Whoa...55 year sentence.

[punisher73]

and the root of those 'problems' that are a 'huge threat to society'? Oh, yeah, marijuana.
Now, let's think this through.
-----------------

Ok lets....please point out how drug trafficking is not a threat to society? I didn't say that marijuana was the root of the problems I gave concrete examples of real crime and what the people were involved in. Want me to start giving stories of what people do for crack or cocaine?

Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?

 

[Tgace]

In NY marijuana possession isnt even a "crime". Its a violation punishable by a fine. Cant even put bail on it. Its the penal law equivalent of a traffic ticket. Its far from a "war" on the average pot head. If you are growing or moving pounds of the stuff its a different story.

 

[michaeledward]

Ok lets....please point out how drug trafficking is not a threat to society? I didn't say that marijuana was the root of the problems I gave concrete examples of real crime and what the people were involved in. Want me to start giving stories of what people do for crack or cocaine?

Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?

If marijuana was not illegal, then 'trafficking' in marijuana would not be beneficial to anyone. Any more than 'trafficking' in booze or smokes.

If you want to give examples of crack or cocaine, go right ahead, but it is irrelevant to this argument. Marijuana is not an addictive substance (whereas cocaine, in its various forms is). No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.

No I do not work in an occupation where I see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing, but I am an alcoholic, so I know a thing or two about addiction, we can perhaps have that discussion elsewhere.

Let's look again ... the judge gave a 1 day sentence for the marijuana. But because of 'Activist Legislators' getting involved in mandatory sentencing, the judge had no choice but to sentence this criminal to 55 years because he had a gun in his briefcase.

He did not fire the weapon. He did not threaten anyone with the weapon. He had it in his possession, something, I thought the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was supposed to protect his right to do.

The sentence is STUPID !!! with a capital STUPID!!!

Good Grief

 

[Ceicei]

If the District Attorney does not have the evidence to bring charges to trial, and convict, he is not an 'offender', repeat or otherwise. He may have been repeatedly accused of such crimes, but not a repeat offender.

First time offender in a court of law... yes. But it definitely isn't the first time he did this sort of thing. According to one of the articles I read about this issue, how many transactions was he observed to make? How many times was a gun seen either on him or near him during these observed transactions? More than once....

It could be inferred that he probably brought the gun with him during the other transactions that were not observed. What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have? He has it for the times when a deal might go bad...

This is why the law was created--gun enhancement charges. Whether this is fair could be debated. If it isn't fair, should we wait for a deal to go bad before a body dies in order for gun charges to be added? :idunno:

- Ceicei

 

[Tgace]

Was this a "Project Exile" case?

 

[michaeledward]

What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have?

Do we need to have a reason to have a gun?

I thought the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to have a weapon, reason or no.

All you gun owners out there .... How many of you own more than, oh let's pick an arbitrary number, 10 guns? What possible reason would there be to own more than 10 guns? Is this the standard we are looking for?

* * * * * * *
Incidentally ... this partially explains why the sentence is 55 years

Then came Tom Feeney.

Florida's former house speaker and now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives last spring attached an amendment to a popular anti-crime bill at the last minute that would severely restrict judges' discretion to give defendants breaks at sentencing. And to give the Justice Department authority to summon the sentencing records of every federal judge while reporting all sentences that buck the guidelines to the House and Senate. The amendment got even conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist publicly angry. But it became law. Sen. Edward Kennedy has introduced a bill to repeal it.

Damn that Ted Kennedy, wanting to let these criminals and terrorists off easy.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Found this too . . .

The judge noted the irony of being required to lock up Angelos until he's 70 when hours earlier, he was able to sentence another defendant to 22 years on a second-degree murder charge, for beating an elderly woman to death with a log.

 

[Ceicei]

Do we need to have a reason to have a gun?

I thought the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to have a weapon, reason or no.

All you gun owners out there .... How many of you own more than, oh let's pick an arbitrary number, 10 guns? What possible reason would there be to own more than 10 guns? Is this the standard we are looking for?

During commission of a crime?? Sigh....

