Border Patrol Agents Sentenced

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, these guys are getting a raw deal because of mandatory minima, but drug dealers are not.

Were it not for MM, the judge might have been more lenient. Same with drug dealers.

Those wanting a bed made a certain way should be prepared to lie in it.

It seems a little hard to escape. Some want MM for drug dealers but can't or won't prove they're any different than beer dealers, for which there's no MM, and can't even counter my assertion that, other than being legal while crack is not, alcohol abuse is more dangerous than is crack abuse. Yet when MM is applied to perpetrators of other types of crime, perhaps unfairly, it's time to complain about them.
 
alcohol abuse is more dangerous than is crack abuse.
Click to expand...

Thats's about the most unfounded, ridiculous statement I've ever heard. I'm so sick and tired of hearing the argument "everything's a drug". Its a fallback position for those who are losing the debate and need to reframe the issue.

No one here is in favor of throwing their pharmacist in jail, yet we have several who think the local bartender is a drug dealer. Confused? As for alcohol being more dangerous that crack, give me a break. There are plenty of functioning alcoholics that go to work everyday and participate in society. Show me a functioning crack addict.

What is really sad with this whole situation is that, to my knowledge, no one knows what happened to the guy who assaulted the officer. Is he in jail? Free ticket back home? No doubt we violated his "rights" :rolleyes:

It would be a real justice if those of you that are defending crack dealers, or equating what they do with selling a guy a beer, to actually go and meet some of these people. See where they live and work, and see who they sell to. Take a look at what happens to those who have developed the habit.

Wait... what do you mean you don't go to that part of town?
 
Thats's about the most unfounded, ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

You must have a sheltered life. Prove it isn't true. Or just go here: http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html
Let's see. What's bigger? 150,000 or 6,000(generously)? Over 30 years of doing professional math and science in industry says 150,000 is bigger than 6,000.

Show me a functioning crack addict.
Click to expand...

First, show me a workplace that doesn't drug test. You'd be surprised just how many people do their work just fine on drugs and how many idiots screw up the simplest tasks even drug or alcohol free.

See where they live and work, and see who they sell to
Click to expand...

It's this way because drug use has been made a crime. Not the other way around.

Take a look at what happens to those who have developed the habit
Click to expand...

Yep. They can't get decent (or any) work because of drug screening, or they get jailed, so their lives go downhill.

Wait... what do you mean you don't go to that part of town?
Click to expand...

You think there's a "special" part of town for drug use? Cocaine used to be in Coca-Cola<tm>. Replaced by caffeine. Did they used to have special parts of town for Coke drinkers? Why not? Well, the difference between then and now was that cocaine was legal.

---

Now, having said that, I might admit that crack, SPECIFICALLY, would impact an addict's life on its own. That's because the withdrawl comes so quickly that it would be difficult to work without a dose then do it only at home.

But why do we have crack in the first place? Mostly because it's more easily transportable and concealable than cocaine powder. It was developed in response to busybodies' hissy fits over cocaine use.

Now, as to cocaine use itself, absent drug testing, there are plenty of people who were pretty productive in the '80s using cocaine WHILE ON THE JOB, let alone just using at home.

You want to call cocaine (crack) a drug but not alcohol. Not everything is a drug. But you have picked an interesting place to draw the line, between alcohol and all other psychoactive drugs. How do you know where to draw this line? Do you know what makes the various "drugs", including alcohol, work? I do. That's why it's no surprise to me at all that deaths attributable to alcohol outstrip those attributable to the next-most-deadly drug by a very long distance.

Admit it. You simply arbitrarily like alcohol and don't like drugs and that's that.

And (to get back to the topic at hand) that is why you support MMs for drug violations. Just because. That's it. Because you and people like you just don't like drugs, we have become a MM society.

But now you don't like it because a MM law has been applied to something you DO like.

Shoulda thought of that before, no?
 
I find it interesting that we need to compare commercially distilled alcohol to home-brewed crack cocaine to emphasize the the difference between alcohol and drugs. More honest comparisons would be crack to moonshine, fermented in lead soldered radiators, OR commercially distilled alcohol to Medially Approved Marijuana.

Suddenly the disparity becomes a bit more blurred. Also interesting to note: Pot smugglers go to prison for decades; moonshiners get fines. Anybody ever seen the effects of lead poisoning on the human brain? Pretty ugly.

That said, if this devolves into a debate on drug legalization, I'm gonna have to close it and ask y'all to start a new topic.
Rich
 
As per Rich's request I'm dropping the drug issue save this one thought. If you think that if legalizing crack tomorrow would mean that businesses would just drop drug testing, people could fit their habit in with a 9 to 5 job, and the dealers wouldn't find some other product to fill the black market void then you're about the most naive and shortsighted person on this board.
 
