first time offender gets 55 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
Show of hands, how many people here calling for the death penalty actually KNOW a drug dealer on a somewhat personal level? I do, and no I'm not a customer or anything. I just know who they are from my younger years.

They're not all that bad, at least the ones I know. I'll grant you that a my cousin, a drug dealer, is a horrible person, and should have been locked up a long long time ago (in and out of the prison system) but the ones I know really aren't out for blood or anything.

Hell I know people that have ben "cut off" by their dealers when the dealer thought their habit was getting out of control. Maybe that's a rarity, but a "client" that's out of control is a liability to themselves and to the dealer. Just good business sense.

If you don't know a real-deal drug dealer then do you know anybody who makes mooonshine? Makes too much home brew to be legal and sells it? Same deal, really, at least in my mind.

End the prohibition on some drugs and watch the violence surrounding them disappear as proper businessmen (might even be the same people) take control of the legal industry. They can use the courts to settle their differences then, if there's any legal recourse, instead of violence.

Just my two cents.
 
I agree with Flyboy. This was excessive punishment.

I am kind of dismayed at the prejudice expressed by some of the posters here (paraphrase: "he was a drug dealer - hang him!") because this response is exactly analogous to the holier-than-thou attitude of the gun banners. They think that gun ownership is a somehow immoral and those that have them are second-class citizens.

Look, this guy didn't hurt anybody. Even if you believe that dealing drugs should be a crime, why should having a gun during that crime warrant an increase in sentence?

For example, why should a murderer who commits his crime with a knife get a lesser sentence than a murderer that uses a gun?

The mentallity that a crime "is so much worse" if a gun is involved is one of the reasons we have such difficulty defending the Second Amendment.
 
Aren't you a Libertarian? If so don't you believe that people should be responsible for their actions?
Click to expand...

Yes, they should be responsible for their actions, and only for their actions (or, more correctly, they should only be responsible for the consequences of that over which they have some control). So, he's responsible for the consequences of selling marijuana and posessing firearms.

No, you don't have me that easily. Let's take a look at the definition of "consequence." From dictionary.com:

# Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
# The relation of a result to its cause.
# A logical conclusion or inference.

So, the consequences of, say, discharging a gun in somebody else's direction might include a bullet wound. That is, the wound is a direct result of the action, and necessarily follows from the action. There's a causative relationship as a result of the laws of physics.

Legal consequences arise from the laws of man, and even then, don't necessarily arise. We can all think of examples of an action that avoided legal consequences, so there are enough data to support the idea that legal retribution does not follow necessarily. It is something we have chosen to impose, not something that must happen. As such, and because it imposed willfully and independantly of the actual action, is not something for which one takes responsibility. Rather, it is the vehicle by which that responsibility is taken.

For example, I throw a brick through your window. (I wouldn't do this, but work with me here.) I am responsible for the consequences, i.e. the damaged glass. The payment of restitution is the vehicle by which I am held responsible; it is how I make whole the damages I've caused. Anything beyond that is a punishment which society has chosen to institute upon me for violating your rights (specifically, your property rights).

In this case, there is clear harm to another party (you), as a consequence (direct result) of actions perpetrated by me. I am responsible for that harm.

Now, as for this case: where is the harm? What harm has been committed when the defendant dispenses marijuana to willing buyers, or when he posesses firearms while doing so? The guns didn't hurt anybody; nobody's rights were violated; nobody was coerced into buying (at least, no mention was made of it). What are the consequences--the direct result--of his posession of firearms?

Now, to treat the drug issue: where's the harm in selling weed? Actual, provable harm, harm that is a direct result of the sale. Just because the buyer may use it for, shall we say, recreational purposes, doesn't mean that the seller has caused harm. Consider that we could use firearms (or knives, or medications, or a lamp cord) to cause harm; is the seller, then, responsible for our use of his products? After all, he did give us the tool we used to hurt ourselves; is he directly in control of how we use them? I rather doubt it. The seller is responsible for the consequences--direct, provable actions--of those actions over which he has control. The defendant didn't force his buyers to imbibe, so he's not responsible for the use to which the buyers put the product, any more than Colt would be responsible if you used their product to injure somebody (not that you would). He merely provided a product that was in demand, in an economic exchange entered into freely by all parties. What rights were violated?


So you say yes, then how responsible? See why your LP views won't work?
Click to expand...

No, I don't see. I see a situation in which there's no harm for which to be responsible. And, even if there were harm, go back to the original theme of my post: justice. Note that the root word there is "just." Is it just for him to never again take a free breath for posessing firearms without causing anybody harm? Note that the 55-year sentence is for the firearms charges, not the drug charges. The intent of the law was to punish (certain types of) violent crime. No violent crime occurred here. How is this just?
 