2nd amendment should be for any and all citizens, unless they chose to break the law. Now the question is, which law? Any law? Does this include civil disobedience? I would hesitate to try to draw the line with gun ownership.

That said, drug dealing does have a lot of inherit risks. So does speeding (ask any police officer who has to make "routine vehicle stops".) I wouldn't want guns revoked just for speeding, even though speeding is against the law.

For me, personally, if the gun is actually being used during a crime (ie. in the hand, ready to shoot), then that is when the gun enhancement penalty should be added on. Merely having a gun (IMHO) is not a crime in itself. Even then, how about those who do self defense? Just having a gun in the hand for self defense should not be classified as a crime (although many think this way).

I am a gun owner, and do have more than one gun. I don't think it is any business for people to know why I have them.

- Ceicei

 

[Adept]

Hey guys, lets slow down and analyse this for a second. The guy in the article recieved two seperate sentences. He was sentenced to 55 years in jail for carrying a firearm (I assume in an improper manner and without a licence).

This is the minimum sentence for this crime.

He was also sentenced to ONE DAY in jail for the drug trafficking offence.

While I think the individual in question deserved to have the book thrown at him, I still dont think 55 years just for having the gun is fair. Remember this is a blanket minimum sentence, regardless of prior conviction or the character and lifestyle of the defendant. If you had the gun, you go to jail for (effectively) the rest of your life.

 

[michaeledward]

He was sentenced to 55 years in jail for carrying a firearm (I assume in an improper manner and without a licence). This is the minimum sentence for this crime.

There is no reason to make the assumption that the firearm was carried in an 'improper manner'. I have read four stories about Mr. Angelos sentence. Not one mentions any impropriaties with the weapon.

Mr. Angelos was convicted of completing three transactions. Each was for 8 ounces of marijuana in exchange for $350.00 cash. In one of the transactions, the weapon was reportedly strapped to his ankle, in the two other instances, the firearm was reported to be 'in the vicinity'.

The reason for the sentence is that there were three sales transactions. Each transaction, with a firearm in his possession has a mandatory sentence. The first transaction is 5 years, the second and third transactions have a requirement of 25 years to be served consecutively.

Oh, and I just saw this. The drug transactions took place in Mr. Angelos' apartment, which is where he kept his firearm. Where else would he keep his weapons?

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2457265

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Punisher73's comments in bold:

Again, he is a guy who was selling drugs (again a high end dealer not a low street guy) and was associating with known gang members. This wasn't his first time doing it, it was his first time getting caught and from the way the article reads he was under surveillance a long time by the police.

A high end dealer is one who sells $700 worth of pot?

No it wasn't his first time doing it. Would that have made a difference? Had they arrested him the first time and put him away for five years versus 55, then would he have had a chance to reflect on the errors of his ways? As is, when he gets out he'll be eighty. His five and six year old sons will be sixty and sixty one. He could conceivably be a great grandfather by then...but more than likely he'll die in prison.

The problems associated with what this guy did and was convicted of are a huge threat to society and the laws are constructed to reflect this.

The huge threat to society is crack, meth, and cat, regardless of your violent anecdotes concerning marijuana. This guy sold two bags of dope to friends. He's serving one day for that. ONE DAY. The gun charges are the ones netting him the time.

The stories you provided are informative and interesting, but not relevant. He didn't hurt anyone. He didn't brandish the gun he had, didn't pull it out and point it at anyone. He didn't shoot an old woman in the head nor did he cut the throats of relatives of those he dealt with. The time he is serving, apparently, is being served because of those murders and because society assumes he will do the same.

The judge in this case, only two hours prior to sentencing Angelos, handed out a 22 year sentence to a man convicted of beating an old woman to death with a log. Angelos will serve over double that time and he never threatened a soul. Apparently he'd have been better off if he had just shot someone. As is, he'll serve time with felons who killed, and they will be released after serving one fourth of the sentence he will be serving. Killers will go free while Angelos rots.

This isn't justice.

