first time offender gets 55 years
- Thread starter Stebalo
- Start date
- Status
12-34hom
Member
Mr.Clark,
I've been hearing this tripe for long time now about how my gun rights are going to hell, give it a rest.
As far as sharing a cell with the likes of this person, won't happen. I don't sell dope, or use it or engage in behavior that would place me in a situation like the one originally described.
Life is fine, i don't need to alter my perception of reality with any drug, those that do are in search of their "pipe dreams". They need to be propped up by artificial stimuli. i don't.
What isn't ironic though is that the more drugs you use the farther away your dreams get. Ask any of the professional people on this board who deal with drug abusers & dealers, about how many life's they have seen ruined and families destroyed in that process.
Feebmaster:
12-34hom.
I've been hearing this tripe for long time now about how my gun rights are going to hell, give it a rest.
As far as sharing a cell with the likes of this person, won't happen. I don't sell dope, or use it or engage in behavior that would place me in a situation like the one originally described.
Life is fine, i don't need to alter my perception of reality with any drug, those that do are in search of their "pipe dreams". They need to be propped up by artificial stimuli. i don't.
What isn't ironic though is that the more drugs you use the farther away your dreams get. Ask any of the professional people on this board who deal with drug abusers & dealers, about how many life's they have seen ruined and families destroyed in that process.
Feebmaster:
Thanks, i do what i can.
12-34hom.
Cigarettes are legal and kills what 500,000 a year? Including innocent people forced to breat in second-hand smoke.
Alcohol is legal and kills perhaps 100,000+ year, not to mention the innnocent driving.
Sure, let's legalize pot!! People already die from smoking tobacco and drunk driving. Who cares if more die from smoking it or being in the wrong place when a stoned driver happens by!!
The miserable asshat got what he deserved!! Drug dealers perform no usefull service, except perhap when they cap other drug dealers.
What do you want to bet the guy who beat the old lady with a log was involved in drugs or alcohol?
To equate gun rights with drug use is moronic at best. You right to use drugs isn't specified under the Constitution.
Alcohol is legal and kills perhaps 100,000+ year, not to mention the innnocent driving.
Sure, let's legalize pot!! People already die from smoking tobacco and drunk driving. Who cares if more die from smoking it or being in the wrong place when a stoned driver happens by!!
The miserable asshat got what he deserved!! Drug dealers perform no usefull service, except perhap when they cap other drug dealers.
What do you want to bet the guy who beat the old lady with a log was involved in drugs or alcohol?
To equate gun rights with drug use is moronic at best. You right to use drugs isn't specified under the Constitution.
You are arguing for the ability punish this man for committing no actual harm to any one. I'm not talking about what he has done in the past, but what he is in jail for now. He didn't hurt any one. He simply lives a life you don't want him to live. He does things you don't want him to do. He posses things that you don't like and sells them to other people who want them. If you don't see how laws based on that kind of attitude can come back to bite you in the ass, you're blind. It's not about the drugs.
nero45acp
Member
I don't use or deal drugs. However, if I did, knowing what penalties awaited me should I be apprehended and convicted, I would do EVERYTHING in my power to ensure that I wasn't brought in alive. If that meant that I was left face down in the street lying next to a Jane or Johnny law, so be it.
nero
nero
What do you want to bet the next guy kills a bunch of people does so with a gun? Was a gun nut? Care to make any unwarranted generalizations about that?
Read the ninth and tenth amendments again. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Show me what I don't know. Prove the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights provides for drug use. Rather than wrapping yourself in the blanket of percieved knowlege and condescending to everyone else. Prove it! You're great at obtuse generalizations, when it suits you, but where is the proof?
Google is your friend. Check it out yourself. The facts speak for themself.
Nope, It's amazingly irrelevent to this dicussion.
Why was a constitutional amendment needed to ban alcohol?
Because the ninth amendment gives people the right to drink alcohol - and take drugs and all of the other things that they do that harm no one but themselves. The bill of rights is not the complete list of the rights of man.
Because the tenth amendment says that if the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to do something then it doesn't have the power to do it. It doesn't say it can ban alcohol or drugs, so it can't. This was obvious in 1917 when the amendment was proposed and in 1919 when it was approved. Without the amendment the Supreme Court (whose members actually read the constitution back then) would have struck down any law that attempted to ban alcohol as unconstitutional. What has changed since then? Nothing.