55 years in jail, goodness. People who get convicted of murdering other people sometimes get less sentences.

The bulk of that term — the 55 years imposed Tuesday — is based on just three firearms charges for carrying a gun during two drug sales and for keeping additional firearms at his Fort Union apartment.
Click to expand...

Ok I didn't see if he was a PRIOR convicted felon, but if he wasn't, I don't see how having 2 other firearms at his apartment lends to 55 more years in jail. Lets makeup a scenario and assume you get involved in a self-defense criminal case where you used your gun, and for some reason or another, the jury didn't see it your way and convicted you of manslaughter. At the sentencing hearing, the judge says that since you had 2 extra firearms back at home, not related to the place you were at, you get an additional 55 years.

I know the case from this thread has to do with guns and drugs, but what's to stop laws being put in place that give stiffer mandatory penalties for other "crimes" where a gun was on the person but the gun wasn't used in the crime. My beef with this case is simply by having a tool on him, he was put away for basically the rest of his life. If he was convicted for using that gun in a bad way, then yes, put him away, but if the gun didn't get involved in his crime, don't punish the guy for it.

"Sorry Mr. Smith, normally I would just write you a ticket for this speeding infraction, but since you had alcohol in the car, even though you didn't drink any, we are going to give you a mandatory fine of $10,000. Because, you know, you could have used that alcohol to make your speeding more dangerous."

xenophon
 
By the way, to those who would impose the death penalty for this "crime," or for drug crime in general:

Are you nuts?

Are you seriously suggesting that we create thousands--perhaps tens, or hundreds of thousands--of new capital criminals? Let's think about the outcome of that one for a minute.

Say I'm a drug dealer. If I get caught, I'm gonna die. There is no more severe punishment that can be applied for anything else I might do, so I have every incentive to take any and all actions that might improve my odds of escape, and absolutely no reason not to. If I'm going to be executed for selling a few ounces of weed, I may as well carry a few guns, and use them aggressively, if needed to escape. If a cop gets me in cuffs, I'm a dead man, so it is to my advantage to do anything and everything that will keep me out of his grasp.

Capital punishment is the ultimate penalty; there can be no greater (in our system). Once you hit that level, it can't get worse. And, as the old truism states, "there's nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose."

Do you really want to go down this road?

(Note that the "justice" argument still applies as well.)
 
TearsOfRage said:
I've got an idea! Let's make it a felony (with a mandatory minimum) to possess a firearm while speeding! After all, speeding is illegal. We don't want criminals to have guns. I mean, if a person does something illegal with a car, you KNOW they're gonna do something bad with a gun, right? Right?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't give them any ideas!
 
I have read the whole news story twice and can't find anything that says what he was selling for drugs.If weed I think the 55 yrs are way out of line.Now if he was dealing meth or heron I think it was too light sentence.
I have seen too many people messed up from meth or coke.
Don't get me wrong I don't aprove of pot though I think as a medical drug it should be legal and have voted thus for it.Course it passed and a judge said no so my vote didn't count nor the votes of the majority of AZ voters.This is just my opinion of course
Bob
 
my wife is asian

in her country (philippines) they have the death penalty for drug dealers and drug possesors. get caught with a joint ...death penalty sabu (local meth)
death penalty
there still buying and selling drugs
cops are being corrupted and people are dying
death penalty makes no difference

in malaysia same thing what the major dealersdo there is recruit ignorant desperate nigerians. they tell them not to worry they have the officials bribed its a sure thing

they get caught then they die
still buying and selling drugs

http://travel.state.gov/travel/livingabroad_drugs.html
 
Yeah everyone can cry for his hanging in this thread, but the dumbass part of it is the bulk of the sentence are the gun "infractions" as mentioned earlier, its an outrage in that respect. <deleted, bad example>
 
Question

So, how many of the "hang em high" types here have never, ever commited a crime? Perhaps when you were younger. Drinking and driving? Visiting a brothel back in the service? Having a beer when you were 20? Do some soul searching - you don't have to admit it here.

Now, how would you feel that if you were caught for that crime, your sentence would be increased ten times because you are a gun enthusiast and happened to have a few guns back at home?
 
55 years for a gun and some pot... and people here are approving? Sounds the fascism is spreading. I know, why don't we just impose the 'thai solution'...extrajudicial killings of anyone suspected of dealing, that ought to stop the drug problem in its tracks, right? Oh wait... it didn't do anything, except encourage drug gangs to become more armed, more insular, and more deadly. Great solution.

Were THR around during Prohibition (perhaps using avian carriers) I wonder how many of us would be calling for the execution of bootleggers.
Click to expand...

good one deej. but of course the fascists will say, "thats totally different", "drugs are bad, mmmmkay". Amazing how some people's critical faculties completely shut off when words like, 'drug', 'god', 'gay', 'freedom', and 'gun' are mentioned.

atek3
 
deej said:
Were THR around during Prohibition (perhaps using avian carriers) I wonder how many of us would be calling for the execution of bootleggers.
Click to expand...

