• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Beloved ex-sheriff, 71, once named the best in America jailed for two years

LogicSoDeveloped

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,429
Beloved ex-sheriff, 71, once named the best in America jailed for two years after selling meth for sex with younger men

A judge on Thursday sentenced a former Colorado sheriff to 15 months in prison for repeatedly violating his probation in a meth-for-sex case, saying the lawman, who was once regarded as a hero, had exhausted his opportunities to reform.

Patrick Sullivan was sentenced two years after pleading guilty to plying young men with methamphetamine in exchange for sexual favors. The 71-year-old was once named the nation’s top sheriff and won praise for his leadership of the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department in the Denver suburbs.

‘I have a drug problem, and I have had a drug problem for some time,’ Sullivan said in court on Thursday, apologizing before Judge William Sylvester issued his sentence. ‘I have only myself to blame.’

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co...busted-victimless-crimes/#wocYffAgemZQ3d7O.99
 
That's a damn shame..

Meth really does take it's toll on it's users. A lot more than most of the other recreational drugs in my opinion (or at least it seems that way). What a terrible drug. It seems there are very few people that can regularly use meth and not be affected by the negative side effects. Very few. And if those 'lucky' few continue to use it long-term I think what I just said would be rephrased to "few to none" instead of just a few. That stuff gets you one way or another, time isn't a factor for it.
 
If both parties consented to the sex, what the hell is it The Establishment's business?

Are they more hurt about his lust for homosexual coitus? Or is it the meth?

Either way, this achieves absolutely nothing for them, in that, he will not be reformed by a stint in lock up.

In fact, tax payers will be paying the horny old goat's prison tab (up to $100,000 for 2 years) because he wanted another stick shift, and his partners desired to intoxicate themselves.

Now this guy is gonna be locked up in a place where bending over is commonplace, and meth is routinely smuggled in by guards chasing a raise.

Nothing "solved" whatsoever. Brilliant.
 
ro4eva said:
If both parties consented to the sex, what the hell is it The Establishment's business?

Are they more hurt about his lust for homosexual coitus? Or is it the meth?

Either way, this achieves absolutely nothing for them, in that, he will not be reformed by a stint in lock up.

In fact, tax payers will be paying the horny old goat's prison tab (up to $100,000 for 2 years) because he wanted another stick shift, and his partners desired to intoxicate themselves.

Now this guy is gonna be locked up in a place where bending over is commonplace, and meth is routinely smuggled in by guards chasing a raise.

Nothing "solved" whatsoever. Brilliant.
Click to expand...
Lay off the drugs. They are fucking your head.
 
ro4eva said:
If both parties consented to the sex, what the hell is it The Establishment's business?

Are they more hurt about his lust for homosexual coitus? Or is it the meth?

Either way, this achieves absolutely nothing for them, in that, he will not be reformed by a stint in lock up.

In fact, tax payers will be paying the horny old goat's prison tab (up to $100,000 for 2 years) because he wanted another stick shift, and his partners desired to intoxicate themselves.

Now this guy is gonna be locked up in a place where bending over is commonplace, and meth is routinely smuggled in by guards chasing a raise.

Nothing "solved" whatsoever. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's sort of fucked up when people exchange addictive drugs for sexual favors. Mainly because the person getting the drugs most likely wouldn't be there if they weren't addicted. The person receiving the sexual gratification is taking advantage of the other persons addiction.

I'm sure that's not always the case, but it's still wrong to take advantage of someone like that.
 
Carl Landrover said:
I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's sort of fucked up when people exchange addictive drugs for sexual favors. Mainly because the person getting the drugs most likely wouldn't be there if they weren't addicted. The person receiving the sexual gratification is taking advantage of the other persons addiction.

I'm sure that's not always the case, but it's still wrong to take advantage of someone like that.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, as I've also resorted to trading some valuable items for a number of fixes, which I very deeply regret, because I also felt I was being taken advantage of big time.

On the other hand, the people who I did these transactions with did not seek me out at all. Rather, I sought them out. And they did not force me to do anything I didn't want to do either. In the end, it was always my choice whether to accept a trade, or walk away and no harm done.

Therefore, in my case, I feel that I have no one to blame but myself (regardless of the fact that I lost A LOT of money), as I was the one who proposed a trade of something of value for a fix (or a bunch of fixes). Even though I could argue that I wasn't thinking too clearly at the time because I was desperately trying to avoid withdrawal, I make no excuses for my actions.

