Slashdot Mirror
Build a Secret Compartment, Go To Jail
KindMind writes "Alfred Anaya was a custom stereo installer who branched out to making secret compartments for valuables, who the DEA sent to prison as a co-conspirator when a drug dealer used his creation to smuggle drugs. But Wired points out the bigger question: 'The challenge for anyone who creates technology is to guess when they should turn their back on paying customers. Take a manufacturer of robot kits for hobbyists. If someone uses those robots to patrol a smuggling route or help protect a meth lab, how will prosecutors determine whether the company acted criminally?'"
It serves the guy right for not using his right to legal bribery of elected officials using campaign contributions and lobbying like gun manufacturers and other scum do.
To me, law enforcement would have a leg to stand on if they were also pushing hard for the right to arrest the management of gun and ammunition manufacturers - Those agents-of-death are way more culpable of abetting in the murder of children than some guy making secret compartments.
you put your weed in there.
... is to legalize absolutely all the drugs, and put the DEA, et. al., out of business. The insane drug war is just another excuse to violate citizen's rights, plus it provides obscene amounts of money to all the wrong sorts of people. And, reportedly, Mexico has lost 70,000 of its citizens since 2007 to drug war violence. Is the USA keeping drugs illegal really worth 70,000 human lives? I don't think so.
Who in the hell thought the 'War on Drugs' was rational? That's the problem right there. Drug use is not a black or white situation. Smoking pot is one thing. Meth addicts with children in the home is another. But like anything else controversial, once politics gets involved you can throw rationality right out the window! Being casualties of war is a given, you have to ask yourself if they're worth preserving a healthy community.
Under the same premise a car manufacturer should be liable for assisting in a bank robbery because the thieves couldn't have gotten away so quickly without their ingenious device called the automobile! This is just stupid and the judge that made that poor decision should be shot, hanged, and burnt at the stake!
The article (which I read days ago) clearly states that it's not illegal to put those compartments into vehicles. However, it IS illegal IF the person installing knows that they will be used for illegal purposes.
Since he saw the huge amount of cash in the one he repaired, and discussed what the size of a "kilo" would be, etc, he opened the door to getting in trouble.
Does a gun manufacturer or dealer go to jail as co-conspirator when the killer used the gun to kill people?
He used to work legally, and pay the taxes.
Now he will have problems finding a job, so he will build secret compartments for drug runners for living, not as a side job.
If you are a small Mom and Pop operations (Under 5 employees) you are going to jail.
If you are a Small Business (Under 100 Employees) you will get massive fines.
If you are a Medium Business (Under 1000 Employees) you will get a stern talking to
If you are a Large Business (1000+ Employees) you are considered an innovator, any misuse of your product is not your fault.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From what I understand, a bartender can get in trouble for overserving someone who then drives drunk and causes mayhem.
Apparently, this guy who installed custom compartments in vehicles got in trouble, despite (apparently) refusing to build them for explicit drug use.
Are convenience stores liable when smokers get cancer? They're selling the carcinogens.
Are firearm and ammunition manufacturers and dealers liable for school shootings? You know those aren't all done with zip guns and reloads.
We have a legal system that seems to be logically inconsistent.
On the face of it his incarceration is ludicrous. If he specifically created the compartment for drug smuggling and took part of the profits . . . well then I can see some justification.
There's more to it than this.
Don't you mean the unions?
Union workers make the products that kill, maim or injure millions:
Cars, pools, trampolines, cigarettes, movies, spoons, etc..,
No brain, no pain.
Alfred Anaya was an easy target. A large company would have no liability. Else gun and car manufacturers would be getting imprisoned all the time. Alfred Anaya was put in prison because he didn't have the money to defend himself. A prosecuting attorney does not care about guilt or innocence. They only care about how likely they are to win a case and put someone behind bars.
What about the company that made the resistors (or other components) in that hobby robot? If not for the resistors, the robot would be impossible.
OTOH, the guy is making secret compartments in cars to store "valuables"- what would he expect his customers to be storing in there if not drugs? I suppose there's always guns...
I think the guy targeted a specific market for his product. Apparently things didn't work out so well for his customer, which will probably put an end to his not-so-secret hidden compartment business.
I think the lesson of this case has little to do with secret compartments. What mainly happened here is the police wanted him to work for them and he said no, so the built a case to punish him. The trial was a joke, the testimony against him was due to plea deals and some of it was physically impossible to be true, and most of it hinged on building up personal dislike by the jury due to his lifestyle.
He refused to put his life at risk when the police threatened him, and they made good on the threat, even if he was within the law. Being within the law does not matter when they want to get you.