Discussing freedom with freepers is like discussing responsibility with hippies. It's a foreign concept that they just don't get.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
I believe what our Constitutional friend was referring to was this:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
=====
Just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist. You have a /right/ to screw up your body any darn way you please, sad as your actions might be, so long as it causes no direct harm to others. You are /free/ to drink yourself to death, so long as you don't get behind the wheel of a vehicle while you're intoxicated.
You should be free to snort yourself into the grave at age 21 if that's what you choose to do, and again, so long as you do not harm others in the process.
It's YOUR choice to make, not mine, and the force of law should not be used to limit choices which, while they cause no harm to others, I personally disapprove of on moral or humanitarian grounds.
Can anyone here say with a straight face that heroin or pot is more capable of ruining a man's life than alcohol? And if alcohol is legal, why not pot or heroin? Why do we have a war on only /SOME/ mind-altering substances which have no concrete medical purpose, and not /ALL/ of them?
The War on Some Drugs is one of the largest contributors to the decay of our society and the erosion of our civil liberties. It is a massive employment program for those who otherwise would need to find some way to actually contribute something meaningful to society. It is a case in which the "cure" is ineffective - if I want them, drugs are easily available in most communities - and much more harmful to society than the "disease" itself. The WoSD funds violent criminals and promotes a wide disrespect for the law while at the same time encouraging public corruption - what a deal!
Want to save lives? Take those billions wasted on the WoSD and invest them in basic medical research. Those billions would do wonders for advancing our ability to treat cancer, AIDS, or the next generation of AB-resistant bugs. (Oh, but wait. Some here probably agree that AIDS is God's just punishment for engaging in homosexual behavior.)
======
Oh, and just to try and keep myself somewhat related to the actual thread - and I do apologize for setting a bad example of "thread drift:"
How do you morally justify sending someone to prison for /55 years/ over a drug charge, when people who commit violent assaults typically receive half that time or less?
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
=====
Just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist. You have a /right/ to screw up your body any darn way you please, sad as your actions might be, so long as it causes no direct harm to others. You are /free/ to drink yourself to death, so long as you don't get behind the wheel of a vehicle while you're intoxicated.
You should be free to snort yourself into the grave at age 21 if that's what you choose to do, and again, so long as you do not harm others in the process.
It's YOUR choice to make, not mine, and the force of law should not be used to limit choices which, while they cause no harm to others, I personally disapprove of on moral or humanitarian grounds.
Can anyone here say with a straight face that heroin or pot is more capable of ruining a man's life than alcohol? And if alcohol is legal, why not pot or heroin? Why do we have a war on only /SOME/ mind-altering substances which have no concrete medical purpose, and not /ALL/ of them?
The War on Some Drugs is one of the largest contributors to the decay of our society and the erosion of our civil liberties. It is a massive employment program for those who otherwise would need to find some way to actually contribute something meaningful to society. It is a case in which the "cure" is ineffective - if I want them, drugs are easily available in most communities - and much more harmful to society than the "disease" itself. The WoSD funds violent criminals and promotes a wide disrespect for the law while at the same time encouraging public corruption - what a deal!
Want to save lives? Take those billions wasted on the WoSD and invest them in basic medical research. Those billions would do wonders for advancing our ability to treat cancer, AIDS, or the next generation of AB-resistant bugs. (Oh, but wait. Some here probably agree that AIDS is God's just punishment for engaging in homosexual behavior.)
======
Oh, and just to try and keep myself somewhat related to the actual thread - and I do apologize for setting a bad example of "thread drift:"
How do you morally justify sending someone to prison for /55 years/ over a drug charge, when people who commit violent assaults typically receive half that time or less?
DRZinn
Member
Guess what - I DON'T CARE. Just like I don't care if they meant an individual RKBA or a collective right exercised by the militia. I simply have a basic human right to defend myself, therefore I have the RKBA.
Whether it's in the Constitution or not, I have a right to do ANYTHING I CHOOSE as long as it harms no-one else.
12-34hom
Member
Mr. Clark, his intent was specific. He was armed, in the commission of a felony.
Do really believe that he was armed for kicks & giggles, or that if something had gone wrong while he dealt with whomever for the sale of his drugs - he would have not used or employed deadly force to extricate himself and his drugs?
