first time offender gets 55 years

[sigmaman]

he was a drug dealer

and he was wearing a gun
lets burn him then kill his family
evil marijauna seller
burn burn burn
hell 55 years aint good enough for his ilk
i say kill his dog too
yeah
trying to fit in thr going to get me a pick up trailer home and marry me sister

BTW hey wild alaska
what he did isnt even a crime in alaska

Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes is slowly coming to grips with reality. Befuddled by last month's Alaska Appeals Court ruling legalizing the possession of up to four ounces of pot in the home

 

[buzz_knox]

BTW hey wild alaska
what he did isnt even a crime in alaska

Which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Beating one's wife isn't illegal in several jurisdictions around the world, but doesn't justify doing so anywhere in the US.

The issue at hand is whether the punishment fits the crime. It's probably excessive for the charges asserted. Given the prior discussion of a plea bargain, the prosecutor probably wanted him to name names and when he refused, made an example out of him.

 

[SLCDave]

He carried a firearm while commiting a felony.
He knew it was illegal.
He had a choice.
He did it anyway.
I bet his neighbors are happy that he's not next door dealing drugs.
I know I would be.

Just because marijuana is a plant, and it's natural, doesn't mean it's fit for consumption. Rattlesnake poisin is natural. Arsenic is natural. Carbon Dioxide is natural too.

 

[Derby FALs]

He got sentenced to one day in jail for the evil drug and money laundering charges.

 

[flatrock]

12-34hom,

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

No it's not. Taking responsibility for his actions is paying the penalty for selling drugs, which he should pay.

Adding on 55 years for doing so while in possession of a firearm is an unconstitutional attack on his right to keep and bear arms.

A criminal should be punished for their crimes.

Using a gun in the commision of a crime is a crime itself and should be punished. Posessing a gun while commiting a crime shouldn't be a crime.

A person that is commiting crimes that are considered minor crimes can be punished with 30 years in jail if they choose to arm themselves with both a primary and backup gun because they live in a dnagerous neighborhood?

You're saying that by breaking the law you give up your right to defend your life against others who might want to do you harm?

B. S. The right to defend yourself is a right, not a privledge. It's granted to us by our creator, not by law.

Posessing a gun shouldn't be a crime. It's how a weapon is used that can make it a crime, not posessing it.

 

[Justin]

Quite frankly I don't care what chemicals someone else wants to put into their body. What I do care about is the fact that all of the nanny-statist types who've chimed in on this thread openly advocate the abrogation of my civil rights through their clamorous approval of the drug war, even though I am not a user of illegal drugs.

Yet even though the evidence showing that the War On Drugs is an abysmal failure has continued to pile up there are still those who continue to support the same idiotic, wasteful and quite frankly, insane* policies out of some misguided sense of puritanism.

I could maybe understand supporting the WoD if it actually had some proveable effect at markedly reducing the supply of narcotics in this country. But no matter how tight they seal the border, no matter how many armed guards there are or SWAT Teams on standby, no matter how harsh the sentencing, none of it has stopped Johnny the 15 year old wasteoid from getting a dimebag.



*One definition of insanity that gets bandied about is the old saw of "Continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting to get different results." If that isn't the very spitting definition of the War On Drugs, then I don't know what is.

 

[sigmaman]

mr weldons clients

seem to be rap stars and a police informant

Arrested in 2002 for selling marijuana to an informant - two half-pounds at $350 each - Angelos faced more than 55 years in prison without parole because of three gun charges, including an accusation that he had a concealed handgun in an ankle holster.

should be given an additional 50 years for selling to rap stars

wow i thought gun owners relly believed in liberty

 

[Flyboy]

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.

And how, exactly, does him selling marijuana necessarily and directly lead to his kids being stripped of their father?

Sounds like the crime here is the perversion of "justice," and the perpetrators draw their pay from Uncle Sam.

Further, as several others have pointed out, it's not the sale of drugs that got him half a century in the lockup; it's the fact that he had a piece of steel in an "evil" shape. He didn't use it, or even brandish it (assumed, from the lack of charges on that point); he merely posessed it.

Who knows maybe their [sic] better off without him or his influence on their up bringing.

More than likely not, but that's a low blow in any case, and one on which you can't possibly have an informed opinion unless you've a lot of information we don't. Uninformed personal attacks don't help anything; neither does demonizing "the enemy."