...you'll see that not only did he have suspicions, but that those suspicions were validated when he had to repair the mechanism to open the secret compartment, only to find it loaded with cash. And not a little bit of cash; according to the article, the reason the compartment jammed was that it was over-filled with $800,000 in cash. Anaya's reaction, from the article:
If you participate in something you know to be illegal, that's conspiracy. He's not charged because he built a compartment; any activity that he would have participated in which would contribute...knowingly...to an illegal enterprise would fit the bill here. He's charged because he knew something wrong was going on, it involved him, and he said nothing to the police. If the criminals had somehow needed a hot fudge sundae to commit a criminal act, and he'd provided the ice cream knowing what would happen, the name of this article would be "Make a sundae, go to jail." I don't see the problem here. Furthermore, Anaya had serious concerns about his customer before he even did the work in the first place..."Anaya was unsettled by this request, for he had suspicions about the nature of Esteban’s work."
But guess what? None of that is the REAL thing he's caught for. After all of that...what happens? Esteban...the guy with almost a million dollars in cash hidden in his truck...is asked by Esteban to install a similar compartment in ANOTHER truck. I mean, come on...
Yeah, maybe Esteban just had a really lucrative paper route...
Right. They want your services so bad because it's not all that important to them. You're not helping with the narcotics trade...nooooo...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
"The judge agreed with McCracken’s harsh assessment. He sentenced Anaya to 292 months in federal prison—more than 24 years—with no possibility of parole. Curtis Crow and Cesar Bonilla Montiel, the men at the top of the organization, received sentences half that length."
Just to be clear -- the article doesn't reveal the 24-year sentence until almost the very end. Part of the problem is, as usual (see Aaron Swartz) unchecked prosecutors piling on crazy charges to force a plea bargain, and one person who truly believes they didn't do anything wrong, and refuses to take it for principle's sake. End result: epic miscarriage of justice.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
His mistake was in installing the second "trap" in the other vehicle. He could have legitimately claimed that he agreed to fix the first one out of a sense of responsibility for his workmanship AND fear that the guy would come after him for failing to do so. However, agreeing to the second one made it a clear money grab and it violated the California law. He knew the only way that the guy got that much money was through the drug trade. He should have told the guy that he had compromised his business by showing up with all that money in the "trap" and exposed him to legal liability beyond what he had agreed to.
I understand why he thought he was skirting the law, but he knew he was skirting the law. Once it went beyond merely knowing in an academic fashion that some of his customers were using his installations in an illegal fashion to having seen evidence (even though that evidence was not by itself enough to convict the customer) that a particular customer was doing so he had crossed the line. He crossed the line of plausible deniability.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
... is never a way of avoiding obvious legal trouble in business. The installer knew they were smuggling huge amounts of cash and should have called the authorities, not make them remove the cash and pretend he never saw it. Basically his arrest was not about building a hidden compartment, it was about abetting money laundering tied to drug trafficking. Abetting money laundering hooked him.
The title *should* read, make a secret compartment *knowing it will be used for illegal activity* and go to jail. Read the article. He was repairing a compartment for a customer, and when it opened, found it filled with cash. The amount of cash was enough to actually jam the compartment. Then he continued to work on more compartments for the same customer, turning a blind eye to what any reasonable person would believe was illegal activity. Once caught, he chose to fight the charges rather than plea out, and rolled the dice with the jury. One could argue that the charges and jail time (in excess of 25 years I believe) are ridiculous in comparison to the crime committed - why should the drug dealers get less time than a guy who facilitated their crimes - but don't cry for his "innocence." He was guilty.
The case hinged on whether Alfred Anaya knew that the compartments were being used to smuggle drugs. In this context, when he was repairing one of the compartments in question he saw that it was full of bundles of cash. The prosecutors argued (and the jury agreed) that this was clear evidence that something illegal was going on, most likely drugs. He could have said no at that point, but he didn't. I'm generally in favor of legalization for most drugs, but this fellow isn't as sympathetic and innocent as the summary makes him out to be.
The guy was not just building traps. He knew what they were being used for. That is the difference here.
Building traps for a client = legal.
Building traps for a client when you know they are using them to do illegal activities = illegal.
If you RTFA, its pretty obvious Anaya knew he was helping criminals. I don't feel sorry for him at all. If he really wanted to keep a clean business he could have said that he would document all installations and share them with the cops.
where that which isn't specifically allowed is forbidden.
I tend to blame the democrat for this.
Regardless: Re-elect no one. Ever.
