first time offender gets 55 years

[SPFDRum]

After reading some of the post here regarding the 55 year sentence, I now know how the anti's carry so much clout.
You have an individual that not only commited 1 felony, but several, and in the pursuit of this crime, he feloniously used a weapon. Now this was in a state that takes misuse of fire arms seriously, and hopes to curb the illeagal use of them with stiff mandetory sentences. He broke the law, got busted, turned down a plea bargin, and recieved the mandated sentence.
Now we have a group here that feels that this was to extreme. To these, I pose this question to you: What will deter more crime, stiff mandetory sentences for using a weapon in the act of commiting a crime, or wailing loudly about our 2nd amendment rights? Are we so blind to actually believe this individual was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and should be given a lesser sentence?
Bottom line, stay on the right side of the law, no worries, break the law and suffer the consequences. That is unless you feel using a weapon to commit murder and crime is just another expression of the right to keep and bear arms and should be protected by the constitution. To those, get off my side, with that attitude, you are giving the anti's all the ammo they need.

 

[Sindawe]

To these, I pose this question to you: What will deter more crime, stiff mandetory sentences for using a weapon in the act of commiting a crime, or wailing loudly about our 2nd amendment rights? Are we so blind to actually believe this individual was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and should be given a lesser sentence?

Well, stiff mandatory sentences don't seem to be working squat at keeping the illegal drugs out of the country and people from selling/buying them, now do they?

Bottom line, stay on the right side of the law,...

Tell that to those innocents who have been caught in the web of the law when they've commited no infraction.

 

[SPFDRum]

Well, stiff mandatory sentences don't seem to be working squat at keeping the illegal drugs out of the country and people from selling/buying them, now do they?

I'm not talking about drugs, why, because it has a supply and demand quotent. 100% different than using a physical object with the ability to kill in the pursuit of crime. Comparision of the 2 is possible.

Tell that to those innocents who have been caught in the web of the law when they've commited no infraction.

Well, you make a claim, but I read no evidence or facts to back it up. Do you have any of this, and indicate that this is a crisis?

 

[DRZinn]

and in the pursuit of this crime, he feloniously used a weapon.

That's where you're wrong. He had a weapon on him, and two more at home. JUST HAVING THE GUNS was the basis for the 55-year sentence.

 

[Car Knocker]

SPFDRum,

Did you read the articles?

"You have an individual that not only commited 1 felony, but several, and in the pursuit of this crime, he feloniously used a weapon."

Angelos was in possession of a firearm in that it was strapped to his ankle or in the same apartment. He did not "use" a firearm in the sense that he threatened someone with it, shot someone, etc.

"Now this was in a state that takes misuse of fire arms seriously, and hopes to curb the illeagal use of them with stiff mandetory sentences. "

He was tried and sentenced in federal court, not state court, by the feds.

"He broke the law, got busted, turned down a plea bargin, and recieved the mandated sentence."

Well, not exactly. When he turned down the original plea bargain, the feds went and stacked a whole bunch of additional charges against him and THAT led to the long sentence.

"What will deter more crime, stiff mandetory sentences for using a weapon in the act of commiting a crime,"

He didn't use a weapon.

"stay on the right side of the law, no worries"

Doesn't always work that way. Witness all the people being released from prison because their DNA doesn't match that found on the crime scene. Witness the people shot and killed by police that raid the wrong house.

"break the law and suffer the consequences"

Let's see here: 55 years for three weapons charges (no violence) and 1 DAY for 13 associated drug, weapons and money laundering charges. At a cost of $1,650,000. Yup, that's fair and impartial justice and a wise use of taxpayers money.

 

[Fletchette]

To these, I pose this question to you: What will deter more crime, stiff mandetory sentences for using a weapon in the act of commiting a crime, or wailing loudly about our 2nd amendment rights? Are we so blind to actually believe this individual was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and should be given a lesser sentence?

I'll answer that.

What we want is justice. And justice includes punishing someone justly. You don't excecute a child that shoplifts a candy bar, do you? The punishment must fit the crime.

