Gluttons for Punishment

Well doesn't that just fuckin figure.

And how original: "I'd engage in debate, but ...." [my argument holds no water]
 
Last edited:
ChemicalBeauty said:
<snip> comitting a FELONY while POSSESSING one has somewhat of a synergistic effect, and rightly so.

<snip> Don't any of you feel the need to protect the unassuming/innocent at all? Or it's just all about: "Yeah! Fuck the man, yo! Slang dat shit, G! More rights and lighter sentences for people knowingly engaging in high-risk, illegal behaviour while in possession of firearms!"? 8)
Click to expand...

Committing some random felony while possessing a gun should not neccessarily have a synergistic effect. Maybe a banker charged with felony fraud should have his charge jacked up because he had a gun in his briefcase? Violent felonies + guns should have some kind of synergy, but not non-violent felonies. If you want someone to get boned hard, then pick on the punk who starts pointing guns in a drug deal.

I'm sure you've got a picture in your head of little Sarah pretending to bake cookies for her tea-party of stuffed toys, and then she gets a bullet in the spine because some dealers next door had an argument over price. That's very tragic, but it's statistically unlikely, not just the cookies bit, the bullet bit too. What is much more statistically likely is that a non-violent offender who gets sent to prison for a long time will be a violent offender by the time they get out. At the very least, they have not only been unable to contribute to society by holding a job (like the subject of the story), they have cost society a great deal of money in prison funds.

You probably didn't expect this, but I pretty much agree with your "more rights and lighter sentences for people knowingly engaging in high-risk...." spiel that I've quoted above, but specifically for drugs charges. Why? Because according to the story that started this thread, the subject has less rights and a harsher sentence than people who commit much worse crimes (like murder, rape, robbery, assault...). Selling/buying a pound of weed should not be worth as much time as killing a person. In prison term, selling a pound of weed with a gun on you should be worth maybe an extra 10% of the drug charge term, not an extra 500%.
 
^all of your posts make good points and are very valid pity, it's funny and refreshing to see a self proclaimed senior member making an ass of themselves while a new member with 34 posts is so well spoken. You have my utmost respect.
 
Lemme let ya in on a little well known bluelight secret, newb: i'm about as popular as the plague around here. ;)

One Sara Cookiemaker (or hell, one 50yr old male who doesn't feel the need to BREAK THE RULES THAT WE MUST ALL ABIDE BY - armed, mind you) is worth 100 armed illicit drug traffickers in my opinion. Substitute "drug traffickers" for "car thieves" or "money launderers"- it's all the same. Not that I think narcotics are BAD, just that currently the "system", that we ALL ARE UNFORTUNATELY A PART OF, says we CANT. For the sake of order and protection of life, if you wanna bend the rules, don't do it with a fucking gun. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
 
ChemicalBeauty said:
One Sara Cookiemaker (or hell, one 50yr old male who doesn't feel the need to BREAK THE RULES THAT WE MUST ALL ABIDE BY - armed, mind you) is worth 100 armed illicit drug traffickers in my opinion. Substitute "drug traffickers" for "car thieves" or "money launderers"- it's all the same. Not that I think narcotics are BAD, just that currently the "system", that we ALL ARE UNFORTUNATELY A PART OF, says we CANT. For the sake of order and protection of life, if you wanna bend the rules, don't do it with a fucking gun. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...

It's not ok that I can get a lesser sentence for killing someone with a gun, than this guy did for selling a pound of weed on a few occasions while carrying a gun. I'm not disagreeing with there being some extra time attached, I'm disagreeing with the amount of extra time. I'd rather there were no guns at all, but there are, and that fact encourages sane people to carry them just in case other, crazier, people are carrying them.

I think I've expressed myself as best I can. Any further discussion will just grind on an insurmountable difference of opinion.
 
ChemicalBeauty,

Just chill out a bit, I too agree that there is a big difference being sentenced for a crime while USING a gun (ie: using your gun to commit a specific crime) and just mere possession of a gun (in this case strapped to his ankle) .

All this, even though gun possession is totally backwards in America and should not be allowed period but that's a subject for another debate.

Let me give you another example, if you were speeding away from the cops after running a stop sign, and you had a gun in your glove compartment, should you be charged with a greater offense because you had a mere possesion of the gun or the same as someone who did not have one ?

In both cases, the gun was not used to commit the crime. But because it was a drug case , it was *assumed* the person would be using the gun and hence got a much harsher sentence.
 
ChemicalBeauty said:
Lemme let ya in on a little well known bluelight secret, newb: i'm about as popular as the plague around here. ;)
Click to expand...

it's not difficult to see why
 
BREAK THE RULES THAT WE MUST ALL ABIDE BY
Click to expand...
Sorry to be the first to tell you, but just because somebody made a "RULE" doesn't magically neccessitate abiding by that rule. For example, suppose I made a rule that "ChemicalBeauty may never post on Bluelight again", would you abide by it? Fuck no you wouldn't!