Regards,

Steve

 

[punisher73]

But the federal jury convicted Angelos last December of 16 counts of drug trafficking, weapons possession and money laundering.
--------

Notice again that is 16 counts! That is 16 seperate crimes. This is not someone who was carrying an unliscensed gun and had a baggy of marijuana on them that got this sentence. This was a drug dealer who carried the gun for "protection" while he dealt.

Also, at least in Michigan carrying a firearm whether legal or not during the commision of a felony is a felony in and of itself.
------

Marijuana is not an addictive substance (whereas cocaine, in its various forms is).

Ok, I'll agree that marijuana is not "physically addicting" like cocaine. But that still doesn't help out the 8yr old boy who screams every night because his parents sold him for sex to get their fix of it. There are still addictions and addiction behavior associated with it.

To quote the counselor from south park "drugs are bad mmmkay". (sorry just had to say it once).

To michaeledwards: In all honesty I am sorry to hear about your situation. I never said that ANY addiction was easy. But, it doesn't help with people there to feed that addiction and want you to fail.

In our county they have what is called "drug court" which is an option for people who don't have an assaultive history and have drug problems to get help for their addiction instead of doing jail or prison time.

 

[michaeledward]

To michaeledwards: In all honesty I am sorry to hear about your situation. I never said that ANY addiction was easy. But, it doesn't help with people there to feed that addiction and want you to fail.

I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.

This sentencing is STUPID!

The legislative bodies in this country are committing injustices by writing mandatory sentencing laws.

The 16 offenses listed in this case were added to the complaint only after Mr. Angelos refused to accept a plea bargain which would have resulted in, I think it was 15 years, incarceration.

15 years for selling 8 ounces of a non-addictive substance. That is less mass than what comes in a bottle of Budweiser. So, the DA went to flex his muscles. Again, the convictions resulting in 55 years are because the firearm was in the vicinity. Nevermind that this 'criminal' and 'terrorist' was a small business owner; producing rap artists. How many young kids did he have the potential for helping with his business and entrepreneurship.

Remember, he never showed the gun as part of the transactions. Not once did he brandish the weapon. Not once did he fire the weapon.

STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!

 

[Tgace]

Yeah. Rap music is a font of charitable do-gooders.

Mandatory sentencing is a sticky subject. I dont know which is worse, mandating what the judge can sentence or allowing one judge to hammer a defendant while an identical crime in the next chamber gets the "slap on the wrist".......

 

[michaeledward]

Yeah. Rap music is a font of charitable do-gooders.

What possible reason for a gun would a dealer have?

So, Tgace, whadda ya think? CeiCei is a gun owner, and he asked this question. Do you think this is an appropriate question? Should we question people who are purchasing guns and verify 'What possible reason a record producer / off duty police officer / computer nerd / karate guy would have for a gun'?

Or maybe, we should just execute any convicted of any crime?

Again ... he didn't show the weapon, he didn't fire the weapon. In two of the counts, the weapon is reported to be "in the vicinity".

And, as to how much 'do-gooding' the rap community does, I refer you to Queen Latifa. Also, it might be interesting if you look at the first verse of Eminem's new single 'MOSH'.

STUPID sentence. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

There is no justice going on. This is REVENGE and ANGER. Which, we are suppose to keep out of our Justice System ... remember the BLIND LADY?

 

[Tgace]

Well..theres some streets close by my patrol area where people are getting shot regularly. 99.9% are gang/drug trade related. Now when a cop makes an arrest of a dealer on these streets and you wind up with a drug and gun charge that get plead out to maybe months in the can at best or probation at worst, the public gets pissed.

Now when you make the same arrest and run the guy up federally on an "exile" case and he gets hammered, joe public loves it that were "taking out the trash"......we all get what we ask for. Most of the killing is around the crack trade here. They arent killing each other over weed. So unless the public decides to legalize it, that problem isnt going anywhere soon.

Personally the guy looks like a dirtbag and Im not loosing any sleep over his incarceration. Howerver its not my job to sentence people. If the public wants to change it that would be fine with me.

As to Rap...50 Cent produces porn ( i guess that could be called do-gooding to some) and the list of Rappers killed, arrested and jailed probably outweighs the likes of Latifah. But thats not because of the music, its because of the people. I guess they know their subject matter well.....