I am not advocating legalizing drugs here (that is another issue) but if this guy did commit a crime then his crime must have an appropriate sentence. As far as I am concerned, the only crime is dealing drugs. Possession of firearms (in his apartment no less, not ON him) is not a crime.

So what should a good sentence be for a first offense drug dealer? You seem to think that 55 years is ok. Consider this:


From: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htiuscdb.pdf

Homicide: Average sentence = 12.4 years. Average time served = 5.9 years.

Rape: Average sentence = 9.8 years. Average time served = 5.4 years.

Sexual Assault: Average sentence = 6 years. Average time served = 2.9 years.

We want JUSTICE! A system that puts a non-violent drug dealer in prison for 55 years on his first offense, yet lets out murders ON AVERAGE in under 6 years is NOT justice.

Sheesh.

:banghead:

 

[Sindawe]

SPFDRum,

On Sept 29, 1999, Denver Swat agents descended on the home of Ishmael Mena. Mr. Mena was the 45 year old father of nine children. He was shot eight times and killed by police in the unannounced raid. No drugs were found. Police had an incorrect address. An equally vicious and unthinkable raid claimed the lie of Revered William, a Black, 75 year old, retired Methodist minister. His elderly wife had gone out to the store. He was sitting quietly near the window, in his sparsely furnished apartment, when Boston Police crashed through the door. Drug agents chased Reverend Williams to his bedroom, shoved him to the floor, and pointed guns at his head-inducing the vomiting and heart attack that killed him. Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans later admitted that the police raided the wrong apartment. "If that is the case, then there will be an apology" he said. An apology! Since when did an apology raise someone from the dead? Two years later, the city (tax payers) paid a $1 million settlement to Reverend William's widow.

Source: http://www.rense.com/general54/blowyou.htm

I know more about the Mena case since it happened here in Denver. Want more? How about considering one Donald Scott of California, or landscaper Willie Jones All these folks were on "...the right side of the law.." as you put it, but still ensnared in that law, and some were killed as a result.

 

[Fletchette]

P.S.

With regard to the DOJ info cited above, it appears that those sentences and times served are for ALL convictions; they appear to include both first-time and mutliple offenders.

This, of course, makes the 55-year sentence even more egregious.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

Wow that sentance is totally wrong.

IMO if I was put on a jury I would never convict someone of dealing drugs or using drugs. These punishments are ridiculous.

If someone commits a violent while conducting business that is one thing and should be punished, however I would not punish someone for taking part in the captialist system that our nation is all about.

On the issue of guns. If someone commits a criminal act and has a gun I dont think it should matter in sentancing unless that person used the weapon to commit the criminal act.

If a drug deal has a weapon I dont see why he should get extra punishment unless he used that weapon unlawfully.

 

[schromf]

During my 10 year stint in the Magic Kingdom ( Saudi Arabia ) there were two laws I agreed with. Mandatory death penalty for drug dealers/trafficking, and child molesters. Justice is swift and by now Mr. Angelos would be playing his next act as the headless horseman. Bonus is its a public execution so all his friends and family get to watch the preperation for his next act. And its not drug out ( excuse the pun ) for the next five to 10 years.

Public execution for crime is a major deterent, make no bones about it.

The Saudi system seems a little brutal, but if defenatly works, and it positively deters crime.

We are a kindler gentler nation, we would rather have the taxpayers support this scumbag for the rest of his life.

GigaBuist:

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.

It really doesn't matter if I know a dealer, if he is a nice guy, or if Charles Mansons mother really loved him. He broke the law, and was sentenced under the laws of this land. Case closed in my book.

I actually think the gun charges are just additional fluff on the governments part. And I am actually sympathic to the case being made for legalization of pot. I am not sympathic to drug dealers, I knew some dealers in high school, 3 come to mind that were all brutely murdered over 25 years ago, all different cases, seperated by about 5 years. I wasn't friends or associates with any of them, but they were missing faces from my highschool yearbook. One of these murders was the sister of one of my classmates, she had a 25 ACP emptied into her face, then was dumped down a mineshaft, her body wasn't found for a couple of months. Another the newspaper said that his body was riddled with bullets, and I know for a fact it was a closed casket funeral, because I know someone who attended. Another seperate case one of the kids my son went to high school was murdered about 1 1/2 years ago, he was selling pot.

