Sub Jailed-ness

[Tony]

And unlike Tony, I prefer a little more integrity in my martyrs.

I don't see him as a martyr.

 

[Tmy]

Timmy, it's a rare occassion when we're the only two people on the forum who agree on something. Is there an eclipse today or something? I think I should buy a lotto ticket.

Point is, SG's stated version of events is debunked from stem to stern by police reports, court reports and the realities of the penalty he was given. And unlike Tony, I prefer a little more integrity in my martyrs. Why not have a love-in for the KOA while we're at it, huh?

Well Jocko we do share one thing. Our love of laughing at the misfourtune of others.

I tried to seach for more details on google but came up with nothing. A news stroy woudl be good. Id like to hear details. I still think he was dealing. Itsnt Oakland COunty around the Detriot Metro Area? Methinks they waste time on bigger fish instead of Mr. HobbyHomegrown.

I dont know about yall but I lived across the street from some dealers. It sucks. Weed or whatever the clients are a pain in the ass. Im sure his neighbors are happy hes closed up shop.

Now, who hear would like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me? Im selling it cheap!

 

[toddjh]

Now that aside, Im not out to crucify him but I do find it interesting how pretty much everyone here is buying his version of the story. We are only privy to a few facts. Unlike the jury that tried him. They were presented with detailed evidence and testimony. We really dont know how much pot was lying around or the other details.

I think you're missing the point. The pot and the quantity thereof don't matter -- even the judge thought so, because he was only given probation for those. The issue is the gun. Is the presence of a non-functional, unloaded weapon with no ammunition in the house worth two years in jail, when the predicate felony is only worth probation?

I vote no. It's true that I don't have all the information about the gun, but the fact that there was no ammunition for it is very good evidence that he's telling the truth, so I'm inclined to believe his story. If it were kept loaded or with a box of ammo next to it, then I might feel different. As it is, I don't believe a non-functional rifle should be considered a firearm for legal purposes, any more than a toy gun that was the size and shape of a real rifle (remember when they still made those?).

As for whether he was dealing, that's laughable. The prosecutor didn't even think there was enough evidence to charge him, let alone take it to trial. For you to keep insisting that he was when even the person trying to put him behind bars didn't want to go there is ridiculous.

The injustice here has nothing to do with the marijuana. It's all about the gun.

Jeremy

 

[rikzilla]

Timmy, it's a rare occassion when we're the only two people on the forum who agree on something. Is there an eclipse today or something? I think I should buy a lotto ticket.

Point is, SG's stated version of events is debunked from stem to stern by police reports, court reports and the realities of the penalty he was given. And unlike Tony, I prefer a little more integrity in my martyrs. Why not have a love-in for the KOA while we're at it, huh?

Hey!! Wait up! I'm supposed to be the crusty, mean, and nasty critter around here!!

Tmy; You've certainly surprised me! I thought you were supposed to be the liberal's liberal!

Jocko; No surprise there, your no-nonsense form of common sense is refreshing as usual....and correct.

I'm not going to argue that SG doesn't deserve his punishment anymore,...not after reading the legal document linked to in this thread. However, I had my misspent youth. I could easily have ended up with a sentence like his (or worse) had I been caught. With me it wasn't just MJ,...I was involved with much worse.

When I first got to W. Germany in '78 as an 18 year old I was put in a barracks room with two E4's who spent my first weekend with them hitting a needle, then barfing out of the 3rd floor window. The window was well stained...the other windows around the whole kaserne were similarly stained. Needles scared me (still do) so I didn't join them. Good thing, because within the month they were both taken away to the E-400 (psyche) ward of 97th General in Frankfurt.

But that was only my first taste of the realities of Carter's army. Every payday weekend was spent obtaining red stars (LSD), or crystal meth,..or "dogs" and "superdogs" (downers),..plates of hashish,...the only thing we didn't have access to was MJ. Back then I always figured if the Russians were smart they'd make sure and attack on a pay-day weekend...then we'd really have had a "War on Drugs"!

I lost alot of friends back then. Many good people killed by drugs. A couple who spent time in jail. One who got a bar to re-enlistment and ended up coming back to the states and robbing a supermarket for drug money. He was one of my best friends, and he ended up doing 8 hard years in Louisiana's Angola State Pen...hard labor, chain-gang....he's out now, but he'll never be the same person. that's not a good thing either...they changed his atheist, druggie ass into a born-again X-tian!!

So I have always felt lucky to have made it through that period of my life unscathed. I grew up. Responsibilities grew me up. I stopped doing drugs of any kind once my first child was born. I always considered myself a liberal too....I'm not sure just when that changed...all I know is that on Sept 12, 2001 the change was complete.