Harming no one? From personal experience over the last 7 years dealing with drug dealers & abusers of all types of drugs [controlled & otherwise] from a peace officers standpoint, has shown me the folly of you're statement.
It's not about drugs? wrong -it's about choice of lifestyle. This subject chose his path because of his other choices concerning his drug usage and or dealings or both. He lost his individuality when he lost himself in the drug culture.
Now he is a statistic. Another predator off the streets.
12-34hom.
Do really believe that he was armed for kicks & giggles, or that if something had gone wrong while he dealt with whomever for the sale of his drugs - he would have not used or employed deadly force to extricate himself and his drugs?
Harming no one? From personal experience over the last 7 years dealing with drug dealers & abusers of all types of drugs [controlled & otherwise] from a peace officers standpoint, has shown me the folly of you're statement.
It's not about drugs? wrong -it's about choice of lifestyle. This subject chose his path because of his other choices concerning his drug usage and or dealings or both. He lost his individuality when he lost himself in the drug culture.
Now he is a statistic. Another predator off the streets.
12-34hom.
Linux&Gun Guy
Member
No one has ever died from cannabis - try again
Have you ever been high? Have you ever seen a stoned driver?
Didn't think so. In general someone thats high tries to avoid driving and if they are they drive very slowly and carefully(sometimes too slow for the road)
Im not saying its a good idea but I would much rather be in the car of a stoner then a drunk
cannabis != ethanol in effects be they mental, physical or otherwise
DRZinn
Member
Note the clever use of one potentially dangerous product in place of another..
falconer
Member
For those of you that think the 55 year sentence is a good thing, go take a few criminal justice or peneology classes at your local college. Then you just might be able to post an intelligent response. Mandatory Mins are generally a bad idea, they cause prison overcrowding and often disparity in sentencing. Check your local papers and see if there is an article about someone being setenced for murder and getting LESS than 55 years. You folks do realize that the prison system is often forced to release violent criminals in order to make room for MM drug sentences? Go read the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and see for yourself how screwed up the system is. I worked in the Federal Court System while in college and got to see it myself first hand.
These guidelines need to be changed to something that resembles punishment fitting the crime.
Note: I am not saying he's a first time offender, nor do I believe he shouldn't be in jail because of some wacko Libertarian ideal. I'm saying the Sentencing Guidelines go overboard in many areas, often due to Mandatory Minimums.
These guidelines need to be changed to something that resembles punishment fitting the crime.
Note: I am not saying he's a first time offender, nor do I believe he shouldn't be in jail because of some wacko Libertarian ideal. I'm saying the Sentencing Guidelines go overboard in many areas, often due to Mandatory Minimums.
Fletchette
Member
I do, I pointed it out. Seems to have been ignored.
My arguement against such a harsh sentence should not be construed as an arguement for legalizing drugs (that's another issue). My arguement is that keeping and bearing an arm is a right and not a crime, therefore if someone exercises his right as he commits the crime he should NOT be punished more harshly than someone who commits the same crime without excercising that right.
Imagine if the judge gave him 1 year for drug dealing and 54 years for speaking while drug dealing. Does that make sense?
12-34hom
Member
Linux, yes i have seen - stopped and field tested numerous drivers impaired on Cannabis.
There sense of time is altered, hence the reaction time is impaired, depth perception is impaired, your attention span while driving is less after using cannabis.
Driving a car is a divided attention action, requiring the driver to perform several tasks at once, not something one wants an impaired driver to try and perform, either on alcohol or other controlled substances. There was a case in Cedar Rapids, Ia as of late - where a driver ran down a female pedestrian and killed her, after his arrest - he tested positive for Cannabis. He now awaits trial on vehicular homicide charges.
So, lets not try to fool each other about how marijuana and other cannabis derivatives are harmless. Dopers i've met were always trying to validate their reasons for getting stoned. It's a form of self deception, trying to justify their actions to them selfs and other willing to listen and believe.
Misery loves company.
12-34hom.
There sense of time is altered, hence the reaction time is impaired, depth perception is impaired, your attention span while driving is less after using cannabis.
Driving a car is a divided attention action, requiring the driver to perform several tasks at once, not something one wants an impaired driver to try and perform, either on alcohol or other controlled substances. There was a case in Cedar Rapids, Ia as of late - where a driver ran down a female pedestrian and killed her, after his arrest - he tested positive for Cannabis. He now awaits trial on vehicular homicide charges.
