michibilly
New member
I've been reading here for a while, and I had to register just to respond to that. What would you do if someone robbed you ?
Overstuffed prisons leave convicted armed robbers at large
- Thread starter mvpel
- Start date
I've been reading here for a while, and I had to register just to respond to that. What would you do if someone robbed you ?
Many of us do and trying to open the minds of anti-drug folks is as important to us as trying to open the minds of anti-gun folk
Ok, now I see why you are so vocal on the subject; you are pro-drug. I do not want to debate the issues of drug control as it does not really belong on this forum. I know you are linking the drug control to guns just as our lawmakers do, but it's getting a bit off base on the intent of the forum imo, not to mention a lengthy subject with myriad views and scientific as well as social studies to contend with.
Innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason to believe that he was violent any more than anyone here has reason to believe you or I are violent.
He was not charged with a crime of violence afaik, a statement was made that he is harmless, I merely responded that we do not know that for fact. Applying the same logic to a police officer on his way to arrest an individual who is armed but has not demonstrated any violence; would the officer have no reason to believe the suspect would become violent? After all he hasn't been found guilty of any violence, I believe probable cause would apply.
Wrong. The very reason so many violent offenders are on the streets so soon is because the nonviolent drug offendors (non-violent in the sense that they are in prison for victimless crimes) don't get the same leniency as rapists, burglars and sometimes even killers. No, he has plenty to worry about because for some idiotic reason people think it's worse to sell a ****ing plant than it is to beat someone to within an inch of their life and thus drug charges are punished more severely than other crimes.
Wrong indeed; dealing drugs is not a victimless crime, as I already stated I am not going to go off topic and get into all of the social impacts of drug dealing, but it is most definitely not victimless.
Right, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. You seem to think it's ok for a guy that has not been proven to have harmed a single living soul is put behind bars
Could you supply some information as to the 'proof' that he has not harmed a single living soul? I don't think that point would have been argued in the case brought against him. You're fond of 'what if's' so what if one of his buyers was commiting burgalries to fund his habit, was the burgalry victim not harmed financially? Have we not just found a victim? Whether directly or indirectly Mr. Weldon's actions may have (and most likely did) cause some harm to some living souls.
oh and as for the death penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye because our justice system is so perfect and no innocent man ever ends up on death row. I'm sure you'd say the same if a member of your family was falsely convicted of murder 1
If my choices in that situation were to live in jail for the rest of my life on the hope that the injustice would be undone, or death...I would choose death. I never claimed the system was perfect, but I do believe in an eye for an eye.
Interesting that a future Marine would be anti-death penalty, how would you respond to an order to fire upon what you believed to be an innocent Iraqi?
Ok, now I see why you are so vocal on the subject; you are pro-drug. I do not want to debate the issues of drug control as it does not really belong on this forum. I know you are linking the drug control to guns just as our lawmakers do, but it's getting a bit off base on the intent of the forum imo, not to mention a lengthy subject with myriad views and scientific as well as social studies to contend with.
Innocent until proven guilty. We have no reason to believe that he was violent any more than anyone here has reason to believe you or I are violent.
He was not charged with a crime of violence afaik, a statement was made that he is harmless, I merely responded that we do not know that for fact. Applying the same logic to a police officer on his way to arrest an individual who is armed but has not demonstrated any violence; would the officer have no reason to believe the suspect would become violent? After all he hasn't been found guilty of any violence, I believe probable cause would apply.
Wrong. The very reason so many violent offenders are on the streets so soon is because the nonviolent drug offendors (non-violent in the sense that they are in prison for victimless crimes) don't get the same leniency as rapists, burglars and sometimes even killers. No, he has plenty to worry about because for some idiotic reason people think it's worse to sell a ****ing plant than it is to beat someone to within an inch of their life and thus drug charges are punished more severely than other crimes.
Wrong indeed; dealing drugs is not a victimless crime, as I already stated I am not going to go off topic and get into all of the social impacts of drug dealing, but it is most definitely not victimless.