Therefore I feel a certain affinity for SG...."There but for the grace of God go I" kind of thing I guess.

Yeah he was wrong,...and he likely deserves his incarceration,...but we know him here @ JREF. Whether we agreed with him or not is beside the point. He's one of us, and as such he also deserves our compassion. If a few letters can help him keep his spirits up and get through this,...well then why not?

-z

 

[Tony]

Yeah he was wrong..

No he wasn't.

and he likely deserves his incarceration

How can you rationalize that?

 

[Tmy]

Hey!! Wait up! I'm supposed to be the crusty, mean, and nasty critter around here!!

Tmy; You've certainly surprised me! I thought you were supposed to be the liberal's liberal!

-z

I'm not all that liberal. Im realist, and I do believe in people taking responsibilty for their actions.

If you wanna debate drug laws and gun laws, thats fine. I have issues with those. But dont forget why they have these aggrevated gun laws. Many times the drug industry involves guns and violence. ITs a good tool to lock up nasty drug dealers cause they cant weasel out of the gun possession. Its easier forthe police n prosecution.

Yeah Sub may have gotten tied up in a law that wasnt specfically meant for his situtaion. Whether he was moving product or not, in the end it was his own scofflaw recklessness that did him in.

 

[Tony]

...I do believe in people taking responsibilty for their actions.

What actions are you talking? No one was hurt, and no one's rights were violated (except Sub's). I fail to see what actions were made that require him to take responsibility for.

 

[rikzilla]

No he wasn't.

How can you say that? There is a link to the verdict which clearly shows how SG violated the existing law. He was wrong. There is no way to escape that unless you want to trash the law and judicial system.

Not only that, he was a lawyer...he not only should have known better...he actually DID know better!

He effed up, therefore he does deserve the result of his effing up. Now do I think he "personally" deserves jail? Not really. The law was written in order to dissuade felons from threatening victims with deadly weapons. However, he did violate the letter if not the spirit of the law. I think an argument can be made that he could be given a break without endangering the public....but aside from that if you break a law, you get punished.

What evidence do you have that he wasn't wrong? There is plenty however that says he was. You're not changing my skeptical mind.

How can you rationalize that?

Easy, see the above. It sucks for him,...but he did possess a firearm while growing that amount of MJ (felony). Unless you can argue that he did not somehow know it was there, or that it was planted by a Mark Fuhrman...you have no case. It is therefore you who are rationalizing,...not I.

-z

BTW: I do like SG, and I do believe that if a few letters from us JREFers can buoy his spirits, then we ought to do it. What you're doing is denial...not even SG himself is doing that.

 

[Tony]

How can you say that? There is a link to the verdict which clearly shows how SG violated the existing law. He was wrong.

Violating law does not equal "wrong". This "rules are rules" attitude reeks of moral cowardess.

Not only that, he was a lawyer...he not only should have known better...he actually DID know better!

I will say that being a lawyer should have made it easier for him to avoid getting caught.

if you break a law, you get punished.

Like I said, moral cowardess.

What evidence do you have that he wasn't wrong?

Did he hurt anyone? Did he steal from anyone? Did he rape anyone?

There is plenty however that says he was.

No there's not. There's only evidence he broke the law, so ****ing what. People have every right to disobey unjust laws.

It sucks for him,...but he did possess a firearm while growing that amount of MJ (felony).

So? Last time I looked possesing a firearm was protected under the 2nd amendment, the constitution also protects the right to smoke and grow MJ. If the state didn't have apologists like you, it would be harder for them to piss on the constitution.

 

[toddjh]

the constitution also protects the right to smoke and grow MJ.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm curious what you're referring to with this sentence. Can you clarify which part of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws against drug use?

Jeremy

 

[Cleon]

There is no way to escape that unless you want to trash the law and judicial system.

...Which is exactly what I'm doing. In cases like this, the law and the justice system are wrong. They're wrong to criminalize him for growing and smoking, and they're definitely wrong to throw him in prison just because he had a rusty rifle upstairs that wasn't even usable.

So yeah, I'm trashing the law and the judicial system, because in cases like this, they deserve to be trashed.

 

[rikzilla]

...Which is exactly what I'm doing. In cases like this, the law and the justice system are wrong. They're wrong to criminalize him for growing and smoking, and they're definitely wrong to throw him in prison just because he had a rusty rifle upstairs that wasn't even usable.

So yeah, I'm trashing the law and the judicial system, because in cases like this, they deserve to be trashed.