I myself once machined and built a small safe designed to hide in a vehicle as I frequently transported gold at the time. Unless there was proof that this guy was trying to do something illegal it sounds absolutely insane that he would be punished. The area that I traveled through was known to be quite dangerous and window smashing and grabbing at valuables was common. Matter of fact many gun owners need some sort of safe in their vehicles as there is a plague of people leaving guns under the car seats or between the seats or sometimes just under a newspaper on the seat which is dangerous in many ways including stopping to get gasoline or a cup of coffee. Criminals often get their guns by feeling around under car seats. Friday and Saturday nights are usually the good nights for that nonsense as people get drunk and leave their cars wide open with guns, wallets and all kinds of things in easy reach. Usually the only way these thieves get caught is by accident.
This is part of a disturbing trend (or tidal wave) of legislation trying to protect the public from potential risk and danger: gun control, control of locksmith tools, control of network testing tools etc. are all designed to restrict activities and objects that are primarily used for legal purposes but might be used to create harm. The control and licensing measures being enacted have never been shown to work, but they make people feel good. Of course, they also take away individual freedoms more and more.
Right now, most of these laws come from law-and-order Republicans and a bunch of left wing causes. But make no mistake: if this goes far enough, it will come back and even eat away at recent progress in social liberalization. Much the same legal reasoning that can be applied to guns and violent crime can be applied to sex and reproduction.
On the face of it this is a grave miscarriage of justice. The 24 year sentence is ridiculous.
But did Alfred Anaya make a mistake? Surely he did, by not walking away when he saw the $800,000 in his customer's compartment. Anything he did for this customer after that revelation put him in a bad position.
Unfortunately the courts and the DOJ seem to have little flexibility or perspective. This is a situation where an appropriate punishment would be probation and perhaps a suspended sentence.
I tried to convert a pickup to electric power in the early 1990's. The problem I ran into was: The cops consider it illegal to build in batteries under the bed of a pickup, as that is a common place to hide large quantities of drugs. The resistance from law enforcement (and their claims that drugs could be hidden behind the batteries) literally stipped the project.
This is why Toyota developed the Prius with the tech we pioneered.
I had an Arlington, TX cop run a tire iron down the side of a Pontiac Grand Am looking for Bondo one time. The car had been hit by a postal truck, and had just been repaired. The cop thought that any trace of bondo would be enough to send me to jail for life. He was such an idiot he never got through the primer to the bondo. His department paid for the damages to the Pontiac.
There is no hope for the USA to regain a technological edge until the cops are stopped.
should of took the deal and be come a CI.
In this country, everything will be illegal, and you will be guilty the moment you are born. USA #1 - land of the free.
Move out while you still can. (but don't come to Europe, we don't want you)
If you dont have a place to hunker down and do not go outside. It is pretty likely you will become a victim.
No matter what kind of injustice is presented on the net we never do anything and and an even worse one is only the next refresh away.
Dont be surprised if this gets even more deadly than a war.
Perhaps this issue of vets know how to fight back.
If I'm in the business of creating safes and other concealment areas in a house or whatever else for that matter, I don't think it's my job to interview my clients to know what they will put in them and it's also not my job to ask what they do for a living. I'm only concerned about whether I can get paid for my services. Bottom line, this is a travesty of justice. Abuse in its worse form. If I was filthy rich, I would actually fork out the cash to get this dude out of prison by hiring the best private investigators and the best lawyers and basically clear his name.
Once this guy knew who he was doing business with, it gave him two crappy options:
1) Turn informant for the government. His customers would know in a moment that he flipped once they see that he's moved out of his house and suddenly has the money to open a fancy storefront with all the bells and whistles (bugged to the gills). Once they figure that out, he and his family are as good as dead.
2) Take your chances in court. Since the federal government moved the venue to Kansas, that'll practically secure a conviction for an LA Latino who can easily be painted as a gangster living large while working on spec for the drug lords. Also, this sets an example for those who refuse uncle sams generous offer to turn informant.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
I read this article before it was posted on Slashdot, so I have had a chance to think about it. My biggest problem with this case is the guy's credibility. When it came time to make the money (lots of money) installing the traps he was content to play dumb. When it came time to cooperate with the Fed's after reality caught up to the guy all of a sudden he was in so much fear for his life about these guys that cooperating the Feds (they offered a sweetheart deal) was inconceivable to him.
Let's put it this way, it would be a little bit like one of the guys in Columbia that makes private submarines in the middle of jungle claiming that he thought they were for recreational purposes. This guy knew damn well what his traps were being used for and went right on making them and profiting off of them anyways. Point being that the guy knowingly facilitated the drug trade for profit, how is he any different from a dealer or a crooked border agent?
How that is fundamentally different from making a new encryption method? Or even being hired to install an existing encryption system in some company servers? If you make an encryption system that feds can't break, then you risk going to jail?
