Comments

1
Jury nullification at its finest. Far fucking out.
3
' A subsequent search of his home turned up [...] a shoulder holster for a handgun and 9mm ammunition. As a convicted felon, Cornell was prohibited from having firearms [...] Potential jurors also couldn’t know about Cornell’s criminal history, which included eight felonies [...] plot last year to stage a theft at a business where a friend worked [...] “You’ve got no education, you’ve got no skills. Your life’s work seems to be going out and impregnating women and not supporting your children.” '

Not exactly a freedom fighter here. Cornell is a piece of garbage. This is primarily how these charges are used, to get scum like this off the street for a while. A normal marijuana user would never have been charged.
4
@3 Wait, I thought everyone in Montana was legally required to own a gun, even felons?
5
Almost the same thing happened to me in Seattle jury duty 9 or 10 years ago ... the prosecuting attorney asked if anyone felt any illegal drugs should be legalized. All but one person raised their hand, and we were questioned one by one ... answers ranged from "I don't have a problem with pot" to "Legalize it all!" Not sure exactly what happened after that, but we never made it to jury selection for that one.
6
@3 - Well then, as long as it has some kind of back-door use, it's a fine and just law, isn't it? How about a law against having thumbs? That way we can just imprison any unsavory types we don't like without having to convict them of anything legit (and don't worry, no normal thumb-haver would ever be charged).
7
@3, I gotta disagree with you on this one Fnarf.

He may very well be a scumbag, but he still shouldn't be arrested on trumped up charges for something that should be legal in the first place. Bust him for the parole violation or something legit.
8
@3, Montana is a horrible, dangerous place full of armed wing-nuts and roving mobs of religious zealots. You'd be advised to stay in Seattle...please.
9
@7, disagree with me on what? I made no recommendations. I'm not anti-legalization; I'm for it. I'm just pointing out that the real world is more complicated than the theoretical, and sometimes stuff gets done in ways we're not fond of because there are no other ways. And if, in your zeal to change the world, you end up making human garbage like this guy your rallying flag, you're going to struggle.
10
@9: Fnarf, the defendant in this case isn't the rallying flag; the Misoula juror pool -- who, as you quoted, were not made aware of the man's criminal record -- is the rallying flag. The prosecutor referred to the jury pool's "mutiny". The judge commented on the difficulty of finding jurors who will convict for low-level marijuana possession. You ran the defendant's past up the flagpole.
11
@10, past? Present. The gun was there at the pot bust. One of his illegitimate children and its probably drug-addicted mother was at the court hearing.
12
MacCrocodile, your new avatar is freaking me OUT. I'm pasting this in just to cleanse my palate:

http://feefeern.files.wordpress.com/2009…
13
@12 - It knows where you live. It watches you while you sleep.
14
Fools. Keep your mouth shut during voir dire so you get on the jury, then you apply jury nullification. It's not jury nullification if you don't make it to the jury.
15
@11: Fnarf: Past, present, future, whatever. I don't see anyone rallying around the defendant or calling him a freedom fighter. You erected those straw men.

We're rallying around a pool of jurors who expressed unwillingness to convict anyone -- "piece of garbage," "human trash," or a "normal marijuana user" -- of violation of this unjust law. Good for them.
16
don't worry, obama will do away with your right to a jury trial just as soon as he can.
17
this is an interesting path to ending prohibition, one i never really considered. does anyone know what happens if the court fails to seat a jury?
18
Just say No.
19
@15, and so a piece of human filth continues to terrorize the streets of Missoula.

This is what I mean by "complicated". Law enforcement is not a always a matter of high-minded principles being judiciously applied in contaminant-free environments. Often it's a matter of sweeping the streets with whatever you've got at your disposal. In this guy's case, a bogus pot bust was better than a jaywalking ticket, and the public benefits by having him in a jail cell.

Certainly there are other consequences which are less pleasant.
20
@7, disagree with me on what? I made no recommendations.

No, you merely made stuff up without providing any evidence for it.

This is primarily how these charges are used, to get scum like this off the street for a while. A normal marijuana user would never have been charged.