No, they're not. The law is on the books. Therefore the law is not wrong. Now, if you want to say the law is morally wrong (and I think that's just what you're doing) that's fine. But it's just your opinion, what it's not is a legal opinion.

So, go ahead and hold your opinion...act on it as well. But when you end up in jail don't start fulminating about moral wrongs. People don't go to jail for moral wrongs...they do for legal ones. Your argument is fine for advocating a change in the law,...but until then what SG did has correctly resulted in his imprisonment.

So please, go ahead and use SG as a poster-boy for a change in this law. But you also need to realise that the law was written to protect the public from felons resorting to firearms. To say that the firearm has to be loaded or otherwise serviceable at the time of the crime would weaken the protection of the public (which is the over-riding reason for such a law).

I don't doubt for a moment that SG ran afoul of this this law by accident. Nor am I saying that this law was meant to be applied in this way to an obviously non-violent crime. But re-writing the law is not the answer. The law is not what's wrong. The application of it in this case is what can be argued...and likely will be successful in getting his term reduced.

MJ is illegal. Inhale that and get on with your life. If you simply must get stoned then do it....but don't grow 45kilos then bitch about the law when you get busted! You can use MJ without comitting a felony you know.

If SG'd just been smoking a single joint and/or possessed only an oz, then he could have had a loaded AR-15 propped against his knee and it would not have been a crime. Felony possession is what did him in.

-z

 

[Jocko]

...Which is exactly what I'm doing. In cases like this, the law and the justice system are wrong. They're wrong to criminalize him for growing and smoking, and they're definitely wrong to throw him in prison just because he had a rusty rifle upstairs that wasn't even usable.

So yeah, I'm trashing the law and the judicial system, because in cases like this, they deserve to be trashed.

"In cases like this... in cases like this... in cases like this...." What, cases involving someone you know, who has a string of excuses that satisfy your biased opinions?

News flash, Cleon - EVERYONE who gets busted for EVERY crime has someone like you rooting for them. Doesn't excuse a thing. You are wrong here, not the law. Work hard enough and you can rationalize any crime.

SG screwed up, not the legislature, not the judge, not the jury, SG SCREWED UP. Don't hold this up as an example of "everything that's wrong with the system," because if SG was my neighbor I'd want his ass busted too.

 

[Tony]

Can you clarify which part of the Constitution prohibits states from making laws against drug use?

I admit, it's a stretch, but the first amendment’s protection of religious freedom can protect drug use, also the clause guaranteeing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

 

[Tony]

SG screwed up, not the legislature, not the judge, not the jury.

Yes, the legislature, and the judge screwed up. The jury had no choice since the right of jury nullification has been effectively crushed. The purpose of the justice system is to ensure justice, not throw non-offending, non-violent people in jail.

"everything that's wrong with the system," because if SG was my neighbor I'd want his ass busted too.

That reflects more negatively on you than it does on Sub.

 

[Cleon]

"In cases like this... in cases like this... in cases like this...." What, cases involving someone you know, who has a string of excuses that satisfy your biased opinions?

News flash, Cleon - EVERYONE who gets busted for EVERY crime has someone like you rooting for them. Doesn't excuse a thing. You are wrong here, not the law. Work hard enough and you can rationalize any crime.

SG screwed up, not the legislature, not the judge, not the jury, SG SCREWED UP. Don't hold this up as an example of "everything that's wrong with the system," because if SG was my neighbor I'd want his ass busted too.

Who did he hurt? Did he steal anything? Did he take away anyone's rights?

No. This has nothing to do with whether or not I know SG--in fact, I don't know him all that well. SG's case is one of many. And yes, the laws are wrong. It's wrong to lock someone up when they didn't deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. That's true of SG, that's true of the 14-year-old kid who gets expelled from school because he failed a drug test, everyone. Nobody should be in jail for this crap.

All opinions are biased, even yours, though I'm sure they're Absolutely Correct. Yeah, I'm biased. I think if the law is going to use tax dollars to throw someone in jail they should show a compelling reason to do so. Disagree with me if you like, but don't criticize me because I have a "biased opinion"--which is a bit like saying a car has "round wheels."

So far your justification for supporting this is "it's the law." Fine. I'm saying the law is wrong--and the cheezy excuses you guys are coming up with is, "the law's not wrong, because it's the law."

Odd how the "smaller government" conservatives never actually have a problem with the government locking people up for victimless crimes.

 

[Tony]

..."the law's not wrong, because it's the law."