So, lets not try to fool each other about how marijuana and other cannabis derivatives are harmless. Dopers i've met were always trying to validate their reasons for getting stoned. It's a form of self deception, trying to justify their actions to them selfs and other willing to listen and believe.
Misery loves company.
12-34hom.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
I agree. Instead, let's continue to fool ourselves that somehow "pot is bad", "booze is good", and "drug dealers should server longer jail terms than child rapists."
What are you talking about? So what if he was willing to use the gun if he needed it? That's the whole point of carrying a gun, you know that! Cash and marijuana make one a attractive target for muggers, I would expect - and despite what some might prefer, assault on a person carrying a narcotic is still assault, and defending against it is perfectly legal and moral.
What about those shady gun dealers who carry a gun? Should we be upset that they might be willing to use it in case one of their deals goes bad?
Sindawe
Member
12-34hom said:
I have to ask when the test materials (blood, urine, etc...) were taken from the driver. To the best of my knowledge, if it was not blood taken right with in a few hours, the positive result means squat as it pertains to his impermanent at the time of running down the pedestrian. I know courts differ on this, but the courts are forums of law, not of fact. Was the result quantified, or just qualitatively determined? The metabolites of Cannabis sp. consumption can be found in the urine of one who uses plant for weeks after consumption has stopped, with detectable levels dropping over time.
Not according to the studies I've seen, such as
this one, this one and one done by the California Highway Patrol years ago that reached the same conclusions. As others have noted, drivers who are under the influence of THC alone are more cautious and focused drivers and as a whole have fewer accidents than drivers who are under the normal distractions that occur while driving.
Your first hand experiences and perceptions likely differ 12-34hom, but I expect that since I doubt you pull over all the folks who are driving about while stoned. I don't condone such, any more than I condone driving about while exhausted and sleep deprived. I would like to know more about the methodology you use to field test drivers for suspicion of Cannabis intoxication.
As far as the chap who is now serving 55 years in prison for exercising his God given/inherent right to possess the means and tools of self defense. His sentence is a grave miscarriage of justice. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected right, and "...shall not be infringed." means exactly that, and does NOT mean "except while possing this common weed, etc, etc, etc..."
But I'd best stop before this turns into a rant about our entire Judicial System.
I have to ask when the test materials (blood, urine, etc...) were taken from the driver. To the best of my knowledge, if it was not blood taken right with in a few hours, the positive result means squat as it pertains to his impermanent at the time of running down the pedestrian. I know courts differ on this, but the courts are forums of law, not of fact. Was the result quantified, or just qualitatively determined? The metabolites of Cannabis sp. consumption can be found in the urine of one who uses plant for weeks after consumption has stopped, with detectable levels dropping over time.
Not according to the studies I've seen, such as
this one, this one and one done by the California Highway Patrol years ago that reached the same conclusions. As others have noted, drivers who are under the influence of THC alone are more cautious and focused drivers and as a whole have fewer accidents than drivers who are under the normal distractions that occur while driving.
Your first hand experiences and perceptions likely differ 12-34hom, but I expect that since I doubt you pull over all the folks who are driving about while stoned. I don't condone such, any more than I condone driving about while exhausted and sleep deprived. I would like to know more about the methodology you use to field test drivers for suspicion of Cannabis intoxication.
As far as the chap who is now serving 55 years in prison for exercising his God given/inherent right to possess the means and tools of self defense. His sentence is a grave miscarriage of justice. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected right, and "...shall not be infringed." means exactly that, and does NOT mean "except while possing this common weed, etc, etc, etc..."
But I'd best stop before this turns into a rant about our entire Judicial System.
Fletchette
Member
It's amazing that some police officers seem to think that they have a better viewpoint on society when we live in the same society they do. I know police officers that are consistantly pro-liberty, and I have met police officers that would happily arrest someone for wearing blue-jeans if they were outlawed.
The problem here is that you seem to think that everbody is a "statistic"; criminals and potential criminals. "Us" vs "them".
Preditor?!? Who was the victim?
I'll ask it again:
Imagine if the judge gave him 1 year for drug dealing and 54 years for speaking while drug dealing. Does that make sense?
