Author Topic: First time marijuana seller gets 55 years (Read 3307 times)

Suave · « **Reply #150 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:06:49 PM »

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?

Suave · « **Reply #151 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:07:55 PM »

Quote

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!

straffo · « **Reply #152 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:11:08 PM »

it's not the 55 year that bug me but this :

Quote

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/

Quote

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 ?

Suave · « **Reply #153 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:13:26 PM »

Yep. I think the judge speculated that had he shot somebody with the gun he may actually have gotten a lesser sentence.

RedTop · « **Reply #154 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:19:19 PM »

Quote

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.

Suave · « **Reply #155 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:31:00 PM »

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.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #156 on:** December 11, 2004, 05:34:33 PM »

I tried marijuana once, but I didn't exhale, and never tried it again.

RedTop · « **Reply #157 on:** December 11, 2004, 06:01:49 PM »

Quote

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"

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Mini D · « **Reply #158 on:** December 11, 2004, 06:06:14 PM »

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.

RedTop · « **Reply #159 on:** December 11, 2004, 06:14:08 PM »

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.

Mini D · « **Reply #160 on:** December 11, 2004, 06:25:53 PM »

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.

RedTop · « **Reply #161 on:** December 11, 2004, 06:28:40 PM »

Mini

Agreed:aok

Drunky · « **Reply #162 on:** December 11, 2004, 08:42:43 PM »

Anyone who posted in this thread is an idiot.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #163 on:** December 12, 2004, 09:30:50 AM »

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.

He had a GUN ON HIS PERSON, whilst commiting a FELONY you dolt! WHAT IN THE F%^K DON'T you get?!!

Karaya

Masherbrum · « **Reply #164 on:** December 12, 2004, 09:33:42 AM »

Quote

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