Philzone.org Discussion Board: Archive 2004: Politics Archive 2004: 55 Years for a Few Bags of Pot

November 17, 2004
55 Years for a Few Bags of Pot
Weldon Angelos, founder of the rap music label Extravagant Records, was sentenced yesterday to 55 years in federal prison for selling a few bags of marijuana. U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell, who imposed the sentence, called it "unjust, cruel, and even irrational" but said his hands were tied by mandatory minimums for people who engage in drug trafficking while possessing a gun: five years for the first offense and 25 years for each subsequent offense. Angelos was convicted of three counts for carrying a pistol in an ankle holster twice and in a briefcase once while selling marijuana on three occasions. He never took the gun out, let alone used it.

He would have been better off if he had. If Angelos had merely murdered his customers instead of selling them pot, his sentence probably would have been lighter. Cassell noted that the same day he sentenced Angelos, he gave 22 years to a man convicted of beating an old woman to death with a log.

Posted by Jacob Sullum at 10:11 AM | Comments (1)

What blog did you pick that one up from? I'd like to link it to mine.

Search the web..there are many articles.

That will teach that low life scum.. straight to prison with you!

Yer Momma always said, that Rap music would lead you to no good . . .

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

Well, I hate to say it, but its just going to get worse (especially since George W found religion - the hypocrit!). Listened to a piece on NPR the other day where a guy was pulled over for speeding and another cop came along with a drug sniffing dog and found pot in the speeders trunk. This case is going to the supreme court and talk is that this sort of tactic by the police is legal. Next thing you know, they'll be dropping into the local "park and ride" and will turn the hounds loose! I'm not paranoid, just concerned.

So get active.

.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/local/10203505.htm

Jail, or join the military

Judge gives option to man in drug case

By GEORGE B. SANCHEZ

Herald Staff Writer


SALINAS

The Salinas marijuana peddler who killed a would-be robber in March was told Tuesday that he can avoid a jail term by enlisting in the military--an option that caught the prosecutor and defense lawyer off guard.

Brian Barr, 24, was scheduled to be sentenced Tuesday morning for felony possession of marijuana for sale, a charge he admitted last month.

The charge stemmed from a March 22 home-invasion robbery at Barr's South Salinas apartment. He shot and killed intruder John Herrera, 34, who had entered the apartment with two others in search of money and marijuana.

Barr was charged with marijuana possession after investigators determined he had hidden his marijuana supply after the shooting and even rifled through Herrera's pants pockets to retrieve marijuana.

Monterey County Judge Robert Moody said Tuesday that Herrera's shooting was justified and that gun possession, not the shooting, was the aggravating factor.

"This very situation is apt to arise" when someone selling drugs also has access to a gun, Moody said.

After announcing that the Probation Department had recommended 240 days in jail, and praising the probation officer assigned to the case, Moody gave Barr the option of enlistment instead.

"There's an awful lot of good in this young man," said Moody, citing Barr's record as a student, his civic involvement and his intervention in a Salinas bank robbery last year. Barr's father, William, is the county superintendent of education.

Deputy District Attorney Todd Hornik and defense lawyer Sam Lavorato Jr. said they were surprised.

"It was not something I expected," Hornik said later. "I've never seen it come up unsolicited or uninitiated from the bench at sentencing, when it hasn't been discussed."

Lavorato said he hadn't expected such an outcome.

"Today was a day set for judgment and sentencing," he said immediately following the ruling. "But this is an unusual case."

Hornik said people convicted of drug-related crimes often are sent to treatment rather than jail. In Juvenile Court, he said, he has seen military enlistment used as an alternative sentence. But he said the option of jail or the Army, common during the 1960s and 1970s, isn't something he has heard used recently.

"I think this young man would be an excellent candidate for one of the armed services," Moody said. He said that when he was bused to Monterey as a draftee 30 years ago, many of the other young men on board had chosen the Army over jail.

Barr is scheduled to return to court next month.

>"I think this young man would be an excellent candidate for one of the armed services," Moody said. <

this is the most irresponsible statement i've ever heard a judge utter

what makes him an excellent candidate? his proclivity to ignore laws and be violent?

i got a 21 year old buddy who was busted for coke possession and hes joining the army to get the charges dropped.

Great idea to send armed cokeheads into the army..just f-in brilliant-

The laws suck, but this dude was not nonviolent he carried a gun

I happen to be pro-decriminilization
but anti-gun

I'm so torn about this rapper

oh well might as well goto a show unarmed and trip balls...right?