12-34hom
Member
Sindawe, The in state of Iowa, Implied consent procedures require that a sample is taken within 2 hours of arrest or PBT results.
In the case of a personal injury or fatality accident the statute does not impose a two hour time limit under implied consent. The omission of the time limit in PI or fatal accidents bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest: the need to protect the heath and safety of persons involved in accidents resulting in death or injury. Therefore it does not deny the defendant equal protection. [ State vs. Martin 383 N.W.2d 556 {Iowa}
I don't know what kind of sample was taken in this case, so i won't speculate.
As far as my Field tests go, Overall demeanor of person I'm speaking with, speech patterns, check eye conditions, bloodshot, watery, dilated pupils, Odors, the smell of cannabis is is strong coming off a person who recently smoked it. I will ask if the person if they have been smoking . There's a eye test called "Convergence". that i can follow up with if necessary. Then, if i believe they are impaired, i will call in a DRE [drug recognition expert] and have him evaluate this person further The S.O. in the county i live in has a deputy qualified in these procedures; along with several ISP Officers.
Fletchette, My viewpoint on society is no better or worst than anyone Else's, i live in the same society as you just in a different location.
Mr. Angelo turned himself into a statistic, it has nothing to do with Us vs. Them mentality.
As far as your scenario goes; it is ludicrous and has no basis in fact in relationship to what this thread is originally about.
12-34hom.
In the case of a personal injury or fatality accident the statute does not impose a two hour time limit under implied consent. The omission of the time limit in PI or fatal accidents bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest: the need to protect the heath and safety of persons involved in accidents resulting in death or injury. Therefore it does not deny the defendant equal protection. [ State vs. Martin 383 N.W.2d 556 {Iowa}
I don't know what kind of sample was taken in this case, so i won't speculate.
As far as my Field tests go, Overall demeanor of person I'm speaking with, speech patterns, check eye conditions, bloodshot, watery, dilated pupils, Odors, the smell of cannabis is is strong coming off a person who recently smoked it. I will ask if the person if they have been smoking . There's a eye test called "Convergence". that i can follow up with if necessary. Then, if i believe they are impaired, i will call in a DRE [drug recognition expert] and have him evaluate this person further The S.O. in the county i live in has a deputy qualified in these procedures; along with several ISP Officers.
Fletchette, My viewpoint on society is no better or worst than anyone Else's, i live in the same society as you just in a different location.
Mr. Angelo turned himself into a statistic, it has nothing to do with Us vs. Them mentality.
As far as your scenario goes; it is ludicrous and has no basis in fact in relationship to what this thread is originally about.
12-34hom.
griz
Member
He is some of the collateral damage of the war on drugs. I think the cure is worse than the disease.
But what really scares me is the attitude of many here. I'll use a quote from George S as an example
People love the word freedom but when they find out what it means it scares them.
But what really scares me is the attitude of many here. I'll use a quote from George S as an example
Think about that for a second then decide how you would answer if somebody asked why you need a gun.
People love the word freedom but when they find out what it means it scares them.
JohnBT
Member
"Imagine if the judge gave him 1 year for drug dealing and 54 years for speaking while drug dealing. Does that make sense?"
No. Why would a judge do that? You lost me. I thought we were discussing sentences for breaking the law.
John
No. Why would a judge do that? You lost me. I thought we were discussing sentences for breaking the law.
John
Sergeant Bob
Member
12-34hom
Is there a definitive test which can determine the actual level of intoxication of a person, as opposed to one which determines that he has smoked pot sometime within the last two weeks (or whatever in the case of hair samples), or an officer's subjective judgement?
Was he charged and convicted with operating under the influence? If not, what does it have to do with the case? Unless of course he was a truck driver, who can be prosecuted for what he did a week ago, in the case of a fatality accident (including mistakes in addition and subtraction).
Was he intoxicated (on pot) at the time? What was his level of intoxication?
Is there a definitive test which can determine the actual level of intoxication of a person, as opposed to one which determines that he has smoked pot sometime within the last two weeks (or whatever in the case of hair samples), or an officer's subjective judgement?
Was he charged and convicted with operating under the influence? If not, what does it have to do with the case? Unless of course he was a truck driver, who can be prosecuted for what he did a week ago, in the case of a fatality accident (including mistakes in addition and subtraction).
- Status