I also see drug dealers with guns as the biggest threat to my legal right to own my lawful firearms. Scare enough soccer moms with statistics and the rest of the country will have California's gun laws. The game is afoot as we speak, and I for one don't intend to champion any cause to protect these individuals. They are responsible for their actions and knew the consequences beforehand. Would you feel better about this if the guy was selling crack or herion? Or cutting it with rat poison to maximise his profits and send someone on a oneway trip to the morgue? Meth labs seem to be the drug dejour in my part of the country lately, maybe that poison and carnage would make this a little easier to have a hard nosed attitude. Its the same cycle though just minor little shades of grey.

If you want changes work our legal system for changes, but the law of the jungle in our city streets right now with a nasty mix of drug dealing and murder has to stop. This guy is probably lucky in the long run, as he probably avoided being a statistic in nasty mix of money and drugs.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

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

Sure, that would have spared us from 75 years of the Kennedy family.

 

[JohnBT]

"Possession of firearms (in his apartment no less, not ON him) is not a crime."

I don't understand. Possessing a stolen gun is a crime. So is possessing a gun with the serial number filed off, ground off or however it got off. Maybe they shouldn't be crimes, but until that day arrives they have a duty to charge him.

John

 

[Mr. Clark]

He broke the law, and was sentenced under the laws of this land. Case closed in my book.

I'll remember you said this.

I also see drug dealers with guns as the biggest threat to my legal right to own my lawful firearms.

Catering to irrational people will not save your guns. It's the surest way to lose them.

but the law of the jungle in our city streets right now with a nasty mix of drug dealing and murder has to stop

Prohibition laws are the reason for the nasty mix. More of the same won't stop it. When was the last time you read about Beer and Rum distributors shooting at each other? It happened often during prohibition, not once since.

We are not a nation of slaves like Saudi Arabia. Our country isn't run by a religious death cult, nor will we tolerate one. Try that sh*t here and you'll have a real drug war on your hands.

 

[schromf]

Prohibition laws are the reason for the nasty mix. More of the same won't stop it. When was the last time you read about Beer and Rum distributors shooting at each other? It happened often during prohibition, not once since.

I was pretty clear, if you beleive pot should be legalized, work the legal system, change the law, tax the hell out of it. No I am not opposed to legal change on this. Hard drugs is a different matter. Heroion, crack and meth have no place in any society and need to be controlled substances.

We are not a nation of slaves like Saudi Arabia. Our country isn't run by a religious death cult, nor will we tolerate one.

That culturally ignorant statement isn't even worth commenting on.

And on the high level when we declared a war on drugs over 30 years ago, in historical perspective we should realise it is a war we currently have lost. If you are interested, Milton Friedman wrote some very good articles on this very subject, the short and sweet of the paper was as long as there are fabulous profits to be made in the drug trade, there will be people willling to take the risk. Figure out how to remove the dollars from the equation and the situation will correct itself. This isn't new material in fact I think its almost 20 years ago. The problem is there currently isn't any plan to correct this part of the equation, and I certainly don't have the answers, particularly when hard drugs is thrown into the mix.

And yes the government has gotten more draconian in their war on drugs. Under current law if this charactor had owned a home the Feds would have siezed his property and be auctioning it off, which I don't agree with either, it borders on constitutional infringement. I do not believe for one minute that allowing our legal system to whittle away at this countries contitutional freedoms in the holy cause of a war on drugs is a wise course. We collectively keep throwing more and more dollars at this, expose law enforcement to daily high risk encounters, with no end game in sight.

But currently as things stand it is what we have, the law is clear, and for those willing to take the risk, the consequences of their actions and disregard for the law can bring long term prison sentences. And make no bones about it this individual was not a casual user, which I for one and several others I expect would take a lot more sympathy on, he was a dealer.

Question I do have is did anyone see when this guy is elegible for parol? Is this a typical sentenced to 55 years that he will actually serve a third of it? I would also like to point out, this guy was offered a plea deal, of 15 years which he rejected. Another bad choice on his part.