Tell that to the thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of "normal marijuana users" who are arrested and charged every year for mere possession. But probably not your friends or family members, so, you know, no biggie.

It's kind of like when you said...

When our guys kill innocent people, yes, it's "important" to our sense of honor, but it's not at all important in the context of Afghanistan.

You don't know any of these people...

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagall…

...so their violent deaths are "not at all important" in context of their country and homeland. Classy!

Then, like your assertion today, you reached deep into your asshole and pulled out the "fact" that...

Nobody in Afghanistan (outside the extreme minority Taliban) thinks we're the bad guys just because we killed a few innocents.

Of course they don't.

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

And "normal marijuana users" never get charged.

You really have no idea how much of a conservative you are, do you?
21
@19. why wouldn't the pot bust still allow a warrant for a search which revealed the firearm possession? don't they still have this guy on that?

i guess one of the questions is the following: is a tool for detaining real scumbags worth not allowing otherwise law-abiding people to possess marijuana?

in this case -- and in the future -- when the prosecutor goes for a lesser charge, they need to choose one greater than possession. even if they list all the charges, but can only get possession to stick, the jury may be more likely to convict over possession when they get the whole picture. but that's the problem with the choice the prosecutor made in this case.
22
Good news for the court of public opinion, I find nothing wrong with possessing marijuana, but this actually demonstrates one of the fatal flaws in our justice system—juries often make up their minds completely independent of facts.

It's really to bad the "benevolent ruler" approach to law has historically been plagued with problems, or I'd think it's really the way to go.
23
Noooooo, MacCrocodile! Do not sic your evil hand puppet dapper dan doll of death on meeeee....!

At least I figured out where Taylor Momsen got her inspiration:
http://static.poponthepop.com/images/gal…
24
I have to weigh in:
I live in Missoula, a very progressive and liberal city, (think what you want about the rest of MT) and I also happened to live across the street from the offender in question.
First, I am PROUD to be a part of a city that has residents that will stand up for an unrealistic and unfair system when it comes to prosecuting marijuana cases. And I have reveled in this story since I first heard it.
Until I realized that this was my old neighbor. I lived immediately across the street from the fourplex mentioned in the article. I saw him deal drugs at all times of the day, right on the street, to all sorts of creepy people. It was no secret at all in our fairly quiet neighborhood. And it clearly was not just pot he was dealing. I was home on the day they busted him, and found nearly nothing. He had clearly been tipped off, and cleared his house of all drugs and weapons.
The attempt at prosecuting just a few grams was a pathetic attempt on our police department's part to convict someone on something- anything, for the sake of the community. While they should have waited, and convicted him on something SUBSTANTIAL, I am happy that he was removed at the time he was. All of a sudden the minor thefts that were happening have stopped, the sketchy people have stopped driving my alley all night..etc, etc, etc... I sleep better.
So, while I LOVE that Missoula taxpayers/jurors found the case rediculous, and wasteful of time and money, I am torn by the fact that this guy should be in jail... And unfortunately our police department was responding to the voice of a community in trying to convict him in the first place.
25
@19 Fnarf wrote:
and so a piece of human filth continues to terrorize the streets of Missoula.


Your use of the word "so" suggests that you think "a piece of human filth continues to terrorize the streets of Missoula" because potential jurors expressed unwillingness to convict anyone of the crime of possession of less than two grams of the cannabis plant. Really? Then let's note that similarly, police in Missoula County are prohibited from simply sweeping up undesirables and locking them up, or shooting them in the head, so many other pieces of human filth continue to do what they do.

Are you suggesting that police should use these unjust laws to restrict the freedom of people who are troublesome, but not so troublesome that a judge has ordered those people's freedom restricted for reasons other than the behavior which is prohibited by the unjust laws? How do you feel about MacCrocodile's suggestion?

@6 MacCrocodile wrote:
How about a law against having thumbs? That way we can just imprison any unsavory types we don't like without having to convict them of anything legit (and don't worry, no normal thumb-haver would ever be charged).