I'll let the numbers speak for themselves on the drug issue.

Meanwhile, back to mandatory minima, which is more thread related, I'll add that they can be fought by becoming a fully informed juror (i.e., knowing that, as a juror in ANY type of case, you can refuse to convict if you simply don't like the law) and not shirking jury duty.
 
i.e., knowing that, as a juror in ANY type of case, you can refuse to convict if you simply don't like the law
Click to expand...

Ummm... no you can't. Thats one of the questions that attys usually ask when cutting the jury and usually gets some people booted. The charge will give specific instructions stating that the decision must not be a referendum on the law or other extraneous stuff.

Can you do it, yes. Are you violating procedure and justice yes.
 
Rich,
Mandatory Mins have given us the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on earth. Do you believe they've made you quantifiably more safe? Do you believe they threaten your freedoms, given the very possible occurrence that you might someday make a "judgment error" just like these cops?
Click to expand...
I haven’t ignored your point, but I think it deserved some serious cogitation, which I have given it.

I don’t have a problem with mandatory minimum sentences. The issue here isn’t that they were sentenced to 10 plus years. If they truly are guilty of what they were convicted of, then it’s a pretty reasonable sentence; they shot an unarmed and non-threatening man in the back. The fact that he was a "badguy" doesn't justify shooting him.

However, if they aren’t guilty of what they were convicted of, and the scenario really did unfold as they claim, then even one day in prison is excessive. Even parole is excessive. The legal world operates on the “reasonable man” concept. Would a reasonable man have come to the same conclusion as either of those two PA’s given the information available to them at the time? If so, then any conviction of wrong doing is unfair, and any sentence is unreasonable.
 
Blackwater OPS,
Because he lost his integrity when he lied and tried to cover up what really happened, even if what really happened was legit. A judge cannot take the word of a liar, cop or not.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of information that questions whether or not they actually did try to cover anything up. According to them, they notified a supervisor. If they notified a supervisor of what happened, they didn’t coverup anything, and their integrity shouldn’t be suspect.
 
Can you do it, yes. Are you violating procedure and justice yes.
Click to expand...

Violating procedure? Sounds like something Benny Hill could make fun of.

From FIJA's website:

"Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as advice."

So much for "procedure", which is just another word for what the government would like you to do. That's the same government, by the way, which would just as soon skip the whole trial thing and move right on to sentencing.

You think I'd be violating justice. I don't. You probably think that justice is served by withholding from the jury what the (MM or not) potential sentence is, too. I don't. I think justice is letting the punishment fit the crime. I think a jury should know precisely what it is doing if it votes to convict.

A smart prosecutor would not ask *me* whether I knew what jury nullification is. The one time I got to a courtroom to undergo selection, it was not mentioned, and I certainly wasn't about to volunteer it. The process (a county felony court) was that the prosecutor first stands and asks if anyone is or has (a list of things) please speak up, then starts down the line asking a list of a few questions to each juror. Never was such a concept even remotely suggested.

In fact, when the prosecutor was done, the defense started asking questions. About the 4th juror then replied to one of his questions that she thought "all defense attorneys were scumbags" and went on to describe how her daughter's rapist was acquitted. That ended that. The entire group was on its way home within 10 minutes.

The point is, when she said that, she poisoned the group. Not just for that jury. For the whole year. We were specifically told to leave the courthouse, not go back to the big waiting hall unless we needed to get a certificate for our bosses.

Now I ask you. Would a smart prosecutor *really* want to poison a whole jury by making them aware of their capabilities? Does he really want to risk that, when asked "do you know what jury nullification is?", the potential juror will ask "do you mean that thing that says jurors are allowed to judge whether a law is fair or not and vote accordingly, regardless of a judge's instructions?"?

The jury that convicted the border patrol agents is not likely to have known what that MM was. Could easily be that one or more of them is horrified today about what they unwittingly did to them. You think that's justice? I don't.
 
ahenry:

What if the facts are that they did something sort of in between? Shouldn't it be possible for a jury to find guilt on a lesser charge or for a judge to consider intent and give a lower sentence?
 
ahenry-
There is a disturbing trend in our society to conclude, on the basis of media reports, that 12 of our peers must truly be morons; that, had "we" only been on the jury, justice would have been properly served.

I think if any of us is about to jump to such conclusion, he owes it to himself to first read the entire transcript. I'm not about to. Nor do I need to, as I'm giving the Benefit of Doubt to the impartial twelve who heard all the evidence rather than the two with a vested interest in calling those twelve incompetent.

