technicalities". It speaks volumes for your entire participation in this thread.
Does grunhurts point this out to you too? Or are you just as misinterpreted when you act this way with him?
-
What's the subject of the discussion again ?
This is humorous, please keep going dejavu.
-
asinine.
-
If the man had a firearm at his home, it would not have mattered. Since the man had the firearm at his home where he was storing 3 lbs of marijuana (yet another felony)... it did matter.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Or in this case if you leave it at home in a safe.
And yes I believe the law is wrong and immoral.
Suave ,
Look...Lets just say I agree in the sense that , yes , 1st time being arrested and convicted he got a harsh sentence. 55 years is tough. He didn't get one bit of that 55 years becasue he had some STOLEN guns locked up nice and safe in a safe at home. Not 1 of those years was for that. 5 was for the drug deal. 50 was for having a gun at 2 of the 3 drug deals. Thats the FEDS penalty that the judge has to follow.
The fact that he could have been hammered to over 125 years because he had guns , at home , locked up , doesn't wash the fact that WHERE those guns were locked up , there was also 3 pounds of dope , 18k+ and other stuff. More stuff in that 2nd location.
Its simple if you just think about it.
Guns alone properly and legally owned = No problem
Guns stolen and brought to a Drug Deal whether used , brandished , or even just seen by accident = BAD BAD BAD
Same goes for legally owned guns at a crime. = BAD BAD BAD
-
Wow suave... humorous? Really? Have you looked up the meaning of the word yet?
-
Yes, but the law is that a person who is arrested selling pot can be charged for guns that he LEGALLY owns and keeps at his home. He need not have them on his person.
Do you agree with this law and do you think that it is constitutional?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Wow suave... humorous? Really? Have you looked up the meaning of the word yet?
That's the spirt! I know there's more where this came from. Keep it coming!
-
it's not the 55 year that bug me but this :
On November 16, Utah Judge Paul G. Cassell gave a 22-year sentence to a
murderer who beat an elderly woman to death with a log.
Versus this/
Two hours later, he sentenced nonviolent, first-time-offender Weldon
Angelos, age 24, to 55 years and a day in essence, a life sentence.
It's less punished in Utah to kill defenseless elder than selling weed ?
-
Yep. I think the judge speculated that had he shot somebody with the gun he may actually have gotten a lesser sentence.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Yes, but the law is that a person who is arrested selling pot can be charged for guns that he LEGALLY owns and keeps at his home. He need not have them on his person.
Do you agree with this law and do you think that it is constitutional?
I think your misundertsnading something here. MAYBE. Maybe not.
The gun ownership was not the question.
DO I agree that If I sold pot and legally owned a gun all proper like that I be given 25 years for that if I hadn't had it with me during the sale of the dope? No. I don't. BUT , only if there was no dope at my home. See?
If I had 3 pounds of dope , got busted for selling dope , and my house got raided and they found the guns WHERE the dope was , then yes , I would have to agree with it. NOT because I think it is right or wrong but because it is the LAW.
-
I'm a constitutionalist and a libertarian. So I have a problem with any laws that seem to contravene the freedoms supposedly guarenteed to us by the constition.
I also feel that laws prohibiting marijuana are immoral as they inhibit the peoples self government, as well as a waste of my money that has been coerced from me.
I feel that there should only be laws to protect us from violence, theft and fraud.
I haven't used marijuana in my adult life, even though I know that it is less harmfull to me than beer. Something that I regulary enjoy.
And I don't feel I, or anybody has the right to stop people for enjoying marijuana by threatening them with coercion and violence.
-
I tried marijuana once, but I didn't exhale, and never tried it again.
-
I'm a constitutionalist and a libertarian. So I have a problem with any laws that seem to contravene the freedoms supposedly guarenteed to us by the constition.
I'm a conservative. NOT NEOCON , but conservative. I would have the same problem. However , I don't feel that the right to own a gun makes it alright to sell dope. I don't feel it agaisnt the constituion that when a felony is committed and a gun is involved that it had one thing to do with the "Right to bear Arms"
I also feel that laws prohibiting marijuana are immoral as they inhibit the peoples self government, as well as a waste of my money that has been coerced from me.
I wouldn't even guess why you feel coerced out of your money.