Right, and that's what I'm disagreeing with. You seem to think it's ok for a guy that has not been proven to have harmed a single living soul is put behind bars
Could you supply some information as to the 'proof' that he has not harmed a single living soul? I don't think that point would have been argued in the case brought against him. You're fond of 'what if's' so what if one of his buyers was commiting burgalries to fund his habit, was the burgalry victim not harmed financially? Have we not just found a victim? Whether directly or indirectly Mr. Weldon's actions may have (and most likely did) cause some harm to some living souls.
oh and as for the death penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye because our justice system is so perfect and no innocent man ever ends up on death row. I'm sure you'd say the same if a member of your family was falsely convicted of murder 1
If my choices in that situation were to live in jail for the rest of my life on the hope that the injustice would be undone, or death...I would choose death. I never claimed the system was perfect, but I do believe in an eye for an eye.
Interesting that a future Marine would be anti-death penalty, how would you respond to an order to fire upon what you believed to be an innocent Iraqi?
I've been reading here for a while, and I had to register just to respond to that. What would you do if someone robbed you ?
The point is that he is engaged in an activity that can lead to such acts, I would be well within my rights to defend myself if I was being robbed at gunpoint, I do not think the same rights extend to someone while commiting a felony since having the gun whilst doing so is an additional felony.
The point is that he is engaged in an activity that can lead to such acts, I would be well within my rights to defend myself if I was being robbed at gunpoint, I do not think the same rights extend to someone while commiting a felony since having the gun whilst doing so is an additional felony.
No, I'm pro-freedom.
This particular section of the forum is for "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues." and this thread was clearly pointed at the mandatory sentencing stemming from this man's drug charges. Yeah, the OP highlighted the gun portion but why ignore the real reason for the mandatory sentences in the first place?
Sorry but you're not going to prove that unless you're willing to say that your bartender and local gun store owner are as culpable to the negative social impacts of the wares they peddle.
Why should I? Innocent until proven guilty. Or should a prospective gun owner have to provide "proof" that he has never harmed a single living soul before purchasing a firearm?
Your arguments are identical to the ones anti-gunners use against us. Starting to see the connection now?
And what should give you the right to make that decision for someone else?
So what happens when you take the wrong man's eye? Who takes the eyes of the justice system when it executes an innocent man?
Never said I was anti-death penalty. I simply see that there are too many flaws in the system to use it. Eye witnesses have been proven grossly unreliable time after time after time after time after time and forensics - like any science - is never perfect.
I'll have to cross that bridge if I ever come to it. Depends on whether or not I feel it's an unlawful order that I'm obligated to disobey.
michibilly
New member
So you think a man should think "oh im selling weed so I cant defend myself " when he gets a nick plated .22 waved at him ? I thought you RTKABA folks all thought self defense was a right EVERYONE had.
This particular section of the forum is for "Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues." and this thread was clearly pointed at the mandatory sentencing stemming from this man's drug charges. Yeah, the OP highlighted the gun portion but why ignore the real reason for the mandatory sentences in the first place?
I am only going by the posted forum rules. I figure the issue to be that a gun was in possesion while commiting a felony, the drugs are just the vehicle used to get to the topic of guns and their impact on sentencing, otherwise if this is intended to be a topic about how harmless some people think pot is, then it does not fit the forum rules as posted.
Sorry but you're not going to prove that unless you're willing to say that your bartender and local gun store owner are as culpable to the negative social impacts of the wares they peddle.
If the bartender or gun store owner legally sold his wares your argument is flawed, if however they sold them illegaly then I would hold them accountable to a certain degree.
Why should I? Innocent until proven guilty. Or should a prospective gun owner have to provide "proof" that he has never harmed a single living soul before purchasing a firearm?
Your arguments are identical to the ones anti-gunners use against us. Starting to see the connection now?
You stated that he was proven to to have not harmed a living soul, I am merely asking where this proof is since you acknowledged it's existance. Yes a prospective gun owner does have to prove that he has not committed a felony before being allowed to purchase, there can never be any definitive proof that the person has never harmed a living soul, but the background check does aim to limit gun ownership to what the law deems prudent.
