24-Year-Old Gets 3 Life Terms in Prison for Witnessing a Drug Deal: The Ugly Truth of Mandatory Drug Sentencing

Quote from shhaggy : Fair point, although I'd still argue that it's not inherently violent, and that a first time offender probably isn't automatically a huge threat to society, and certainly not deserving of 3 life sentences. I wonder if this will actually end up being a good thing for him. The absurdity of that sentence is getting his case noticed, and there's half a chance it could help him. Nobody notices the people that get 30 years for minimal stuff and they "only" lose half their lives.

Because of the title thingy I did not read the entire article. I too am likely to be against even 1 life sentence.

welcome to amerikkka

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxf2kvyZFxY

Quote from TRNT : Huh? I might agree that drug using is non-violent but drug dealing? Would burglary be considered non-violent too? So illegal arm dealing to to drug dealers and other criminal is also non-violent because the act of X-dealing is non-violent per se?

Yes, burglary is non-violent, robbery is not. This isn't a difficult concept.

Quote from LivninSC : Still though. 20 lbs, 1 lb, 1 gram. He introduced people who were actually doing the transaction. If I introduce you to a hitman and am arrested it's not like I'd get out of going to jail. Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law does not excuse)

No one is advocating that he shouldn't have gone to jail. (Although his cousin did not serve jail time for this event)

Quote from TRNT : When I googled this subject, very few correct hits came. The second one was from a discussion board similar To this one. The third response was something like this, "oh yeah the title is utter bullshit." If the title is the original title, that removes some of the fault from the op, especially if the original venue is a MSM. This article is NOT from a MSM. I think OPs should have the responsibility of fixing the titles if titles are "bullshit".

The title is the title of the article. I'm not here to judge what is considered a "bullshit" title, I just want to debate the topic.

If you bothered to read it you would know that the article is written by Seth Ferranti, a convicted felon serving 25 years; another victim of mandatory minimum sentencing (and himself). He's written a book and has authored many articles for different publications. His website [gorillaconvict.com]. I wouldn't call that MSM

According to one guy, this man should have been put to death for his "crimes"

Quote from highfloydelity : No one is advocating that he shouldn't have gone to jail. (Although his cousin did not serve jail time for this event) The title is the title of the article. I'm not here to judge what is considered a "bullshit" title, I just want to debate the topic. If you bothered to read it you would know that the article is written by Seth Ferranti, a convicted felon serving 25 years; another victim of mandatory minimum sentencing (and himself). He's written a book and has authored many articles for different publications. His website [gorillaconvict.com]. I wouldn't call that MSM

titles are important. Titles can be informative and titles can be downright misleading. Then some titles, like this pne are utter bullshit.

If I have inadverdantly witnesses some drug deals, it would be absurd that a mere witness to be charged with any crime much less receive life terms. The title in this thread was utter bullshit. I say podium posters have some responsibility to make sure titles are not bullshits.

Quote from darkfrog : Yes, burglary is non-violent, robbery is not. This isn't a difficult concept.

Hmm. There is some controversy over whether burglary is violent or nonviolent crime. But two questions:

1. During burglary the home owner arrives. Burglar shows a weapon. Homeowner stays still. Burglar finishes his job and leaves. No one is hurt.

2. A bank robbery is done at night. There are no confrontations. No one is hurt no gun is fired. In fact assume robbers did not even carry gun.

3 during a bank robbery no one is shot, no one is hurt.

Violent or non violent?

Quote from TRNT : Hmm. There is some controversy over whether burglary is violent or nonviolent crime. But two questions: 1. During burglary the home owner arrives. Burglar shows a weapon. Homeowner stays still. Burglar finishes his job and leaves. No one is hurt. 2. A bank robbery is done at night. There are no confrontations. No one is hurt no gun is fired. In fact assume robbers did not even carry gun. 3 during a bank robbery no one is shot, no one is hurt. Violent or non violent?

1. The burglary turned into a robbery at that point.
2. A nighttime bank robbery is actually a burglary.
3. The threat of violence classifies it as a violent crime.