I think Pot is dagerous. Tequilla is dangerous. Beer is dangerous. All of them are when used in excess. Should Pot be legal? Probably. Heak alot of drugs should be legal if you want to go that far. Tax em , and regulate em. Same as liquor. Same as cigarettes. No problem. Over dose yourself on them and to bad for you. Same as dieing from drinking to much.
But they aren't legal , and until they are , the whole argument is pretty much mute.
I feel that there should only be laws to protect us from violence, theft and fraud.
Hmm...Well there are other things. But , I'll just pass as I really don't want to think that hard.
I haven't used marijuana in my adult life, even though I know that it is less harmfull to me than beer. Something that I regulary enjoy.
I have no idea if this is a true statment or not. But I would think this may fall into different corners.
And I don't feel I, or anybody has the right to stop people for enjoying marijuana by threatening them with coercion and violence.
Well , if something is illegal and someone is told to stop , and they don't , then what would be an alternative solution? Time Out? Sit in the corner? Go to your room? Say please? Most people my age , in a manner of speaking , when growing up were coerced and threatened. Coerced by parents by simpkly saying "Get an A get money" Threatened by the simplest words of" Get a D and your grounded" We got spankings or whippins. Whichever you perfer. Its a penalty of the threat of something happening that is the deciding factor of what you decide to do.
-
I almost wonder if anyone really read what the judge was writing and even is attempting to figure out what this is all about.
Several different laws and supreme court rulings came together to lay one hell of a hammer on this gentleman.
The amount of pot being sold counted as a felony
The amount of pot being stored at his house counted as a felony
Having a gun while committing a felony is a felony
He was caught doing this on multiple occasions.
The key issues were:
1) he had weapons where he was committing a felony
2) he committed the felony more than once
The biggest issue is not that he had a gun, it's that he is being treated as a repeat offender despite only being arrested once. The judge is trying to highlight this at every opportunity. The comments about not threatening people with the weapons were just to show there was no obvious violent intentions, but it does nothing to alleviate the fact that he had them while committing a felony.
This is not an example of over-reaction to a problem. It is not an example of the war on drugs gone bad. It is not an example of over-penalizing for the presence of a gun. Yet... you see people trumping their own "agenda" in such a defensive manner that you begin to understand exactly how it is that these issues have become so polarized in recent times.
-
I read almost all of it. I agree with what you said. Harsh penalties that the government came up with. The judge all but says in so many words "It sucks but my hands are tied here".
The guy didn't or at least from the read didn't seem threatening. But he did do ALL the wrong things. As well as was in posession of all the wrong EXTRA things. ie wepons.
-
I know he broke the law. I don't have any issues with the fundamentals here.
The ruling that's hammering him the most was established so that multiple bank robberies, multiple murders or like crimes don't need to be tried individually to account for accumulative sentances and count towards "repeat offense" considerations.
I don't agree with that philosophy for this type of crime. It seems that reason would dictate that if the police had the opportunity to arrest this man but chose not to, then the cime itself should not be considered in the same light as something like a bank robbery or murder where multiple occurances are a function of the innability to capture the perpetrator. Yet... there is no differentiation according to the law.
-
Mini
Agreed:aok
-
Anyone who posted in this thread is an idiot.
-
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.
He had a GUN ON HIS PERSON, whilst commiting a FELONY you dolt! WHAT IN THE F%^K DON'T you get?!!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Suave
Yeah, he should've gotten in trouble for the fentanyl suckers, but nothing for pot and the firearms.
For all I know some of my firearms could've been stolen. And if somebody wants to sell pot, or any other agriculture products and carry a gun while doing it, it's well within his constitutional rights.
Wow, you actually type on this forum? The sewage that is spewed is funny. The above quote takes the cake.
Karaya
-
Use a gun in the commission of a crime, go to prison. Seems excessive, but use can be defined as mere posession of a gun without brandisahing...
I tried to feel bad for him, I really did. But- I'd have felt worse if he'd have shot someone, so I guess we'll see Gun Boy in 55 years.
-
so... if he wasn't brandishing the weapon then how did they know that he was carrying it on several occassions?
Was the guy a convicted felon and if he was then what was he doing with a bunch of firearms?