I have no sympathy.

 

[Mr. Clark]

There is no difference between the argument to legalize pot and the argument to legalize the hard drugs. The argument is that it is none of your damn business what another human being puts into his own body.

This board grows more unbelievably hypocritical by the minute.

(Art's Grammaw objected.)

 

[Fletchette]

"Possession of firearms (in his apartment no less, not ON him) is not a crime."

I don't understand. Possessing a stolen gun is a crime. So is possessing a gun with the serial number filed off, ground off or however it got off. Maybe they shouldn't be crimes, but until that day arrives they have a duty to charge him.

I didn't see anything about the guns being stolen. Only that two of the guns were in his apartment. Thats 2 x 25 years = 50 years simply for having guns in your place of residence. I think that is completely un-Constitutional.

 

[DRZinn]

So tell me, who did the dealer harm?

The users, you say? So then if I buy a gun and shoot myself, the gun dealer is responsible for that, too?

Same rationale.

 

[JohnBT]

Re: possession of a stolen firearm and one with a removed serial number...

From post #44...

"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."

 

[Fletchette]

I missed the stolen firearms and serial number bit.

...But, I still think the sentence is excessive. How can anyone say that a 55 years sentence for such crimes is just when the average sentence for murder is 12.4 years with time served averaging less than 6 years.

Surely murder is a worse crime than filing off a serial number!

 

[SPFDRum]

...But, I still think the sentence is excessive. How can anyone say that a 55 years sentence for such crimes is just when the average sentence for murder is 12.4 years with time served averaging less than 6 years.

Well then, with that logic, he should have just killed someone...

 

[Keyser Soze]

A point that I don't think has been raised is that while yes IMHO murder is a much more serious offense it is prosecuted (the majority of the time) in State court. State courts have much higher case loads and overcrowded correctional systems. The guns are prosecuted under Federal law where the USA's can pick and chose those solid cases and deal with a prison system that is much less crowded.

So point being unless a murder case has some Federal nexus, it will be handled in the overworked and overcrowded State system. Just the reality of it.

On a side note Utah has been a major participant in DOJ's Project Safe Neighborhoods. The State has referred many repeat offenders (read career criminals) to the PSN Task Force for Federal prosecution. This has resulted in the crooks getting much more time than they would in the State system, removing them from the communities where they were serious problems, and saving the State money by not crowding the local correctional facilities. A side benefit is that is free up the police agencies time time not having to deal with the same offender over and over due to the State Criminal Justice Systems revovling door. The Utah Department of Corrections with the cooperation of the PSN Task Force has an "Exit interview" with all inmates who have done their time, parolees and probationers where they are specifically told the penalties for possessing a firearm.
Does it work? I don't know, but what I can tell you is that every crook and gang banger I have hooked up or shaken down is well aware that in Utah if you are caught with a gun you will be doing time in Club Fed.

KS

 

[tyme]

while yes IMHO murder is a much more serious offense it is prosecuted (the majority of the time) in State court. State courts have much higher case loads and overcrowded correctional systems.

Irrelevant. Compare these two 25-year additions to any other federal crime and they still looks ridiculous.

Federal sentencing guidelines for Murder 2 are 135-168 months for a first offense with no enhancements or priors. That's 11.25 to 14 years, roughly half of what a single gun added to this entrepreneur's sentence.

Even with 13 or more priors (the highest prior offense category), murder 2 (level 33) offenses don't get sentences any longer than 24.5 years. Talk about ridiculous.

source: http://guidelinelaw.com/fsglaw/

 

[Keyser Soze]

Tyme,

Thanks for the quick education. I was unaware that the Federal murder sentencing guidelines were so low in comparision to the firearms enhancements.

KS

 

[Fletchette]

Well then, with that logic, he should have just killed someone...

So, are you agreeing that this doesn't make sense (the exact point I was trying to make)?

 

[Derby FALs]

This board grows more unbelievably hypocritical by the minute.

They want rain but are afraid of thunder or lightning.