 

[Adept]

There is no reason to make the assumption that the firearm was carried in an 'improper manner'. I have read four stories about Mr. Angelos sentence. Not one mentions any impropriaties with the weapon.

I only made the proviso since I dont know the specifics of the state laws. I assume it is legal to own a handgun, and that it is legal to transport them. Obviously if it was a licensed, registered firearm being transported in a locked case then there would be no problem. Nor would there have been a problem if he had a legal concealed carry license. Simply having the gun is not a crime (I assume) it only becomes a crime if you do it illegaly.

The reason for the sentence is that there were three sales transactions. Each transaction, with a firearm in his possession has a mandatory sentence. The first transaction is 5 years, the second and third transactions have a requirement of 25 years to be served consecutively.

Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the first offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.

 

[punisher73]

Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the first offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.-----That's ok, most of the people who are saying it was stupid are glossing it over too.

Get it right, this wasn't for only selling 8 ounces of weed. Nor was it only having a gun on him "in the vicinity" nice euphemism for a concealed weapon in an ankle holster (which the article also fails to mention if it was a legally owned handgun or not). He was CONVICTED OF 16 COUNTS OF FELONIES!!!!! If you read the WHOLE sentence he got 8yrs for the drug trafficking/money laundering. Then he got 5 yrs for one count of carrying a firearm while dealing drugs, then he got another 25 yrs for the 2nd count and 25 yrs for the 3rd count. That is what is stupid is that he didn't commit one offense just one time. He comitted multiple crimes with multiple sentences, so it was not 55 yrs for a one time incident, the sentence was stacked due to multiple offenses and convictions.

I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.-----My fault for trying to be human about it, you brought it up.

 

[michaeledward]

I only made the proviso since I dont know the specifics of the state laws. I assume it is legal to own a handgun, and that it is legal to transport them. Obviously if it was a licensed, registered firearm being transported in a locked case then there would be no problem. Nor would there have been a problem if he had a legal concealed carry license. Simply having the gun is not a crime (I assume) it only becomes a crime if you do it illegaly.

Aha, now I understand. So the minimum sentence for the first offence is five years, with second or third offences being 25 years. The first article glossed over that fact.

Reasonable questions and assumptions. State laws concerning guns vary as to how a weapon must be transported and carried. No where in the articles that I have seen on this case was there any reference to the weapon being illegally owned or transported. The issue seems to be having possession of a gun at the same time as committing a crime, in this case, selling 8 ounces of marijuana, on three (possible only two) seperate occassions.



I would just call into question the term 'first offense' in your sentence, and the 'second and third offenses'. I am not sure if 'offense' is the correct term in this case or not. I would suggest;

the minimum sentence for the first count (on the indictment) is five years, with the second and third counts being 25 years.


​

I think it is a more accurate statement. I am not certain if the two statements are synonomous.

Get it right, this wasn't for only selling 8 ounces of weed. Nor was it only having a gun on him "in the vicinity" nice euphemism for a concealed weapon in an ankle holster (which the article also fails to mention if it was a legally owned handgun or not). He was CONVICTED OF 16 COUNTS OF FELONIES!!!!! If you read the WHOLE sentence he got 8yrs for the drug trafficking/money laundering. Then he got 5 yrs for one count of carrying a firearm while dealing drugs, then he got another 25 yrs for the 2nd count and 25 yrs for the 3rd count. That is what is stupid is that he didn't commit one offense just one time. He comitted multiple crimes with multiple sentences, so it was not 55 yrs for a one time incident, the sentence was stacked due to multiple offenses and convictions.

Never mind that the substance in question is legal in several states for medical purposes.

The judge was forced to sentence Mr. Angelos to 55 years consecutively for the 3 gun-possession convictions. For the other 13 counts (money laundering and drug counts) in the case, Judge Cassell added 1 day to the sentence. (see (5) below).

While there are sentencing guidelines that suggest up to 78 months for the drug counts, Judge Cassell had the discretion to impose the minimum sentence concerning the drug counts. The Judge did not have discretion at sentencing for the weapons charges.