 

[PCRCCW]

Hey guys....what very little people know is this guy was offered 4 plea deals before he went to trial! Ranging from 16 to 25 years in all.....he turned them down. He's not an angel....he had a hell of a history before this happened.

I dont agree with the sentencing either.........neither did the judge but his hands were tied. It was up to him to take the plea or go to trial.......he picked wrong!

Shoot well..................

 

[DRZinn]

I feel so safe now that he's off the street.

 

[Grey54956]

How 'bout 55 lashes instead, or 55 days in the stocks.

The problem with 55 years is that it is a tremendous waste of his life, but more improtantly our tax money. When all is said and done it will probably cost about $30,000 per year to incarcerate this man. That's 1.6 million dollars over the course of 55 years, not taking time value of money into the equation...

Yes, he broke laws, but perhaps a swift, painful punishment will convince him of the error of his ways rather than a slow, costly jail sentence.

Frankly, the whole idea of plea-bargaining is utter horse$#!+ as well. Let justice be fair and absolute. No deals, bargains, sales on justice, thank you. Let's everyone have their day in court.

 

[Faithless]

Govt won't legalise because:

a) Drugs are more profitable illegal = can fund more Iran / Contra's.

b) Enforcing drug laws = big brother via the back door

 

[12-34hom]

Possessing a gun while committing a crime shouldn't be a crime.

Fact is, weapon possession while used in the commission of a felony is used as an enhancement under sentencing guidelines. Just because the weapon he was armed with was not used; his intent by carrying said weapon implies that he was willing to use it.

You're saying that by breaking the lawyou give up the right to defend your life against others who might want to do you harm?

If you're committing a felony, then yes; you have no right to armed with a firearm of any type. He put him self at risk and others while in commission of this crime. He knew the risks, him being armed proves this fact.

12-34hom.

 

[Fletchette]

Fact is, weapon possession while used in the commission of a felony is used as an enhancement under sentencing guidelines. Just because the weapon he was armed with was not used; his intent by carrying said weapon implies that he was willing to use it.

What!?! Then you should be put in prison because you have guns, which implies that you are willing to use it.

You need two things to commit a "crime":

a) you must actually perform said action (otherwise the government could throw people in prison for "thought" crimes)

b) You must have "intent" (you must know what you are doing is wrong but do it anyway. This prevents people from being convicted of actions they honestly thought were legal).

The cited example violates both concepts, for a): he did not do anything with the gun that hurt anyone. For b) Merely owning a gun is not a "crime", and its ownership is not "intent" to commit a crime.

As for "enhancements": what if they passed a law outlawing sneakers? Just about every drug dealer wears sneakers, it would be the perfect "enhancement". Is that a good idea?

Radical concept: lets punish criminals for the crime they actually commit, rather than making elabrate webs of laws that ultimately ensnare average citizens.

 

[hammer4nc]

grey posted:

The problem with 55 years is that it is a tremendous waste of his life, but more improtantly our tax money. When all is said and done it will probably cost about $30,000 per year to incarcerate this man. That's 1.6 million dollars over the course of 55 years, not taking time value of money into the equation...

And it bears repeating. Please, all those who advocate "throwing away the key", please reconsider this position on purely economic grounds...do you really think its how you want your tax money spent?

As to the LEO's who invariably advocate these sentencing enhancements...can there ever be a case where a sentence is overly harsh? Or, should we just assume you're in favor of anything that makes law enforcement a growth industry? As one article explained:

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."

How much of this booty gets routed back to the LE agency? "Yeah, baby...gotta love the WOD!" [/honest citizen shakes head]

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

I agree with GigaBuist

Its interesting to see that most of the 'old folks'(long time members) don't like this but some of the new hot heads are all for destroying a mans life over dried plants and guns.

I know 4 drug dealers and am good friends with one of them. Hes a great guy and a good friend in addition to being a good dealer. Hes friendly to everyone and helps out newbies all the time. He also treats random people with respect(not just people he sells to).

All you people talking about the evil Drug Dealer should rethink; where else would people get drugs without dealers?

 

[jefnvk]

I'm not going to comment on whether drugs should be legal.

This man did break a law. Drug dealing is against the law, last time I checked. Unless he was brain dead, he knew that what he was doing was illegal. In comitting this crime, he was wearing firearms. While this may be more of an area in that he didn't know that having firearms while comitting a crime leads to a harsher penalty, he probably should have.