If he was such a nice clean guy then why was he selling ounces and having 3 lbs at home along with all his stolen guns? How did he obtain the stolen guns? Can he prove he bought em in good faith?
My take.... I believe that once you have done your time for any crime whatsoever... you should have all your rights restored... including the right to own firearms.. I also believe that pot should not be illegal or... least not a felony.
I know that what I belive is not what matters in this case. If I were a felon I would know what type of chance carrying a gun is.. Most fellons don't use guns in drug deals or robberies because of this heavy penalty thing... Is that a good thing? It is if you don't want armed crooks.... it stops a huge percentage of em in their tracks.
From the sound of pot boy... we are better off getting him off the streets... who does he think he needs protection from? guys who buy and ounce of pot? Are pot heads that violent? Or... is this guy just a total dirt bag who will eventually escalate his brandishing to pistol whipping or shooting?
selling harmless plant parts? selling a stolen mercedes is then just selling harmless car parts.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Suave
I have firearms in my home, none of them are registered as far as I know. Sometimes I even move them around. Should I go to jail for 55 years?
The question is, do you know what the penalty is if you get busted. If you do then fine. If you don't and you just 'move them around' and you get busted and hit with some unreasonable penalty that you did not bother to find out what it is in advance, don't come crying here.
I have no problems with guns. I have problems with idiots carring guns because its their right. Given that there are too many idiots out there, leave them at home, please.
Thank you
-
Lazs... read the judge's summary linked at the bottom of page 2.
The person was not a convicted fellon. This was his first conviction. He is being treated as a repeat offending fellon on the premise that he sold the drugs to undercover agents on 3 different occassions (1/2 lb each time). The undercover agents saw a weapon sitting in the car next to him on one purchase, and were shown the ankle holster on the second. The issues with the guns at home revolve around the storage of 3lbs of pot there (a felony) and a liberal interpretation of "guns in possession while committing a felony".
The judge's summary does a very good job of explaining just what laws and USSC decisions brought about this ruling. It's a very interesting read.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
Anyone who posted in this thread is an idiot.
Yay!
-SW
-
thanks deja... I guess it is kinda confusing that he is a "repeat" felon even tho he has only one arrest.
he was seen with firearms on two seperate occasions tho while dealing drugs... why is that? why show the person you are selling pot to that you are armed?
my position remains..... this guy may be a first time offender in the court system but he is probly a bad guy who carries guns while dealing drugs... we used to do that ourselves but.... just the clean guys.. they convicted felons I knew were very careful to not have guns around even tho it was not as serious decades ago as it is now..
my take is that if you are not in jail then you are a citizen and should have every right any citizen should have....
My take is that simple possesion or sales of drugs should not be a felony in most cases....
My take is that adding penalties to felonies where a gun is INVOLVED is a good thing. That means that you are using it to threaten or injure in order to commit a felony.
That is not the way our laws are tho so... I would still rather see pot boy go down than to let a crapload of socipaths run loose with firearms.
lazs
-
It has little to do with the sale of drugs persay... as much as it has to do with the act of committing a felony.
I think situations like this hurt the right to self protection arguments. Much like that guy in boston that was mugged, bought a gun, then went out looking to get mugged again. The gun becomes less of a right and more of an amplification device. Protection from self created situations is definately a grey area.
-
selling pot is a lot less "grey" than making yourself a mugging target to me.
I didn't make the drug laws and in most cases don't agree with em but... the dealers are felons... in most cases they live the life of a felon. If they carry guns then there is probly a problem.
lazs
-
Funny I was thinking the drug laws were to light.
Just for an example my father inlaw was convicted for growing and selling $1 million worth of pot and only got 3 years for it. He agreed to go to rehab(why do you need rehab if you are in jail?) for 6 months and they knocked a year off his sentence.
Until just a month ago he was Indiana's biggest drug bust for pot. New guy had $1.2 million worth.
-
At the same time a person with two plants in his closet would get a few years too?
-
Good riddance. If you sell drugs on the street then you're probably a waste of life. I've watched my friends change completely by using drugs and I'm surprised no one laughed at this kid for doing it and getting 55 years.
-
He's certainly a waste of life now.
-
I'm sure he'll make a great girlfriend in prison.