You have not brought any information here to support your belief that there is 'controversy.'
I'm curious at times if you even bother to try to do your own research or if you prefer to keep asking questions here rather than try a search engine. Honestly, I don't mind answering but I was able to find the distinction between violent and non-violent crimes with one search, as well as the following distinction between burglary and robbery.

Bank robbery is the crime of stealing from a bank while persons other than the perpetrator(s) are present and are subjected to force, violence or the threat of violence. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, robbery is "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."[1] By contrast, burglary is defined as, "unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft."[2] Bank robbery is therefore defined as entering a bank when it is open and obtaining money either by using force or the threat of force. Breaking into a bank when it is closed is burglary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_robbery

A burglary of a dwelling during nighttime hours, carries a stiffer charge and penalty in many places, whether the dwelling was occupied at the time or not. The assumption is, those who don't fear possibly encountering the residents are more dangerous.

Quote from darkfrog : 1. The burglary turned into a robbery at that point. 2. A nighttime bank robbery is actually a burglary. 3. The threat of violence classifies it as a violent crime. You have not brought any information here to support your belief that there is 'controversy.' I'm curious at times if you even bother to try to do your own research or if you prefer to keep asking questions here rather than try a search engine. Honestly, I don't mind answering but I was able to find the distinction between violent and non-violent crimes with one search, as well as the following distinction between burglary and robbery. Bank robbery is the crime of stealing from a bank while persons other than the perpetrator(s) are present and are subjected to force, violence or the threat of violence. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, robbery is "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear."[1] By contrast, burglary is defined as, "unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft."[2] Bank robbery is therefore defined as entering a bank when it is open and obtaining money either by using force or the threat of force. Breaking into a bank when it is closed is burglary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_robbery

I do research. Maybe you do better research but I do research.

There are two questions:

1. Is burglary considered violent crime by the FBI?
2. Should burglary be considered a violent crime?

On #1 I did some ... errr ... research years ago and the answer is "no."

On #2 again I did some.....err.....research and many othere also think there is some doubt if burglary should be considered nonviolent.

Now mind you the op is not about burglary but about drug dealing. But for some reason you are more interested in burglary than drug dealing. Fine.

Lastly, you invoked potential of violence as justification for "violent" classification. Fine. The same with burglary. If people are inside or people come home burglary has a potential of becoming violent. So by your own argument it should be classified as violent. The fact that you would then simply change its name is somewhat besides the point.

Quote from TRNT : Now mind you the op is not about burglary but about drug dealing. But for some reason you are more interested in burglary than drug dealing. Fine.

For some reason, you bring up burglary, then chastize others for talking about buglary.

Quote : Lastly, you invoked potential of violence as justification for "violent" classification. Fine. The same with burglary. If people are inside or people come home burglary has a potential of becoming violent. So by your own argument it should be classified as violent. The fact that you would then simply change its name is somewhat besides the point.

If people are inside or come home, then it's no longer *just* buglary. That's the whole point. Any situation has the "potential" to become violent. A drug user, which you already labeled as "non-violent" has the potential to fly into a pcp-induced rage & start beating the crap out of everyone. So, by your own argument, mere drug use should be considered "violent".

Quote from smegalicious : For some reason, you bring up burglary, then chastize others for talking about buglary. If people are inside or come home, then it's no longer *just* buglary. That's the whole point. Any situation has the "potential" to become violent. A drug user, which you already labeled as "non-violent" has the potential to fly into a pcp-induced rage & start beating the crap out of everyone. So, by your own argument, mere drug use should be considered "violent".

For some reason you want to show off. The burglary to robbery point, which is a valid point, was brought up by DF and was responded to by me. If you have nothing new to add, just sa nothing.

For some reason, you did not mention drug dealing which is the topic of the OP.

For some reason you had to use the iflamatory word "chastise" instead of many other more accurate but less inflammatory ones.

For some reason you did not respond to my point that burglary has the "potential" of becoming violent just as robbery does.

For some reason you ignored my point that definitions are just that. We can change them.

For some reason you were just itching to write this post.