No, I do not see the connection. You are in my opinion arguing that Mr. Weldon should have the right to sell pot. You are comparing illegal activities to legal ones.
And what should give you the right to make that decision for someone else?
Why I believe the right to vote gives you and I that right, the right to protest, the right to contact our lawmakers and voice our opinions. I don't recall specifically stating that I soley am making that decision, nor did I think I individually had that power, I simply stated it would be fine by me which is an opinion, of which I believe I am allowed to have.
Never said I was anti-death penalty. I simply see that there are too many flaws in the system to use it. Eye witnesses have been proven grossly unreliable time after time after time after time after time and forensics - like any science - is never perfect.
I'm not arguing that it is perfect, I just don't see the point of living a confined life with no possibility of parole, and being freed after years in jail, life will never be the same. Some people cling to life, no matter how poor the quality of that life is, I'm just not in that camp, nor do I expect anyone else to share the same view but that does not infringe upon my right to my opinion.
It seems that I'm being painted with a brush that is saying if I'm anti-drugs then I'm anti-gun as well. I don't see the connection, an illegal activity is being compared with a legal one.
I am only going by the posted forum rules. I figure the issue to be that a gun was in possesion while commiting a felony, the drugs are just the vehicle used to get to the topic of guns and their impact on sentencing, otherwise if this is intended to be a topic about how harmless some people think pot is, then it does not fit the forum rules as posted.
Sorry but you're not going to prove that unless you're willing to say that your bartender and local gun store owner are as culpable to the negative social impacts of the wares they peddle.
If the bartender or gun store owner legally sold his wares your argument is flawed, if however they sold them illegaly then I would hold them accountable to a certain degree.
Why should I? Innocent until proven guilty. Or should a prospective gun owner have to provide "proof" that he has never harmed a single living soul before purchasing a firearm?
Your arguments are identical to the ones anti-gunners use against us. Starting to see the connection now?
You stated that he was proven to to have not harmed a living soul, I am merely asking where this proof is since you acknowledged it's existance. Yes a prospective gun owner does have to prove that he has not committed a felony before being allowed to purchase, there can never be any definitive proof that the person has never harmed a living soul, but the background check does aim to limit gun ownership to what the law deems prudent.
No, I do not see the connection. You are in my opinion arguing that Mr. Weldon should have the right to sell pot. You are comparing illegal activities to legal ones.
And what should give you the right to make that decision for someone else?
Why I believe the right to vote gives you and I that right, the right to protest, the right to contact our lawmakers and voice our opinions. I don't recall specifically stating that I soley am making that decision, nor did I think I individually had that power, I simply stated it would be fine by me which is an opinion, of which I believe I am allowed to have.
Never said I was anti-death penalty. I simply see that there are too many flaws in the system to use it. Eye witnesses have been proven grossly unreliable time after time after time after time after time and forensics - like any science - is never perfect.
I'm not arguing that it is perfect, I just don't see the point of living a confined life with no possibility of parole, and being freed after years in jail, life will never be the same. Some people cling to life, no matter how poor the quality of that life is, I'm just not in that camp, nor do I expect anyone else to share the same view but that does not infringe upon my right to my opinion.
It seems that I'm being painted with a brush that is saying if I'm anti-drugs then I'm anti-gun as well. I don't see the connection, an illegal activity is being compared with a legal one.
So you think a man should think "oh im selling weed so I cant defend myself " when he gets a nick plated .22 waved at him ? I thought you RTKABA folks all thought self defense was a right EVERYONE had.
No, I don't think that. I asked if he would still be harmless if he was robbed, inferring that he would respond with violence, which would not have been necessary had he not been dealing illegal drugs. The likelihood of an armed drug dealer having to use his gun is much higher than your average law abiding citizen, in my estimation.
It seems this thread wants to debate pot as being harmless, which is in my opinion not what this forum is supposed to be about, but it seems to be unavoidable in answering any debate of previous posts. I don't think any of us that have responded are going to change our views and I don't think that there can be much more to expound upon, so feel free to have the last words.