>>I happen to be pro-decriminilization
but anti-gun

If drugs were legalized, much of the violence of the drug trade would be eliminated.

I don't want to see armed criminals walking around either, but this is a manufactured crime.
This individual was presumably carrying that gun for self defense from those who sought to rob him.

poor guy--he made all the right choices and the Man still found a way to keep him down.

"Well, I hate to say it, but its just going to get worse (especially since George W found religion - the hypocrit!). Listened to a piece on NPR the other day where a guy was pulled over for speeding and another cop came along with a drug sniffing dog and found pot in the speeders trunk. This case is going to the supreme court and talk is that this sort of tactic by the police is legal. Next thing you know, they'll be dropping into the local "park and ride" and will turn the hounds loose! I'm not paranoid, just concerned."

Yes This is from Illinois, during questioning by the supreme court they asked several times if this is O.K. then Police can go to parked cars, at the store or where ever, i guess even concerts and let dogs sniff around. The responce is yes that would be legal but there are not that many dogs to do so. So they are just waiting for the ok to get more i guess

Now that is wrong, but the guy with the guns and the 3 offenses? Good riddance!

>>Now that is wrong, but the guy with the guns and the 3 offenses? Good riddance!

How can you possibly smoke pot and justify this!
Do you realize that the system as currently constructed creates these types of situations?
First of all, the "3 offenses" were 3 sales, not 3 seperate convictions. I don't know any dealer who ever made one sale only in his lifetime. Furthermore, I don't know where you live but in many communities if you sell drugs, even marijuana, you are a target for all kinds of violence. Here in New York a young woman was brutally murdered by some lowlife scum in a well publicized case several years back. If one believes in the right to smoke marijuana, than logically one must hold the right to buy it somewhere. That would legitimize the right to sell it. If you have a right to sell marijuana, then you have a right to self defense, plain and simple.
Every legitimate business in our society is backed up by guns. If you don't want this type of armed individual on the corner selling pot then work for legalization so it would be like any other legal business.

It's the guns that bother me--that's what contributes to 32,000 deaths in our country every year. Don't assume I smoke pot, but I don't really have an ethical issue with it, either. You make good points, however--I just think we're taking our eye off the ball.

He didn't use the gun. Many people carry guns for protection. Adding several years onto a sentence for a gun that was not even shown is ridiculous.

Protection from what? Other guns.

Okay, so we'll give you that having the gun may have been bad. But 55 years worth of bad?

Fair enough--I just hate guns, so I'm pretty biased. Good discussion all around (for the most part). Still--note the above number--32,000 deaths each year from guns. Something's got to give--I say the less guns in our society, the better.

>>however--I just think we're taking our eye off the ball.

That's my point, the gun charge here is not a charge in and of itself, it's merely a factor being used to seriously enhance a crime that shouldn't be a crime in the first place.

>>I just hate guns

I can respect that, although I probably could quote some statistics that would show you that the bad guns do are offset by some benefits.

What I really want to ask is if you are against all guns in our society: in the hands of police and military as well as in private hands?

Of course not--I think the semi-automatic weapon ban was a good start, but...I think handguns in urban areas serve no real purpose, except to defend oneself against other handguns. I think hunters and sportsman have a right to responsible gun ownership. Cops and military--well of course, though neither is my favorite subset of society in general. A gun in the home for self defense is much more likely to kill a friend or family member than an intruder. The specifics are interesting, but one fact seems immutable: there are too many guns, and they are too readily available, in our society.

I think this happened in Utah. Even in the most urban part of Utah (SLC), there are a lot of gun owners. It's easy to get to fun target shooting or hunting spots from SLC. Everyone I knew there had guns.

Notice that there isn't any mention of him possessing the gun illegaly.

I'm worried about disarming the private citizen while maintaining such a large amount of firearms in the hands of government: police and military.
The founding fathers worried about standing armies and intended the citizen milita to balance out the government forces. Of course today the balance is way out of alignment, but unilaterally disarming civilians would only skew it further.

True, a gun in the home for self defense is much more likely to kill a friend or family member than an intruder, but how many times have robberies or rapes, etc been prevented by firing or merely "displaying" a firearm in response to a perceived threat?

There are two sides to every story. Bottom line:
we need pragmatic gun laws. The Second Amendment is not absolute. I support strict registration laws with such things as ballistic fingerprinting. Gun owners should be held responsible for securing their guns, especially when children are in the home.

We need to come to some compromise on the gun issue in order to unite a deeply divided country.
Gun rights advocates need to be convinced that reasonable gun laws are not a first step towards a complete ban.

if the dumbass didn't have a gun. . .