A rational person decides which rules they choose to follow and not follow based upon their personal relative valuation of what they stand to gain or lose from following that rule versus not following that rule, taking into consideration the probabilities of the various outcomes. (read up on: Game Theory & Opportunity costs)

If somebody has discovered a crime which they did not feel was immoral (there is a cost inherant in violating one's own morals - depending on "how wrong" the person feels it is, the cost could dwarf ANY potential monitary gain) that would provide them $1000 worth of benefit, and it carried a 1% chance of getting caught, and a penalty equivalant to $10000, it would be rational for a person who felt that this risk is acceptible, (not greater than they are willing to lose) to break this rule.

An EXAMPLE for the mathematically inclined:
IF ((Benefits_of_Breaking_Rule * Probability_of_Success) - CostsOfBreakingRule [including moral costs] > Cost_of_getting_caught * Probability_of_failure) {
Break_the_rule()
} ELSE {
Don't_Break_the_rule()
}
// Note: usually Probability of Success = 1 - Probability of Failure, unless the 3rd possibility where the crime is not successful for reasons other than getting caught is considered.

This is ALWAYS the case when people are deciding to break the law... Although fewer people break the law than one might expect BECAUSE:
The cost of being locked in a tiny cage for DECADES is EXTREMELY high... one might caculate it like this:
Cost_of_imprisonment = Years_in_Prison * annual_earnings_potential + Lonelyness + Lost_Pleasure + Inability_to_raise_children [if applicable] + Years_of_effort_working_towards_goals_wasted [such as marrying the perfect wife, credits towards a degree, personal projects] + Decay_of_mental_and_physical_health_while_imprisoned + Loss_of_sanity + Loss_of_social_skills + Lost_friendships + Physical_and_mental_suffering + Loss_of_contributions_to_society [most people don't care too much what they're contributing to society, but I'd be pissed if I were contributing significantly to society and were imprisoned]
 
Last edited:
The Feds. have been enhancing sentences for many years in situations where a gun is involved in the commission of a crime or is found along with a certain quantity of illegal drugs. It is often referred to as "trigger locking".

If you simply ask yourself, "why would a person need a gun to engage in a drug deal?", you will understand why the enhancement is in place.

It is argued above that the mere existence of a gun should not enhance the sentences of all crimes, it does not. Running a stop sign whilst having a gun in your glove box is simply not analogous to a gun being in the home of a drug trafficker.

Drugs and guns do not mix well.
 
Woah.

Don't get me wrong, I think most illegal drugs should be legal. But that's not the point. They ARE illegal.
...
Do I think everything he did should be legal? Yes (assuming he was legally in possession of the gun).
...
One Sara Cookiemaker (or hell, one 50yr old male who doesn't feel the need to BREAK THE RULES THAT WE MUST ALL ABIDE BY - armed, mind you) is worth 100 armed illicit drug traffickers in my opinion. Substitute "drug traffickers" for "car thieves" or "money launderers"- it's all the same.
Click to expand...
So you think that the law is wrong, and that drugs should be legal, but someone who also thinks that and is prepared to deal with 'illegal, shady shit' is suddenly worth 1% of a regular human being? Yes, he was after profit, and we really don't know what sort of intentions he had whilst carrying the gun. That still doesn't justify 55 years. The law is deliberating screwing him over, using a legal technicality, and you know it.

By your reckoning, everyone who carries guns, legally or otherwise, should be dealt with harshly for any sort of infringement. It doesn't need to be a shady drug deal for an innocent to cop a bullet.

Not that I think narcotics are BAD, just that currently the "system", that we ALL ARE UNFORTUNATELY A PART OF, says we CANT. For the sake of order and protection of life, if you wanna bend the rules, don't do it with a fucking gun. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...
So if the 'system' thinks we shouldn't do something, and we (and a million others) happen to disagree, too bad. We should just shut up and let the lawmakers control our lives.

This case has nothing to do with 'the order and protection of life'; it is the result of the draconian measures instituted by vindictive, frightened conservatives who refuse to see the damage caused by their hysterical War On Drugs (TM).
 
PottedMeat said:
<snip> If you simply ask yourself, "why would a person need a gun to engage in a drug deal?", you will understand why the enhancement is in place.
<snip>
Drugs and guns do not mix well.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that most people engaging in big-money drug deals don't want to fire or even brandish their guns, but I'm even more sure that they don't want to lose all their money/drugs to some extra-dodgy guy that did bring a gun. I really think that only the discharge/display of a gun should carry much extra time (and even then, probably not 55 years). I don't see this as anything but a transparent effort to jack up charges against some guy that's cursing children (babies, even!) with Reefer Madness.

Also, guns don't mix well with anything, but like they say: "When in Rome...". I agree that it'd be best if no drug dealers carried guns, but if not everyone obeys that law, then probably noone will, because they like to keep their money/goods safe from the people who are carrying guns.