No, I don't think that. I asked if he would still be harmless if he was robbed, inferring that he would respond with violence, which would not have been necessary had he not been dealing illegal drugs. The likelihood of an armed drug dealer having to use his gun is much higher than your average law abiding citizen, in my estimation.
It seems this thread wants to debate pot as being harmless, which is in my opinion not what this forum is supposed to be about, but it seems to be unavoidable in answering any debate of previous posts. I don't think any of us that have responded are going to change our views and I don't think that there can be much more to expound upon, so feel free to have the last words.
Anti-drug laws are responsible for mandatory sentencing laws, not anti-gun laws. This is intended to be a topic on how unjust the punishment is and when many people consider the act not even a crime in of itself - no different than a bartender pouring you your favorite shot - then it's even more unjust.
Because laws define what is right and wrong?
Read what I said.
That's a far cry from claiming someone has been proven to have not harmed anyone.me said:
So misdemeanors are not harmful?
I am arguing that putting a man behind bars for half a century for selling a plant is as stupid as putting a man behind bars for half a century for buying a gun that holds more than ten rounds. Just because Chicago doesn't allow guns does not mean it's suddenly immoral to do so within Chicago city limits. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right and just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. The bottom line remains that the punishment comes nowhere close to fitting the crime and once again drugs and guns are lumped into the same category by the government and the media but instead of gun owners realizing that the onyl reason they have any foot to stand on when fighting for the RKBA is because it's about FREEDOM they just buy into the same crap that Uncle Sam feeds them about the evil potheads and coke fiends ruining society and how they must be stopped.
"for the children"
True and if you actually believe that those rights apply to everyone and not just you and people who agree with you then you should understand why anti-drug laws are as unjust as anti-gun and anti-speech laws.
Please tell me you're not actually suggesting that allowing innocent men to be executed can be justified because life in prison sucks. Please tell me I misinterpreted that paragraph.
I'm not saying you're anti-gun, I'm pointing out that the same arguments that anti-gunners use against us are the same arguments that anti-drug people use. Many of the same justifications for gun laws stem from the "war on drugs".
In my state carrying a gun in public is illegal so just because you live in a state where you're allowed to doesn't mean that the comparison cannot be made. Laws do not and should not ever define morality.
In High School, when I smoked, I bought my weed from the dealer who then bought more weed from the local grower in the area. Who exactly was hurt?
Any violence is the result of there being no legal recourse to being cheated on a transaction or to settle disputes. Can you imagine the possible violence if there where no lemmon laws or courts to dispute broken contracts?
First, I'll don my asbestos underwear... 
In the original post, Judge Cassell stated he believed the mandatory sentence was "cruel, unjust and irrational". Okay, then, a judge states his belief it is so.
I know I have read enough quotes in court decisions that say that any law which is unconstitutional is null & void and need not be obeyed. Of course, the stickler is that one had to wait for a court to pronouce it unconstitional.
So Judge Cassell let the sentencing move forward, rather than making a finding from his bench that such sentencing was a violation of the 8th Amendment. In other words, he doesn't have the cojones (or research) to back up his mouth.
Someone wrote that the subject was an 11-time offender, however I saw no information to that effect posted or referenced (maybe I was lazy). Certainly one's criminal career can be taken into account during a sentencing hearing.
IF this was really his first offense -- i.e. the first time he'd ever been prosecuted beyond an infraction level offense -- I'd be the first to agree that the sentence is excessive, cruel and unusal. However, if evidence is shown that he has been identified as a gang member, drug user himself or had numerous prosecutions for drug offenses that will alter the facts.
Crosshair et al who have used pot - The fact that you used pot is not something to brag about.
There's no way to make that sound like an accomplishment.
As to who was hurt -- would you really care? Would you care about the youngster who tries pot, then has someone give him a freebie of crystal meth? Would you care that your dealer may have been selling to get money for his meth/coke/crack habit? Would you quit using pot or just find another dealer? Certainly not everyone who tries pot goes on to harder drugs. But pot suffices as a "low risk" come-on to youngsters, introducing them to other users, some of whom will offer harder drugs. Consider it in the same way you'd consider someone offering a teen girl an alcoholic beverage with "just a little" booze in it. Once she relaxes to the idea, the drinks get stronger until ... well, you get the idea.