What's to wonder? Do you think those calling for the deaths of drug dealers now would have been more reasonable back in the good old days?
 
Good to see all the warhawks here calling for blood.

Imagine if this were your son, he made mistakes, but do those mistakes justify ruining this man's life, condemning him to a life of torture at the hands of beasts in prison and ignored by the "guards" who allow prisoners to brutalize on another.

Now, EVERYONE, who is happy to send this man to his death in prison, imagine this was YOU.

Perhaps you were coming home from the range one day and on your way home, you were pulled over for speeding. When the cop comes to your window and he notices the rifle bag in your back seat is unzipped and he sees your AR or AK and decides that you are improperly transporting firearms. He pulls you out of the car and goes through your vehicle and finds about 3 or 4 guns and a thousand rounds of ammunition. Officer Joe decides that your guns are dangerous and because he pulled you over across the street from a grade school, he now puts the handcuffs on you.

You're being charged with improperly transporting firearms and for having "assualt weapons" within 3 miles of a school. You obviously think this is bull????? and you try to turn around and tell the cop what you think about this and he decides your turning around is you trying to get away, and now he decides to wrestle you to the ground and charges you with resisting arrest.


When you get your day in court you get stuck with a 25 year mandatory minimum sentance because your state decided that anyone who commits a firearms related crime near a school MUST recieve at least 25 years in prison.

Your 7 year old son is going to be 32 when you are released. Your lovely 32 year old wife is going to 57 when you are released. Your 65 year old parents will most likely pass away while you are wasting away in prison.

Ripping away a quarter or half ( or more!) of a mans life because he made one mistake and came across a cop who wanted bust you for having guns is cruel and absolutely illogical.

Of course not everyone who goes to prison is innocent of what they did or remorseful for that matter, but when it comes down to it, prisons are not there to *punish* people, but rather to *rehabilitate* them to allow them to serve their time, and then to re-enter society as a productive citizen.


Don't be so sure to damn everyone to hell who commits some wrong doing, because you never know what tommarow will hold - you could end up in a similar situation before you know it.
 
The original thread title and post really don't do the case justice, pardon the puns. The guy was NOT a first time offender, just a first timer caught. While it was his first time caught, he had multiple charges against him.

Grand Inquisitor, you are a funny person. You are suggesting that we impose lighter sentences because we may end up being the folks getting found guilty of a crime somewhere around the road. Or maybe it is our loved one. Is that right? Boo hoo hoo. Consequences may suck, but they are the consequences. It isn't as if the drug dealer gun carrier thought he was helping disabled children by doing what he was doing. He darned sure knew what he was doing was against the law and was dumb enough to get caught.

Also, the guy isn't going to jail for making a mistake. To suggest it was a mistake is to suggest that he made a decision that he didn't know was wrong. It isn't a mistake if you know what you are doing is wrong. This guy didn't make a mistake and it wasn't his only crime.

And for the record, I am imagining the poor guy going to prison is me, but only from a little earlier in life before started committing felonies and I am thinking to myself, is getting caught and going to jail or maybe getting killed over drugs really what I want to risk? No, I don't think so. And there you have it and I am sitting here today, NOT IN JAIL. Why would you even suggest that we put ourselves in this guy's place and consider the consequences and the horrors of not seeing a son grow up or whatever? Why must we worry about the consequences when the scumbag drug dealers don't? I refuse to feel sorry for such people. I like tough laws. If folks can't understand that their are consequences for what they do, then maybe they don't belong in our society.
 
ok i did some research on weldon angelos

he is sentenced to 8 years in prison AND and addtitional 55 years in prison for the gun charges
all you hang em high guys i sincerly hope you do something and they pile on the sentence like they did to mr angelos
the guns had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with his crime but you all advocate putting him away for ever
this "drug" dealers clients were musicians weldon angelos was also a record producer he wasnt hanging out at the local elemntary school forcing kids to smoke the EVIL weed
8 years might be just but the additional 55 years is just pure crap
 
I just found some interesting info on rapnewsdirect thanks to Google...

"Angelos is charged with 20 counts of distribution of marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm with a removed serial number, money laundering and for using a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm. He faces up to 135 years behind bars if convicted on all charges.

In addition to prison time, federal authorities are seeking to seize property they claim Angelos obtained through his alleged criminal activity or used in a crime, including a 1993 BMW, a 2001 Lexus, about $40,000 in cash, five handguns and a rifle."



The plot thickens... "possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm with a removed serial number".