No doubt about it that having that gun was a dumb decision but what's the point?
Should someone lose the bulk of his life and the taxpayers be forced to pay millions for his being a dumbass?

We pay millions so dumbasses can lose the bulk of their lives all the time. The question is--was he enough of a dumbass to warrant 55 years? Probably not--but I still say, good riddance.

>>We pay millions so dumbasses can lose the bulk of their lives all the time.

That's the whole point of this thread: showing the stupidity of the current laws.

>>>>The question is--was he enough of a dumbass to warrant 55 years? Probably not--but I still say, good riddance.


Wow, that's compassionate. I can barely deal with that extreme lack of empathy, particularly this time of year.

Would you say good riddance if that person were your child, or would you expect him to receive a just sentence? If your child speeds and gets in a car wreck and dies, shall we all say good riddance? If he goes to buy pot in the hood and gets caught in a drive-by, shall we say good riddance?



People who lack empathy just plain scare me. That's how you end up with tortured animals, child abuse, and serial killers.

And I'd like to add to that since I dropped the ball by not responding better.

Good riddance for what?

For selling pot? Marijuana is probably one of the least harmful drugs in existance, legal or illegal. Even if you support prohibition of more dangerous substances, which I do not, marijuana prohibition is just plain dumb.

For gun possession? You made your point on how you feel about guns. I made my response and I don't believe anything more I could write would change your mind. But do you really believe that 55 year sentences are the solution to the problem you have with "too many guns"?

What exactly has this individual done that would justify incarcerating him for one day, let alone 55 years?

Wow--sympaty and empathy are two different things. Sympathy implies a wrong has been done and should be rectified, empathy simply means identifying with a situation without necessarily feeling pity. I guarantee you, however unsympathetic you suspect I am, I am responsible for not one act of child abuse, serial killing, or animal torturing (in fact, just got my dog back from ear surgery--she's recovering nicely). Of course you know that--you know, however, all potheads are not our brothers, and the ones who sell drugs while carrying guns...well, in my humble (often ignorant) opinion, we're better off with them off the streets. I will say this--gun toting drug dealers are way down on my list of people in need of either my sympathy or my empathy. As stated before--good points all around--please, though, the hyperbole of the "animal torture" comment was a bit much.

The point is that people shouldn't be arrested for selling herb.

Agreed, Shakey--but the gun, man, the gun!!! Those things are made for the express purpose of killing people!!! Carrying one while selling drugs--even harmless drugs--is just bad. I do, however, see the gray area here.

I must agree with the greivous angel...

Pot should be completely decriminalized;
Guns should be extremely regulated!
This credo works in many countries throughout the world.

Every head who carries a piece must be ready for the consequences. We must be a non violent subculture!

I would love to discuss the finer points of gun control but it is a red herring here.

What we have is an individual who committed no violation of anyone's rights given a sentence that most likely will entail him spending the rest of his life in jail.

If he merely was caught with the gun he probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist.

The herb is the issue here, not the gun. Legalize the herb and you won't have gun toting dealers on your corner selling herb.

You make a good point, but to me, the gun is not a red herring--it is the issue. I don't care if you're selling advil illegally, if you carry a gun and do it enough, somebody's getting shot. Perhaps another thread to discuss gun control?

I understand your point but what I'm trying to say is it is the nature of illegality to make the drug trade violent. As the marijuana laws are clearly the problem here, the answer is to repeal them, not sentence misguided individuals to 55 year sentences for merely trying to protect themselves from assault or robbery.

If you believe that gun control should entail
55 year sentences I disagree with you but at least you are being logically consistent.

If you believe that a 55 year sentence is ridiculous for mere gun possession, it is not a logical position to believe it just for this poor jerk.

Agreed--I think gun possession during the commission of a crime should be heavily--and I mean heavily--punished. The irrational drug laws are the problem. As long as there is a category of crime for "drugs" and no distinction between them, I agree with you. Meth, Crack, and Coke are three to start with--heavily criminalize them, and leave marijuana alone. To some degree, I know whereof I speak--I teach middle school, and those three drugs, or their manufacture and sale, have actually contributed to the death of 2 former students. I've also been no more than a foot away from a gun which was carried to school by a student 2 days running. These things really do concern me, and I have thought out these positions. As for guns? Screw em--hand gun possession should be illegal and severely punished. This has been a great discussion, by the way.