But hey, at least I've never resorted to stealing to support my habit. At least I can have peace of mind in relation to that fact, but I digress.

Obviously I don't know this ex-sheriff at all. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard (read) about him, so I don't pretend to have any concrete answers.

That being said, if he and his ex-partners mutually consented to a trade of sex for a drug, and both parties fulfilled their "obligations" to one another - I really don't see what the big deal is.

Sorry, but even though meth may be especially hard on the body, I still believe that it falls under the category of mind-altering substances, just like alcohol, which happens to do quite a lot of damage to body in large amounts. And as such, I will continue to ignore any laws which dictate that I cannot hold any in my hands without permission from glorified bureaucrats who have succeeded in turning America and her allies into a bunch of nanny-police states.

If however, this ex-sheriff lured habitual meth users into a big lie, and gave them no meth after they did their thing, then yeah, I'd have a big fucking problem with that.

Another scenario which would warrant a lengthy prison term (in my opinion) would be for this ex-sheriff to be suffering from a sexually transmitted disease, such as HIV, and to not disclose this to his partners whatsoever.

And pmoseman, what is it this time?
 
ro4eva said:
If both parties consented to the sex, what the hell is it The Establishment's business?

Are they more hurt about his lust for homosexual coitus? Or is it the meth?

Either way, this achieves absolutely nothing for them, in that, he will not be reformed by a stint in lock up.

In fact, tax payers will be paying the horny old goat's prison tab (up to $100,000 for 2 years) because he wanted another stick shift, and his partners desired to intoxicate themselves.

Now this guy is gonna be locked up in a place where bending over is commonplace, and meth is routinely smuggled in by guards chasing a raise.

Nothing "solved" whatsoever. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.
Consensual sex is nobody's business but the people doing it.
I think the same thing about taking (and selling) drugs.
The government does not belong involved with this.
And their solution is not a solution.
ro4eva nailed this one. (and this is not the first time!)
 
ro4eva said:
If both parties consented to the sex, what the hell is it The Establishment's business?

Are they more hurt about his lust for homosexual coitus? Or is it the meth?

Either way, this achieves absolutely nothing for them, in that, he will not be reformed by a stint in lock up.

In fact, tax payers will be paying the horny old goat's prison tab (up to $100,000 for 2 years) because he wanted another stick shift, and his partners desired to intoxicate themselves.

Now this guy is gonna be locked up in a place where bending over is commonplace, and meth is routinely smuggled in by guards chasing a raise.

Nothing "solved" whatsoever. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People that are so quick to punish others and lock them up for extended periods of time seem to forget that we have to pay for that. THere is very little rehabilitation going on in jails/prisons. In fact, quite the opposite. Its a place to hone criminal skills and learn new tricks. I dont see a crime here but this is societies way of punishing those that go against the "norm".
 
Tiesto said:
That's a damn shame..

Meth really does take it's toll on it's users. A lot more than most of the other recreational drugs in my opinion (or at least it seems that way). What a terrible drug. It seems there are very few people that can regularly use meth and not be affected by the negative side effects. Very few. And if those 'lucky' few continue to use it long-term I think what I just said would be rephrased to "few to none" instead of just a few. That stuff gets you one way or another, time isn't a factor for it.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the destruction that alchohol can have on the person and those around him/her?
 
Thanks for the news, I am glad to hear it. Cops need to realize they are every bit subject to the law as the cattle (us) who they abuse on a daily basis. Maybe if a few more examples were made of law enforcement who flout their authority a fairer attitude could start shining forth. If you thin k I'm wrong I want you to check out www.informationliberation.com
 
I think it is a question of whether the guys he 'traded favors' with were in custody at the time. At 71 he is probably retired but not necessarily and the brief info here does not say. People in custody--or even on probation-- are at the mercy of their captors/law enforcement.
 
lcrlover said:
Thanks for the news, I am glad to hear it. Cops need to realize they are every bit subject to the law as the cattle (us) who they abuse on a daily basis. Maybe if a few more examples were made of law enforcement who flout their authority a fairer attitude could start shining forth. If you thin k I'm wrong I want you to check out www.informationliberation.com
Click to expand...

Why would i think your wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top