Summing up - I'm disappointed that the Judge in the case did not have the testicular fortitude to make a judicial finding by which he could change the sentence. Let the appeals process sort it out. The sentence is not too harsh for career criminals, IMO and only knowing the man's history would tell us. (I'd expect The Post to leave out any mitigating factors.)
In the original post, Judge Cassell stated he believed the mandatory sentence was "cruel, unjust and irrational". Okay, then, a judge states his belief it is so.
I know I have read enough quotes in court decisions that say that any law which is unconstitutional is null & void and need not be obeyed. Of course, the stickler is that one had to wait for a court to pronouce it unconstitional.
So Judge Cassell let the sentencing move forward, rather than making a finding from his bench that such sentencing was a violation of the 8th Amendment. In other words, he doesn't have the cojones (or research) to back up his mouth.
Someone wrote that the subject was an 11-time offender, however I saw no information to that effect posted or referenced (maybe I was lazy). Certainly one's criminal career can be taken into account during a sentencing hearing.
IF this was really his first offense -- i.e. the first time he'd ever been prosecuted beyond an infraction level offense -- I'd be the first to agree that the sentence is excessive, cruel and unusal. However, if evidence is shown that he has been identified as a gang member, drug user himself or had numerous prosecutions for drug offenses that will alter the facts.
Crosshair et al who have used pot - The fact that you used pot is not something to brag about.
There's no way to make that sound like an accomplishment. As to who was hurt -- would you really care? Would you care about the youngster who tries pot, then has someone give him a freebie of crystal meth? Would you care that your dealer may have been selling to get money for his meth/coke/crack habit? Would you quit using pot or just find another dealer? Certainly not everyone who tries pot goes on to harder drugs. But pot suffices as a "low risk" come-on to youngsters, introducing them to other users, some of whom will offer harder drugs. Consider it in the same way you'd consider someone offering a teen girl an alcoholic beverage with "just a little" booze in it. Once she relaxes to the idea, the drinks get stronger until ... well, you get the idea.
Summing up - I'm disappointed that the Judge in the case did not have the testicular fortitude to make a judicial finding by which he could change the sentence. Let the appeals process sort it out. The sentence is not too harsh for career criminals, IMO and only knowing the man's history would tell us. (I'd expect The Post to leave out any mitigating factors.)
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Seems to me the real point here keeps getting stated and overlooked.
This is not a debate about legality of law, but about morality of law. If L&P was intended to be a place where only legality could be debated, we'd be requiring Members to submit their ABA credentials prior to posting.
The argument that laws must be obeyed is astoundingly superficial, and quite circular, in the context of whether those laws are fair, just and equitable. Injustice occurs in just societies; when it does, it is completely relevant for citizens to publicly discuss those injustices and to condemn those responsible for the injustice. In fact, it's pretty much an obligation of Free Men.
So, the question remains on the table: "Were it your son, brother or father who received this sentence for this crime, would y'all consider just or not?"
Rich
This is not a debate about legality of law, but about morality of law. If L&P was intended to be a place where only legality could be debated, we'd be requiring Members to submit their ABA credentials prior to posting.
The argument that laws must be obeyed is astoundingly superficial, and quite circular, in the context of whether those laws are fair, just and equitable. Injustice occurs in just societies; when it does, it is completely relevant for citizens to publicly discuss those injustices and to condemn those responsible for the injustice. In fact, it's pretty much an obligation of Free Men.
So, the question remains on the table: "Were it your son, brother or father who received this sentence for this crime, would y'all consider just or not?"
Rich
I'm not trying to. It's just a statemest of fact. Like someone stating that they smoke/smoked tobacco. The fact is that pot is less dangerous than tobacco and it isn't some gateway drug that some people accuse it of being.