I am not interested in what you think or feel about my disease, or dis-ease, if you prefer. It is irrelevant.-----My fault for trying to be human about it, you brought it up.

Actually, you brought up. I can only assume because you wanted to put yourself in the position of a 'higher authority' concerning the affects of addiction on society. ... your term was 'huge threat to society'.

Out of curiosity do you work in an occupation where you see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing? Or is this an academic argument about if marijuana was legal we wouldn't have these problems?

Further, I find it ironic that you wish to demonstrate your 'humanity' toward me, where as Mr. Angelos is offered no such courtesy. How much of a 'threat to society' do you think it is that a 6 year old boy, and a 5 year old girl will grow up without their father? What impact will his incarceration have on their lives, and the lives of their mother. These children are now three times more likely to grow up in poor. This family just added to the 17% of families in Utah that are headed by a single parent.

This sentence is STUPID STUPID STUPID.



(1) http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/11_18_04judgesquestion.cfm

(2) http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN90111904.htm

(3) http://www.magicvalley.com/news/worldnation/index.asp?StoryID=11295

(4) http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=133238

(5) http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_2457265

 

[punisher73]

No I do not work in an occupation where I see the direct results of drugs and drug dealing, but I am an alcoholic, so I know a thing or two about addiction, we can perhaps have that discussion elsewhere.

YOU brought it up, I didn't. How else would I know of that part of your background. I'm not going to discuss who brought up what when you can look back and find out in black and white.

Further, I find it ironic that you wish to demonstrate your 'humanity' toward me, where as Mr. Angelos is offered no such courtesy.

I don't find it ironic at all. You weren't convicted of dealing drugs and carrying a gun illegally (remember carrying a gun whether legally owned or not to commit crimes is a crime). If you want someone to blame for his children blame THE GUILTY party, he made his decisions and he was offered a very low sentence by the courts, instead of owning up to what he did and taking RESPONSIBILITY for his actions he went to trial and lost.


I have been in our county's drug court preceedings and am very supportive of that program, again it is for people who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol to get the treatment they want instead of going to jail/prison. I feel sorry for his children, but I also feel sorry for all the people's lives he is ruining by selling drugs (like his own kids). I also noticed that no one has brought up that some of his "character witnesses" were known gangbangers and HAVE been involved in violent crime. Stop blaming the courts and the justice system for establishing harsh penalties for crimes...oh here is an even better idea....DON'T COMMIT CRIMES if you don't want to go to prison for a long time. He was a record executive, he made the choices to do this, over and over...He had NO NEED to sell drugs other than the fact that he wanted to.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I also noticed that no one has brought up that some of his "character witnesses" were known gangbangers and HAVE been involved in violent crime.

So, apparently, was the witness that got him put away for possessing a gun.


Stop blaming the courts and the justice system for establishing harsh penalties for crimes...

They don't, Punisher. Congress does that. The legislative body makes the laws, the judicial system enforces them.

He had NO NEED to sell drugs other than the fact that he wanted to.

A libertarian would have a field day with this. It boils down to people telling other people what they need to do. Conservatives in this country are constantly saying how they think government ought not interfere with the private lives of individuals and how people ought to have freedom--and then they work to take it away from them. You see no hypocrisy here?

LIVE LIFE FREE...the way I tell you to.

I was reading today how a woman who was responsible for ripping American tax payers off for $6 billion will serve nine months in prison for it. A guy who sells two bags of dope totalling about $700 serves life.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6872964&src=rss/topNews

I'd be willing to bet he didn't have any idea that he was committing a crime that would ruin his entire life. I wasn't aware of the sentencing guidlines until this article came out. As for turning down the plea bargain...I'm betting that he--indignant-- saw the outrageous injustice being done to him and thought that common sense would prevail on the part of the court. It didn't.

I strongly urge anyone reading this to check out Eric Schlosser's "Reefer Madness." The first essay describes the absolutely ridiculous drug laws in this country. Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation," is an engaging writer and makes a valid point. Where have we gone in this country when we put a man away for life for selling marijuana...yet his cell mate does eight years for killing someone with a gun?



Regards,

Steve