[I know I already said this, but now I'm really sure I've said everything I need to :)]

[edit: had two words transposed; I couldn't sleep until I fixed it]
 
Last edited:
Dude, I've been gettting as wasted as possible for as long as I can remember on all types of shit. However, I try and do so responsibly. I work 40-50hrs a week. I take a cab when I go out so I don't have to drive home cross-eyed risking my life, other people's lifes or my freedom. I (legally) own two guns. I am an advocate of the right to bear arms. I am aware of the difference in felony amounts of possesion and non-felony amounts ... is this not "harm minimization"? Because 55yrs for bringing your gun to make an untaxed $3k sounds pretty fuckin "harmful" to me.

And if it's not painfully obvious by my responses in this thread, I've known numerous people in my younger years (or known through a friend) who thought bringing their dads little .22 or some type of hangun to their little drug deal in the safeway parking lot at midnight was a good idea, only to end up gettting arrested, shot or shooting someone (like the other guys girlfriend) incidentally.

Scarface is just a fucking movie. You wanna "bring da war mang" you better take your ass to columbia or afghanistan or something. Cause in the US, your ass will get handed to you (see: 55yrs).

Advocating legalization is one thing. Advocating violence coupled with illegal activity is another.

Oh, and I love all the anarchists in here "just cause it's a law, does't mean those of us who disagree with it should have to follow it." rofl Write us all from Guantanamo :D It's people like you that keep the "mainstream" from taking anything anyone has to say about legalization seriously, for the most part. Tell me, how does it feel to actually be hurting the cause you so passionately think you're defending?
 
Last edited:
^^Well, because you use illicit drugs you support this type of thing happening, so if you believe so strongly I would suggest you do your part to keep the world safe from people who don't even use a weapon in a commision in a crime and...quit using and supporting this type of action...

...or you could try having a little empathy for people.

The guy did not deserve the time he got when people who molest their own children recieve ten years and serve 4.
 
I think ChemicalBeauty is absolutely right. The guy got what was coming to him, may be 55 years is a bit stern, but hell, how else do you suppose the government can influence the drug (marijuana) traffic? By decriminalizing weed? wake up. I agree that marijuana should be legal, but UNDER THE CURRENT SITUATION i think what happened is rather reasonable.


also, Who mE? : like it or not, THE RULES indeed ARE there for us TO ABIDE BY.. you better learn to live with that fact unless you wanna end up like that Angelo fella. The Law is THE law because it must be the same for everybody in order to be useful. Have you heard the saying "Justice is blind"? That said your free-spirited babbling may be reasonable but is laughable none the less. If you feel so strongly about your convictions I suggest you go to equatorial Africa or something, people are much more laid back about this sorta thing there, however if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a developed country and being a productive member of the civilized part of humanity - you need to learn to respect the law.

skjalff
 
Last edited:
^^"The law is The law" ??? Dude, if people thought like that we'd still have prohibition on Alcohol and we would have slavery perfectly legal.

I think you are the one who needs to wake up, we have laws in democratic society but the unjust laws can be changed if enough people belive and participate in the democratic process.
 
Crazeee said:
^^"The law is The law" ??? Dude, if people thought like that we'd still have prohibition on Alcohol and we would have slavery perfectly legal.

I think you are the one who needs to wake up, we have laws in democratic society but the unjust laws can be changed if enough people belive and participate in the democratic process.
Click to expand...


Crazee, how did you manage to retort to his post with ^ that? Did you honestly infer, from what skjalff posted, that he thinks the masses should lay down and accept every law a government imposes on it's citizens? It sounded to you, like he isn't someone in support of law change peacefully, non-violenty and democratically?

And this "democratic process" that you speak of involves concealed weapons and the illict sale of contraband? Which part specifically (in this "democratic process") justifies breaking current laws with your glock in tow?

You've got to be kidding me. I feel like I'm listening to my best friend from back in 7th grade tell me how we don't have to do anything our parents, teachers or the cops say because-- WE DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THEIR FUCKING LAWS! 8( That shit got real old real quick.
 
Last edited:
Chemical Beauty-

Could you please respond to my comment? How do you rationalize your posistion on the basis that you support the impetus for something like this to happen?
 
i just dont get you people, should i go: "ohh poor thing.. 55 years OMG those fucking authorities!! Oh the shame!!" Is that it? Well, the law is sometimes cruel and unyielding (AS ARE OUR LIVES IN GENERAL) and the guy got roooyally screwed (by the direct letter of the law no less).. OK so what??! 200,000 innocent people just got their lives taken in south-east asia just like that, and another ~800,000 left homeless. I say - live in US and be mighty well happy that YOU will be taken care of. Some drug dealer is not a huge loss for the society anyway. If you wanna change something - go and do something to help your cause and change the legislation, not break the law and then whine your pants off when you get put away.



skjalff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top