Fnarf, if busting "scum like this" for pot possession while letting "normal marijuana users" slide is acceptable -- and it seems that you feel it is -- then what, in your view, would be wrong with having a law prohibiting something that almost everyone does, then letting police bust people they deem scum for doing it and letting people they deem normal slide?

Fnarf continued:
Law enforcement is not a always a matter of high-minded principles being judiciously applied in contaminant-free environments. Often it's a matter of sweeping the streets with whatever you've got at your disposal.


Often, what police have at their disposal is working outside the law, then banding together to hide their actions. Should we accept that as part of the deal? Should we just throw our hands up and say, "Well, we have no proof of these people doing anything bad enough to justify locking them up by working within the law, but we'd really like to have them locked up, so we'll just have to look the other way and let our police use whatever they have at their disposal?"

In this guy's case, a bogus pot bust was better than a jaywalking ticket, and the public benefits by having him in a jail cell.


What the hell are you talking about? Please explain how a bogus pot bust is "better than" a jaywalking ticket.
26
@19 - That mentality is what leads to minorities being prosecuted for drug possession much more often than whites, despite the usage rates being nearly identical.

27
@24: Gnarly, thanks for joining the discussion. Your reaction seems perfectly natural. It's a drastically toned-down version of, "I don't support torture under any circumstances. BUT, if I knew someone had information about where my kidnapped child was being held, I might feel differently." Even the worst behavior is likely to feel good when you benefit from it, regardless of how bad you think that a general policy of allowing that bad behavior is to our world as a whole.

For the sake of discussion, please imagine that you somehow learned that your ex-neighbor had been framed. Say, the police hadn't found a pinch of plant matter on him, but had planted more substantial evidence on him. If you don't mind sharing, please consider and relay to us how your feelings on the matter would differ.
28
@26 there are ass loads of white people in jail for the same shit , don't bring that tired old card to the table. come up with a new line webtard ! too bad minorities think the way to go to get ahead but the fact is they do , and they get caught. tough shit ,don't wanna go to jail , don't be a criminal. it's real simple !
29
@27: wow, talk about false equivalency.

One person's legitimate concern about a drug-dealer doing business in their neighborhood is the same thing as torture?

30
@28: you clearly don't know jack-shit about this. With the exception of criminal justice system stats, every bit of data available from every other source indicates that whites and non-whites use illegal substances at about the same rate.

The only places where non-whites are overrepresented is for arrest, decision to prosecute, conviction and sentencing. At each stage of the criminal justice system (and increasingly so as you go further up the chain), non-whites are disproportionately affected.

And what @14 said: if you really want jury nullification, get your ass on the jury and refuse to convict.
31
@29, thanks. I agree
@Phil M, (I can't believe I am responding, but here goes). I have a hard time with the stretch that this is like supporting torture if it was my child... If this were ANYONE else's neighborhood, I would feel the same way.
Let me back up a bit. We KNEW this guy was dealing drugs. We saw it at all hours of the day and night, and if anyone believed he was just dealing a little weed, I'm pretty sure most people in this VERY pot-friendly town would have cared less about him. Do I think that ANYONE should be jailed or even ticketed for a small amount of drugs? Nope. Not if it is an isolated incident. But, that wasn't the issue here. (Even though that is what the headlines are attempting to make an issue.)
This is a guy who was out on parole, awaiting a trial for theft. One of MANY charges that are and will go on his record. He was known by police and neighbors to be a criminal. For a while everyone in the neighborhood turned a blind eye to what he was doing. But when he became careless, truly not hiding what he was doing, even in front of neighborhood kids; coupled with sketchy people that were seen in and out of our alleys and driveways at ALL HOURS, and a rising crime rate within our 4 block radius.... enough was enough. People felt their safety was in jeopardy. A group of neighbors took it to the police, and asked if they would just please pay attention. (I was not a part of this, but I knew it was happening and didn't argue against it.) The guy was ratted out by some kids he sold to, and the next day the cops raided his place, as they finally had probably cause. Unfortunately, he was tipped off. It was clear that his place had been cleaned, and the cops made a poor decision to try and take this guy down for a few crumbs of weed he probably missed in the couch cushions while cleaning. The police were responding to a request for help from a neighborhood. Did they handle it correctly? It doesn't appear so. But it did end up being effective.