Quote from TRNT : For some reason you want to show off. The burglary to robbery point, which is a valid point, was brought up by DF and was responded to by me. If you have nothing new to add, just sa nothing.

Not even close.

Shaggy made a comment about "non-violent" drug offenders, to which you replied:

Huh? I might agree that drug using is non-violent but drug dealing? Would burglary be considered non-violent too?

So illegal arm dealing to to drug dealers and other criminal is also non-violent because the act of X-dealing is non-violent per se?

Darkfrog responded by pointing out that, according to the legal definitions of those terms, burglary is a non-violent crime, while robbery involves at least the threat of force.

If you have nothing accurate to add, just say nothing...

Quote : For some reason, you did not mention drug dealing which is the topic of the OP.

Did I miss a rule change where every post in every thread now has to specifically mention what you consider "the topic" of the OP?

Quote : For some reason you had to use the iflamatory word "chastise" instead of many other more accurate but less inflammatory ones.

No, I *chose* to use that word because it fit your actions.

Quote : For some reason you did not respond to my point that burglary has the "potential" of becoming violent just as robbery does.

I most certainly did address your "potential" argument. Perhaps you missed it in your haste to chastise others...

Any situation has the "potential" to become violent. A drug user, which you already labeled as "non-violent" has the potential to fly into a pcp-induced rage & start beating the crap out of everyone. So, by your own argument, mere drug use should be considered "violent".

Quote : For some reason you ignored my point that definitions are just that. We can change them.

What are these "definitions" that you supposedly want to change? It seems to me that you are advocating changing the *classification* of burglary & drug dealing to "violent" crimes because they have the potential to turn violent.

According to such a system of classification, wouldn't *every* crime have the potential to turn violent & therefore be labeled as a "violent" crime?

Quote : For some reason you were just itching to write this post.

For some reason, you erroneously believe that you can read other posters' minds.

Quote from smegalicious : Not even close. Shaggy made a comment about "non-violent" drug offenders, to which you replied: Huh? I might agree that drug using is non-violent but drug dealing? Would burglary be considered non-violent too? So illegal arm dealing to to drug dealers and other criminal is also non-violent because the act of X-dealing is non-violent per se? Darkfrog responded by pointing out that, according to the legal definitions of those terms, burglary is a non-violent crime, while robbery involves at least the threat of force. If you have nothing accurate to add, just say nothing...

Who said we are limited to legal definitions?

Quote from smegalicious : Did I miss a rule change where every post in every thread now has to specifically mention what you consider "the topic" of the OP?

Not every decency and proper behavior is codified under a rule. But you do as you wish.

Quote from smegalicious : No, I *chose* to use that word because it fit your actions.

Of course you did. You chose a term to stir the crap. So far it has not worked. But we will see.

Quote from smegalicious : I most certainly did address your "potential" argument. Perhaps you missed it in your haste to chastise others... Any situation has the "potential" to become violent. A drug user, which you already labeled as "non-violent" has the potential to fly into a pcp-induced rage & start beating the crap out of everyone. So, by your own argument, mere drug use should be considered "violent".

You are playing dumb.


It was argued that robbery is a violent crime because it has the potential of becoming violent. Fine. So does burglary. Address that.

Quote from smegalicious : What are these "definitions" that you supposedly want to change? It seems to me that you are advocating changing the *classification* of burglary & drug dealing to "violent" crimes because they have the potential to turn violent. According to such a system of classification, wouldn't *every* crime have the potential to turn violent & therefore be labeled as a "violent" crime?

I did not say I would like to change the definitions. I simply said definitions can change. When one gives a rational, a logic, an argument for a definition, an argument such as robbery is considered violent because of the potential that it could become violent, then I think it is reasonable that I should be able to apply that argument to other cases and ask why isn't burglary classified as violent? It is a legitimate question and, yes, definitions can change.

Quote from smegalicious : For some reason, you erroneously believe that you can read other posters' minds.

Hun? Where did I read other pesters' minds? Is it because I said you wanted to show off? In there I was not reading your mind, I was reading your writings.