We have minimum sentance laws set up so that one person cannot be punished less harshly then another, for the same crime. He broke the law, there is a set standard for breaking the law, he was held to the set standard.

Please note that I am not advocating that this law is right. If he thinks that this law is not right, simply ignoring it is not the way to go. Doing anything you can to fix it is the right way to do it. Until then, if you don't follow the rules, you should expect to get penalized.

And I apply this fairly to anything. If guns were outlawed tomorrow, if I did not come into compliance, I would expect to be caught and incarcerated. That is the way things work. Do I think that that situtation would be right? No. If I choose to keep my guns, then by doing so I would accept any punishment that should be given to me.

In wearing the firearm while comitting the crime, this man was also accepting the punishment.

Don't break laws. Fix them.

 

[Fletchette]

Don't break laws. Fix them.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Don't break laws. Fix them.

I keep hearing that all the time. How do you propose to fix them?
How many laws have you "fixed"?
Even if we "fix" one law, ten more get passed while we're fixing one.

It matters not whether a law is Constitutional or not, the courts and the legislature use the "Supreme Law of the Land" as a doormat.

The NRA, GOA, SAF, etc, etc, have millions of members among them and how many laws have they succeeded in actually "fixing"?
NFA '34...nope.
GCA '68 (IIRC)...nope.
FOPA '86...nope.
AWB '94...nope, sunsetted.
CCW?....nope, didn't fix any laws, just passed some more.

So many people run around saying catchy little phrases like "Molon Labe" and "From my cold, dead hands". Yet when someone breaks a law (Constitutional or not) that happens to agree with their own personal views they're all for locking them up and throwing away the key (until the door is closing on them).

Molon Labe indeed.

 

[sigmaman]

easier to pass harsher anti crime laws

man i had some stuff to say
but i have grown tired of this board
doesnt seem like people have an open mind to opposing view points
and you uber patriots are actually starting to sound like what was that phrase oh yeah
jack booted thugs
i learned of DU from you guys so i went over there and started looking
a lot of people here are the identical polar opposite as those on the DU forum
so sorry to be you

 

[Chris Rhines]

This is, of course, a travesty of justice.

This man committed no crime, not in a moral sense. No one was coerced, no one was harmed, no one had their property stolen.

He sold a product to people who were more than willing to buy it. Why should this be illegal?
He carried a firearm to protect himself while dealing in fairly large quantities of cash. Why should that be illegal?
He declined to make his voluntary tax contribution on the money that he earned, and structured his finances to so allow. Why should this be illegal?

Somebody explain it to me.

- Chris

 

[tyme]

It doesn't look like any of the anti-drug hawks have commented on JohnBT's find:

"Cassell noted that the same day he sentenced Angelos, he gave 22 years to a man convicted of beating an old woman to death with a log."

Does an armed drug dealer deserve 2.5 times the sentence given for murder of a senior citizen?

 

[Art Eatman]

tyme, I've watched disparities in sentencing for a long, long time. I've often wondered why the comparative harshness for possession of a banned item, as opposed to physical crimes against persons.

The only answer that seems to fit is that the worse case in the eyes of government is disagreeing with the edicts of government. "Merely" killing an individual citizen is not nearly as evil as believing that government could be wrong in restricting certain activities which are harmful only to the actor.

Art

 

[tyme]

Well, murder is also a disagreement with a government edict - thou shalt not murder.

I'm not convinced that those in government consciously engineer those sentences to be on par with the worst violent crimes sentences. I don't think very many people in government are malicious.

It seems that the cretins who write these minimum sentencing guidelines lose all perspective when they sit around all day discussing what the minimum sentence should be for possessing a handgun while dealing drugs. A 25-year minimum sentence for each additional gun is on par with one additional murder sentence, which often run 25-to-life. Did anyone think about that when they drafted the guidelines? I doubt it.

Insulated discussions about anything result in loss of perspective and the results are often horrific. In this case, those results determine the fate of people's lives. No wonder crime has risen and people are losing respect for the law in droves.

 

[Wildalaska]

what he did isnt even a crime in alaska

Au contraire, it sure is...Alaska law decriminilaizes the PERSONAL POSESSESION o f small amounts of weed for personal use..

Not selling it armed...read the indictment oif this guy...hes not an innnocent teenager,,,he was a hard core drug felon

WilddonttwistthefactsAlaska