What if the person is selling the underage kid cigarettes or alcohol and does that. Very little of the "bad stuff" happens because of the drug itself.(Depends on the drug we are talking about of course.) It happens because it is illegal. You could ban Dr. Pepper soda and there would be violence associated with the trade of it. If people want something, they will pay for it. That is capitalisim. To fight and go against that is to simply waste time, money, and effort. The only role that government should play is to ensure that the consumer is getting exactly what they are told they are getting.
If Heroin where legal, would I use it? No I would not. I don't drink that much even though alcohol is legal. Just because something is legal does not mean someone will go out and use it. Just because something is illegal does not mean people will stop using it. If you want out looking to buy drugs you will find someone who will sell to you without much effort.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Words cannot describe how absurd this is.
But for good measure, I will ask:
How can just *carrying* a gun, without ever pulling it out, when selling dope, possibly be construed as "using a firearm in FURTHERANCE" of the crime?!? In what way, specifically, did this hidden gun "further" the crime - ya know, since the buyer didn't know a gun existed? I'll admit I don't get it.
But for good measure, I will ask:
How can just *carrying* a gun, without ever pulling it out, when selling dope, possibly be construed as "using a firearm in FURTHERANCE" of the crime?!? In what way, specifically, did this hidden gun "further" the crime - ya know, since the buyer didn't know a gun existed? I'll admit I don't get it.
Very good point FirstFreedom. If he had a dildo in his pocket would they charge him with a sex crime? If I have a flask of alcohol in my pocket and I'm talking to some underage friends am I guilty of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"? Even if they never see or know I have some burbon in my possesion?
FirstFreedom
Moderator
No, ATW, I believe that the statute which provides for enhanced sentencing for firearms violations during other underlying crimes, requires that the firearm be used "in furtherance of the crime" - using that precise language - "in furtherance". However, I could be wrong on that.
invention_45
New member
Explain why there's no way to make it sound like one and I'll explain why there is.
invention_45
New member
Also, it looks like the very title of this topic smacks of it being about Mandatory Minimum Sentences (MM). Far as I've been told (correct me, Rich), a legit topic here.
A guy who gives a phone number to another guy, then the two other guys turn out to be drug dealers, making the first guy subject to RICO laws, possibly getting a bigger sentence than a confessed rapist?
Regardless of what's legal and what's not, it's just plain stupid to jail someone for 55 years for what IS a victimless crime and to let a violent criminal go after 8 years for what is, to all but the terminally stupid, a dangerous violent crime (rape).
TonyM1: A crime that has, as a victim, the co-participant's half-brother's sister-in-law's aunt's next door neighbor leaves an awful lot of intermediaries to have been the cause of the victimization rather than the original "criminal".
Traditionally a criminal's victim is the person who files a complaint, which may then become charges.
Let's suppose I am raking my leaves. I rake'm into a nice neat pile, but the phone rings. I run in to answer and it's my ex-wife calling to complain ad nauseum about some trivial problem. After an hour of useless conversation, starts to rain. So I leave the pile of leaves there for a few days until I get off work. Meanwhile a coral snake decides my leaf pile would make a nice home and moves in. One large coral snake leads to several other small ones that then go and find other homes, growing to a respectable size. A few weeks later, a neighbor a few blocks away leaves his car window open overnight, and one of my snake's progeny makes its way into the car.
On his way to work, this neighbor feels something odd, and it turns out that the somethign is my snake crawling up inside his pants leg. He panics, swatting at the unknown but wiggling thing in his pants, which then bites him. While he's involved in all this, he fails to notice that he's crossing the I-95 median at 80 miles per hour. He hits a school bus full of kids, killing several of them and himself.
Am I a criminal, responsible for these deaths? Couldn't my ex-wife accept some culpability? Perhaps the unfortunate happenstance of rain? How about my neighbor's negligence in leaving his car windows open? Or perhaps his lack of intelligence by slapping something unknown crawling up his pants leg?
The unfortunate school children and the neighbor are my "victims", so that makes me a criminal, right?
As stupid as that story is, it's the same thing to blame the drug seller 6 people up the line for a carjacking victim's fate. The criminal is the carjacker. That he does it to pay for pot is irrelevant. That he does it instead of working is relevant.