Rich
 
he owes it to himself to first read the entire transcript
Click to expand...

And even that is not enough, as the demeanor of the witness does not show through.

Thats why you rarely see jury verdict overturned as being against the weight of the evidence, as the appellate courts will not substitute their judgement over the trier of fact who is in a postion to SEE and HEAR the evidence.

WildblackstoneAlaska
 
From FIJA's website:

"Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury at all. Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but you may also do your own thinking. Keep in mind that no juror's oath is enforceable, and that you may regard all "instructions" as advice."
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bunk. If what you say is true, then why can a juror be bounced for cause if they state that they cannot render a decision because they are against the death penalty, or because they don't thnk the system is fair.

The judges instructions are not "advice" to be followed. They are instruction which are explicit. From the pattern jury charge...

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: This case is submitted to you by asking questions about the facts, which you must decide from the evidence you have heard in this trial. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, but in matters of law, you must be governed by the instructions in this charge. In discharging your responsibility on this jury, you will observe all the instructions which have previously been given you. I shall now give you additional instructions which you should carefully and strictly follow during your deliberations.

2. In arriving at your answers, consider only the evidence introduced here under oath and such exhibits, if any, as have been introduced for your consideration under the rulings of the court, that is, what you have seen and heard in this courtroom, together with the law as given you by the court. In your deliberations, you will not consider or discuss anything that is not represented by the evidence in this case.

4. You must not decide who you think should win, and then try to answer the questions accordingly. Simply answer the questions, and do not discuss nor concern yourselves with the effect of your answers

So once again, while there is no way an attorney would be able to prove you rendered a verdict based on improper motives, it is the obligation of the jurors to follow the law and the directions of the judge as he has given them.
 
Well, you can follow any obligation you like.

Countering your argument here will come mostly from drug case examples, and I dont want to drag the thread back there again.

FIJA has a website, and anyone who wants to can inspect it (or not) and make up their own mind what's the right thing to do.

Generally, jury nullification is a way, short of armed revolution, to counter the foisting of unpopular punishments onto the public by politicians pandering to a minority of fools. And it was written of as such by at least some of the Founding Fathers.

Edit:

For their split-second decisions during their 15-minute pursuit of the drug smuggler, the two agents were convicted in a trial where important evidence was withheld from the jury, and where the dubious testimony of the smuggler, who was granted immunity by the U.S. government, was used against them
Click to expand...

I just realized I didn't have to invoke a drug case at all. This very case, if you believe the article, illustrates what goes on.

I call offering such immunities and withholding evidence "tampering with evidence". While I'm a juror, I decree it to be so.

Such tampering shows that the government has failed to uphold its obligation to give the defendant a fair trial. That releases me of any "obligation" other than to do what I think is right.
 
Last edited:
FIJA has a website, and anyone who wants to can inspect it (or not) and make up their own mind what's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, the FIJA isn't a governmental agency nor an entity with any legal authority. Quite the contrary their mission statement makes it very clear what kind of organization they are...

Thank you for your interest in the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). This information will give you an overview of our purpose and projects. I hope that when you have finished exploring this site, you will decide to become a supporter. As I am sure you know, the highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical prosecutions and bad laws imposed by a power-hungry government.

I don't know about you but protecting fellow citizens from government is not the function of a jury... at least thats not what they told me in law school.

This is a joke of an organization. As any judge or any attorney and they will tell you the exact same thing I have said. Following the judges instructions are not optional. As a juror you aren't supposed to make a decision based on anything but the evidence. You can weigh the evidence and determine which is credible or not, but extraneous things like not agreeing with the law or the punishment are not to be taken into account.

If you disagree with me then please explan why (excluding everything else I've said) why jury charges are designed to not let jurors know of the results of their decision.
 
I don't know about you but protecting fellow citizens from government is not the function of a jury... at least thats not what they told me in law school.

This is a joke of an organization. As any judge or any attorney and they will tell you the exact same thing I have said. Following the judges instructions are not optional. As a juror you aren't supposed to make a decision based on anything but the evidence. You can weigh the evidence and determine which is credible or not, but extraneous things like not agreeing with the law or the punishment are not to be taken into account.

If you disagree with me then please explan why (excluding everything else I've said) why jury charges are designed to not let jurors know of the results of their decision.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the weasels are advising the foxes about how to conduct a show trial in the henhouse courtroom.

badbob
 
Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the weasels are advising the foxes about how to conduct a show trial in the henhouse courtroom.
Click to expand...

God forbid you get busted, you will have to just deny the courts jurisdiction over you...perhaps one of those Montana Militia type trials will work....

WilddoyoulookgoodinorangeAlaska
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top