John
 
Drug dealing is bad enough. Clearly he was in this big-time otherwise there would have been no need for guns. Selling an ounce of pot to your buddy is one thing but this clearly is in the "trafficking" area. Criminals at this level would have little regard for human life if somebody got in their way. We read about in the papers all the time.

sigmaman. I have to disagree with you. Given the quantity of drugs that ere involved, racketeering and all the other thing, simply means that guns were a way of life in that world. He may never have actually used a gun during commisions of the crimes, but you can bet he would have not thought twice about using the guns if there was any inkling of soemthing goind bad.

And it doesn't make any difference to me what line of work he was in. He was a drug dealer. Even without knowing much about the Rap or Hip-Hop world, the content of the music and the perceived attitude of some people in that industry are not helping young people to understand that drugs, crime, violence and anti-social behavior are not the road to take.

Too bad he got 55 years. This is one case where a Federal law has some reason behind it. Probably should have gotten a life term.
 
Punish people for the crimes they commit.

Carrying a firearm isn't a crime, it's a right.

Using a firearm in a criminal act is worthy of a stricter sentence.

Possession of a firearm is a constitutional right.

I'm not supporting drug dealing. However, stupid laws lead to situation where parents are afraid to keep a gun in their house because they know their kid isn't clean, but can't control him. If he gets caught dealing pot it's a rather minor crime. If he gets caught dealing pot and there's guns in the house he spends his life in jail.

I do know some people who have dealt drugs. They basically sold them to friends who shared their habbits to support their own habbit.

One of those still lived in his parents house, and his father owned a considerable collection of guns.

Did that person deserve to go to jail for selling a little weed? Sure he did, but not for 50+ years.

Edit: He never did go to jail, but did get put in rehab after his parrents called the police on him. Didn't help. I still keep in touch from time to time. He still smokes weed, but at least has quit drinking alcohol. He quit a bit late though, and I doubt that he'll live past 40 with all the damage he did to himself from drinking.
 
First, let me apologize for having helped spark this into Yet Another Thread About The War On Some Drugs. Flyboy said all there really is to say about the subject, and I highly recommend all of you who promote prohibition go back and read his posts with an open mind. Now on to my comments:

He was a drug dealer.
Click to expand...

So what? You say that as though it carries the same impact as "he was a child rapist" or "he betrayed his country during a time of war" or "he murdered his wife."

He was a drug dealer. He sold a plant derivative to others who willingly desired to purchase and consume it. He didn't slam his customers to the floor, put a gun to their head, and demand that they take the pot and give him some money in return.

No harm was caused, except arguably by the consumer - and that harm was done by himself, to himself, willingly.

I drink. Occasionally, I drink alot. I don't smoke. I don't partake of other drugs. I don't now, and I wouldn't if they were legal. But neither would I stand in the way of a fool who wishes to drug himself, so long as said fool is not causing direct harm to others or expecting me to pay for his habit.

What business is it of mine what another adult ingests, whether it be corn chips, pot, or paint thinner?
 
The punishment does not fit the crime, just another example of 'getting tough on guns'.

I don't think 'gun enhancements' work, it "Oh, I was going to rob this store with a gun, but since that will get me more time, I'll use a machette." in reducing crime.

What we need to do is put VIOLENT OFFENDERS behind bars for a long long time.
 
Cry me a river.

It's all about being willing to take responsibility for one's actions.

This person chose to violate the law & while doing so carried a firearm in the commission of said crimes.

He had little regard for his other family members or law abiding citizens when he chose this path. His intent was simple; to profit & gain from the misfortune of others. While doing said acts he compounded his own misfortunes by carrying a firearm. ie... "for his protection" = B.S. He knew the risks of dealing drugs and the people he had to associate while doing so.

To those who claim it's only pot or it's a victim less crime, ask his kids that as they go through life without their father. Who knows maybe their better off without him or his influence on their up bringing.

Since he was sentenced under federal guidelines he will have to do 85% of time sentenced.

Life's tough when you go through it stupid & stoned.

12-34hom.
 
Don't worry. Give the puritans another twenty years and porn will be illegal. We'll send people to jail - for longer periods of time than we do murder - for selling magazines with nekkid pictures, just like we punish them for selling plants today.

It's for your own good. We can't trust you not to ruin your life through porn addiction.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../11/18/national1907EST0715.DTL&type=printable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Justice Opposes Sentencing Law
Replies
10
Views
591
jimpeel
J
C
  • Locked
Virginia: "Bill reduces penalties for possessing guns and drugs"
Replies
0
Views
501
cuchulainn
C
W
  • Locked
Be a snitch or serve time.
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
publius
P
D
  • Locked
(PA) Mans hunts deer on own property, gets 15 years
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Admiral Thrawn
A
C
  • Locked
England: "Judges get final say on gun crime sentencing "
Replies
4
Views
765
Mk VII
M
Back
Top