Grievous--from what I can tell from your posts, you have about as much regard for the life and rights of a pot dealer who happens to have a gun in his possession as kids do for the bugs that they step on. Its a person, you know? He didn't shoot anyone. You don't know if he has ever fired that gun. You don't even know why he was carrying it--you assume you do, but you really don't. And to say "good riddance.." to the life of a human being.....I do see lack of empathy (not sympathy). You don't even see that guy as a human--just as a gun, something to be disposed of. They make the gun laws because of people like you, not because people sell pot.



If you step off your pedestal for a moment, perhaps you might understand why I fear judgemental and nonempathetic people like you more than I fear the pot dealer with the gun:

You are pleased that a life is destroyed.

I have no reason to believe that the pot dealer ever destroyed a life or ever said "good riddance" to a human life.

Who is the better man?






Please understand that I have nothing against you personally, and I'm sure you are more complex than your posts show. However, this sort of "vengeance is mine" nonempathic persona that many americans have really does scare me, and it also makes me sad for the soul of our nation. I have used your posts as an illustration of a type of thinking that makes me ill, but I wish you no ill will personally.

Read my last post--it may clear things up somewhat. If my thinking makes you "ill" then you're way too involved, or perhaps just judemental (couldn't resist). I disagree vehemently with much of what has been said here, but none of it makes me ill. No thoughtfully regarded, civilly stated opinion does--and yours are both. By the way, this sort of discussion and sharing of ideas by good, decent, intelligent people is exactly why America does not suck. Keep up the good work, and know one thing--I am not the sort of person who should make you ill. I just think the gun culture in America has gotten way out of hand. Have a safe and peaceful holiday--sincerely. And try not to let ideas make you "ill"--we're just talking.

What can I tell you, I am empathic and the thought of some American doing 55 years unjustly and reading about other people celebrating that makes me sad.



Yes, this is just discussion, but there's a person behind the story. I think this may highlight what I am saying about empathy. To you, 55 years are just numbers on a page, something to discuss intellectually. I see some guy actually sitting in prison for 55 years, and you saying "good riddance" to the destruction of a life--or not even having the awareness that this is really someone's life, not just a launching pad for discussion.


I think that happens a lot--people throw out these numbers like 25-life, but to them, it isn't real. Not the people in the prison, and not lives wasted. They are just bugs to them. "Gun owners" or "dope dealers", not people.




Oh, and if you think that america is great cause we have thoughtful intellectual discussion, you should travel. They also discuss things like this in england, mexico, south america, and even asia. American's didn't invent, or even perfect, intellectual discourse. Many great things about america, but don't you think its a little much to take credit for thoughtful discussion and say "people having this discussion is what's great about america"? Isn't it more like what's great about thoughtful people?

Fair points all around. I have travelled, rather extensively in my younger, perhaps more empathetic years. Tell you what--I'll respect your views, you can choose to or not to respect mine, and let's quit splitting hairs. I do think of the human doing 55 years, and it's too much. But I also think of the potential lives saved by him no longer being on the streets with a damn pistol in his pocket. However--I hear you!!! We're both obviously brilliant and wonderful people. (hope you knew that was good natured, self-deprecating sarcasm).

Agreed!

>>Agreed--I think gun possession during the commission of a crime should be heavily--and I mean heavily--punished. The irrational drug laws are the problem. As long as there is a category of crime for "drugs" and no distinction between them, I agree with you. Meth, Crack, and Coke are three to start with--heavily criminalize them, and leave marijuana alone. To some degree, I know whereof I speak--I teach middle school, and those three drugs, or their manufacture and sale, have actually contributed to the death of 2 former students. I've also been no more than a foot away from a gun which was carried to school by a student 2 days running. These things really do concern me, and I have thought out these positions. As for guns? Screw em--hand gun possession should be illegal and severely punished. This has been a great discussion, by the way.

I agree with you that gun possession during the commission of a crime should be dealt with seriously. I just don't think most drug transactions should be crimes.

You point out the distinction between marijuana and harder drugs. I agree with you that this point needs to made more.

Here's another distinction to consider: Between children and adults.

Assuming your former students were still minors, selling drugs to them should properly be a crime.

One of the elements of a free society is the ability for adults to make decisions for themselves that carry significant risk, providing the action does not violate anyone else's rights.

Therefore while I do not oppose reasonable regulations on drugs that are intended to keep them out of the hands of minors, or to prevent disorderly behavior, ultimately adults have the right to consume any substance they desire while on private property.

It was the parents that either used, manufactured or sold the drugs--the kids just paid the price. Adults who have the reponsbility to look after kids do not have the right to use any drug they wish to use, regardless of where they are. Beyond that, I agree with your fairly libertarian view--as long as you're hurting no one but yourself, you have the right to do it.