Was that weed planted on him? Most likely No. Would I support the cops planting weed on him just to get him out of my neighborhood? NO. I don't support the torture. And I believe that the system CAN work when used like it's supposed to be. Should he go to jail for violating parole, and for whatever other charges were pending? Yes. That's what we were all waiting for anyway...
But should citizens be able to ask our tax-funded entities to patrol our neighborhoods? Yes. Should we be able to ask them to step in when someone is blatantly breaking the law, and people feel as if their safety is challenged? Yes. Am I happy he's gone? Yes. But I believe there might be a more effective way to bring down a seemingly dangerous dealer than just bringing him in for a trivial amount of drugs.
32
@29 Captain Wiggins and @31 Gnarly: It seems you both missed the phrase "drastically toned-down" in my message @27. I'm not comparing torture to "convict him on whatever you can, even if it's this unjust prohibition law," I'm comparing people's support of two different systems they otherwise abhor when use of those systems happens to benefit them. Please re-read if it seems that this was not the case. Torture is never okay, and locking someone in a cage because he had 1.5g of cannabis isn't, either.

Gnarly, I think we're in agreement about all or almost all of this. I don't want some black market business operating across the street from my home if it's going to draw the trouble you described. But I'd rather do away with the crime of possession of a couple grams of forbidden plant matter than to keep it around as a "tool" for police to use to get undesirables -- even *really* undesirables -- out of the way when the rest of the system doesn't suffice.

I'm still awaiting a response from Fnarf to 1) MacCrocodile's suggestion that we outlaw thumbs so police officers will always have such a tool available, and 2) my assertion that a lack of policy allowing Missoula cops to crack skulls at-will is equally at fault for "a piece of human filth [continuing] to terrorize the streets of Missoula".
33
@16 - What rights has Obama taken away so far that leads you to this comment? You do recall that under the Bush administration, habeas corpus was eliminated, right? I bet you through a fit about that, huh?
34
Boy you can feel the love in here today. Sure glad it's the Holiday Season.
35
THE ERIC CARTMAN makes me miss LovesChild. Her/his/their beliefs were insane, but LC sincerely believed them, even though they shifted minute to minute. In a world of Allegeds, LovesChild was a Troll above the rest. Even "." was a cut above THE ERIC CARTMAN.
36
@33: While not exactly a troll (his comments are relevant and represent a consistent and socially-extant ideology, even if I don't find his positions to be legitimate), THE ERIC CARTMAN, like so many Tea Party/FOX-zombie types, feels little need to back his assertions with facts or engage in evidence-based reasoning of any kind. As samktg points out, he almost feels more like a pastiche character, though the inconsistent and contradictory nature of his espoused views is indistinguishable from the rabble you get from people who sincerely do manage to believe that mandatory Creationism education, enforced pregnancy, suspension of habaes corpus for persons labeled "terrorists", stop-checking residency papers of brown people, mandatory heterosexuality, searches/arrests without probable cause, etc. are acceptable levels of government intrusion on private behaviors, while a 3% tax hike or prohibitions on dumping mercury into watersheds are fascist plots. It's hard to satirize delusional fanatics, so I'm never sure any more whether people spouting absurd sociopolitical positions (I'm sure I occasionally or more-than-occasionally qualify, in the opinions of some) are serious or not. Plus, being an Interweb forum, people tend to disable their self-censorship filters.

As for the "Obama is a fascist" cry, I find it particularly ironic, given that people are able to show up to protests at Obama speaking engagements with rifles, while we were cordoned-off in "free speech zones" during the Bush years and arrested if we tried to get within a mile of the President. If this starts happening to you, I'm sure we'll hear about it, which is good, because all of us who experienced this under Bush will be out there with your non-arrested comrades protesting the exercise of state-violence to squash speech, even if we disagree with it. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Either Voltaire or Ewelyn Beatrice Hall (in summary of Voltaire's political philosophy)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.