So my "crime" of walking away from my pile of leaves, while it may ultimately have a victim, has no direct and linkable victim. Same with the pot seller. You have to twist logic beyond reason to find one. And then you'd be better off to charge the actual person who directly attacked THAT victim than you would be by attempting to trace the problem back to a drug dealer in the past.
This attempt to make a thing without an identifiable and complaining victim a crime is what is unjust. It is what makes it necessary to eat into the 4th amendment rights of the BoR in order to catch the "criminal", because there's no complainant. It's what's destroying our constitutional protections bit by bit.
Eventually, when the powers that be have panicked the public into making everything else illegal, they'll get around to the guns.
Then you'll be screaming your head off, but there won't be anybody who's either out of jail or not a former convict; nobody with any standing to scream with you.
When that happens, I hope you enjoy it.
A guy who gives a phone number to another guy, then the two other guys turn out to be drug dealers, making the first guy subject to RICO laws, possibly getting a bigger sentence than a confessed rapist?
Regardless of what's legal and what's not, it's just plain stupid to jail someone for 55 years for what IS a victimless crime and to let a violent criminal go after 8 years for what is, to all but the terminally stupid, a dangerous violent crime (rape).
TonyM1: A crime that has, as a victim, the co-participant's half-brother's sister-in-law's aunt's next door neighbor leaves an awful lot of intermediaries to have been the cause of the victimization rather than the original "criminal".
Traditionally a criminal's victim is the person who files a complaint, which may then become charges.
Let's suppose I am raking my leaves. I rake'm into a nice neat pile, but the phone rings. I run in to answer and it's my ex-wife calling to complain ad nauseum about some trivial problem. After an hour of useless conversation, starts to rain. So I leave the pile of leaves there for a few days until I get off work. Meanwhile a coral snake decides my leaf pile would make a nice home and moves in. One large coral snake leads to several other small ones that then go and find other homes, growing to a respectable size. A few weeks later, a neighbor a few blocks away leaves his car window open overnight, and one of my snake's progeny makes its way into the car.
On his way to work, this neighbor feels something odd, and it turns out that the somethign is my snake crawling up inside his pants leg. He panics, swatting at the unknown but wiggling thing in his pants, which then bites him. While he's involved in all this, he fails to notice that he's crossing the I-95 median at 80 miles per hour. He hits a school bus full of kids, killing several of them and himself.
Am I a criminal, responsible for these deaths? Couldn't my ex-wife accept some culpability? Perhaps the unfortunate happenstance of rain? How about my neighbor's negligence in leaving his car windows open? Or perhaps his lack of intelligence by slapping something unknown crawling up his pants leg?
The unfortunate school children and the neighbor are my "victims", so that makes me a criminal, right?
As stupid as that story is, it's the same thing to blame the drug seller 6 people up the line for a carjacking victim's fate. The criminal is the carjacker. That he does it to pay for pot is irrelevant. That he does it instead of working is relevant.
So my "crime" of walking away from my pile of leaves, while it may ultimately have a victim, has no direct and linkable victim. Same with the pot seller. You have to twist logic beyond reason to find one. And then you'd be better off to charge the actual person who directly attacked THAT victim than you would be by attempting to trace the problem back to a drug dealer in the past.
This attempt to make a thing without an identifiable and complaining victim a crime is what is unjust. It is what makes it necessary to eat into the 4th amendment rights of the BoR in order to catch the "criminal", because there's no complainant. It's what's destroying our constitutional protections bit by bit.
Eventually, when the powers that be have panicked the public into making everything else illegal, they'll get around to the guns.
Then you'll be screaming your head off, but there won't be anybody who's either out of jail or not a former convict; nobody with any standing to scream with you.
When that happens, I hope you enjoy it.
It does not use that wording at all.
(c)(1) Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, to imprisonment for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years. In the case of his second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to life imprisonment without release. (FOOTNOTE 1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the firearm was used or carried.
(FOOTNOTE 1) See 1988 Amendment note below.
(c)(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''drug trafficking crime'' means any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46 U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.).
(c)(3) For purposes of this subsection the term ''crime of
violence'' means an offense that is a felony and -
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.