Sounds like 1inC's mantra about how anything done by god, whether it be genocide, rape or simply pissing in someone's Cherios is, by definition, "moral".

 

[Cleon]

No, they're not. The law is on the books. Therefore the law is not wrong. Now, if you want to say the law is morally wrong (and I think that's just what you're doing) that's fine. But it's just your opinion, what it's not is a legal opinion.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I claimed it was a legal opinion.

So, go ahead and hold your opinion...act on it as well. But when you end up in jail don't start fulminating about moral wrongs. People don't go to jail for moral wrongs...they do for legal ones. Your argument is fine for advocating a change in the law,...but until then what SG did has correctly resulted in his imprisonment.

You know, I can imagine you in the 1960s...."Call the law morally wrong if you like, but what those Negros did by holding a sit-in at the restaurant has correctly resulted in their imprisonment."

Insert the part here where you sigh, "I can't BELIEVE you're comparing him with the civil rights movement!" I'm not, really, I'm merely pointing out that there are times--such as this one--where imprisonment is wrong, because the law is unjust.

So please, go ahead and use SG as a poster-boy for a change in this law.

Or, for crying out loud...If a case brings an issue to light, they become a "poster boy?" Please.

But you also need to realise that the law was written to protect the public from felons resorting to firearms.

Oh, good, I was really afraid of SG! He poised such a huge danger to me and my family!

Please.

To say that the firearm has to be loaded or otherwise serviceable at the time of the crime would weaken the protection of the public (which is the over-riding reason for such a law).

Because SG was such a danger to the public.

Interesting question, though--if the firearm isn't usable at the time of the crime, is it still a firearm? At what point has it degenerated to a point where it's nothing but a piece of metal and wood?

I don't doubt for a moment that SG ran afoul of this this law by accident. Nor am I saying that this law was meant to be applied in this way to an obviously non-violent crime. But re-writing the law is not the answer. The law is not what's wrong. The application of it in this case is what can be argued...and likely will be successful in getting his term reduced.

The law is wrong here. It's wrong to criminalize marijuana. It's wrong to criminalize someone for growing marijuana. It's wrong to throw someone in prison for such dubious things as unusable weapons.

 

[Jocko]

Who did he hurt? Did he steal anything? Did he take away anyone's rights?

Ah, so we're redefining the laws according to the big book of Cleon. Mmmkay.

No. This has nothing to do with whether or not I know SG--in fact, I don't know him all that well. SG's case is one of many. And yes, the laws are wrong. It's wrong to lock someone up when they didn't deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. That's true of SG, that's true of the 14-year-old kid who gets expelled from school because he failed a drug test, everyone. Nobody should be in jail for this crap.

I have reasons for disagreeing with that, but since they are (like yours) anecdotal and subjective, I won't bother pushing it as proof of anything. Kindly do the same.

All opinions are biased, even yours, though I'm sure they're Absolutely Correct. Yeah, I'm biased. I think if the law is going to use tax dollars to throw someone in jail they should show a compelling reason to do so. Disagree with me if you like, but don't criticize me because I have a "biased opinion"--which is a bit like saying a car has "round wheels."

No, I'm saying even Scott Peterson has people going on the stand to lament how unfair things are. Your addition to the chorus of character testimony is equally worthless - everyone has someone who thinks they're the victim instead of the criminal, so I guess there are no criminals... just misunderstood victims.

So far your justification for supporting this is "it's the law." Fine. I'm saying the law is wrong--and the cheezy excuses you guys are coming up with is, "the law's not wrong, because it's the law."

I said no such thing. I said SG knew the law. Big difference, one you are willfully ignoring because it doesn't compute with your huffiness. My personal lack of crocodile compassion has nothing to do with the rightness of the law according to SG, you or anyone else - it's all about SG being a friggin' dolt and, in my OPINION, a possible drug dealer.

Odd how the "smaller government" conservatives never actually have a problem with the government locking people up for victimless crimes.

Please keep your platitudes to yourself. I can give you the addresses of three graves occupied by victims of this "victimless crime." Go explain it to them. Oops, now I've gone and dumped my anecdotal reasons on the table. Feel free to disregard if they get in the way of your concept of rights.

Funny how the "freedom" liberals never care to look at the responsibilities that lie under each right. Sorry, Cleon, you can spread it on this thick for the kids, but I know better.

 

[varwoche]

if SG was my neighbor I'd want his ass busted too.

Like I said Tmy, a neighbor could have turned him in.

Jocko, if your neighbor was growing in his closet, and if it was known with metaphysical certainty he was not dealing, and that he had a serious neurological disease or the like, would you have the same viewpoint?