And so? Having a bit of cash is illegal? Did he have to immediately call the police?
On what basis should have he refused to do his job? "Oh, I don't know, I cannot do it because you may be a drug dealer, probably". Great way to treat a customer who may have won a fortune in Las-Vegas.
One of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence was that the British government was "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences". The Founders believed that any alleged crimes should be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where they occurred and that defendants should be tried by a jury of their peers. This was codified in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
It seems clear that this section of the Constitution was violated here. Anaya was prosecuted in Kansas, a state where he had apparently never set foot, on the grounds that some of his customers had smuggled drugs there using his secret compartments. But this meant that he would not be tried by a jury of his peers – Californians who are racially diverse, familiar with high tech, and understand that rubbing elbows with the occasional shady person doesn't mean you are necessarily a criminal yourself. Instead he would be tried by a jury in Kansas, a state which is almost all-white and which is full of (let's be honest) fascists.
This is far from the only outrage in this case – it never should have been prosecuted in the first place, and the 24-year sentence is utterly absurd for any offense that doesn't involve death or serious bodily harm – but it's one that hasn't been mentioned so far, and may have been key to Anaya's conviction.
We can put a stop to this nonsense at any point. We learned during prohibition that all you're really doing is funding organized crime. At least we learned that lesson about alcohol pretty quickly. Too bad we're also incapable of learning from our mistakes or history. Cutting the DEA (and TSA while we're cutting things) would go a long way toward balancing our budget, especially if you also tax currently illegal drugs at about the same rate alcohol is currently taxed at.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
OLD
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies
Petition at whitehouse.gov: http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/review-chargespardon-alfred-anaya-federal-law-being-out-control-alfred-was-sentenced-24-years/
I would hang that jury for a month if that's what it took to not convict this guy. And furthermore, I would have answered all questions on the juror questionnaire "To answer this I would have to know the specifics of the case" or some variant thereof so that I couldn't be removed for cause. For 25 years I've been registered as Libertarian and have not been called for jury duty. Posting as AC just in case this could be considered juror misconduct.
Wait, I saw that episode of "Law and Order". They decided to go after a handgun manufacturer with the premise that the only purpose that could exist for a small lightweight handgun is to kill people. Oh, wow, I just searched for it, and I misremembered. Here's part of the plot line from IMDB's page about it:
When he learns that the gun could be turned into an automatic weapon using an inexpensive kit you can buy at any gun show, he decides to go after the manufacturer. Despite evidence that the gun manufacturer knew that most of their sales were because of the ease of conversion, it's obvious McCoy is going to have a hard time getting a conviction.Quite a few L&O episodes are based on real-life scenarios, so perhaps this sort of case was tried IRL? So in other words, the gun is legitimate but could be used and easily modified to illegal use capabilities. Doesn't anyone else also see the parallel argument that could be used against GNU/Linux?
.
The argument could then me made in the same vein that GNU and Linux and any sort of homebrew software usage and creation aids in the illegal downloading of software or video or audio materials. Why, what other use could these pieces of software not sold by reputable firms such as MS or Apple have? It's quite a slippery slope.
I bet he knew exactly that the compartments were going to be used for illegal purposes.
However, the sentence received is so unjust as to be barbaric. How the prosecutor and the judge can claim to have anything to do with civilization while handing down sentences this absurd just demonstrates the justice system is morally bankrupt.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
With a few exceptions, like not calling the police when you know a serious crime almost certainly WILL happen if you don't or when it's one of those "mandatory reporting" crimes like child abuse, you have the moral right to not speak up. Free countries generally give you the legal right to do so as well.
Now, on its face, the law that says you have to report if you KNOW that a compartment you are being asked to build WILL almost certainly be used to transport drugs falls into this category.
HOWEVER, transporting drugs is not the same as transporting cash, and I'm not sure he knew for certain that the secret compartment he built would be used to transport drugs, as opposed to contraband or even legally-obtained currency.
Morally speaking, the proper charge in cases like this, where you are providing an otherwise-legal service to someone who you reasonably suspect has non-specific felonious intent, is not conspiracy or failure to report. Rather, it's a special case of "aiding and abetting," where the punishment should be based on the lesser of what YOU got out of it (i.e. how much you stood to gain, with some minimum fine if you were "just helping a friend" and didn't gain anything) or the severity of the crime that you enabled. If you net $5 for selling a "suspicious" guy a gun and he winds up shooting the President and your participation didn't rise to the "normal" rules of being a co-conspirator, you shouldn't get much punishment, as you didn't gain much. In fact, your punishment on this charge may be less than the punishment you got for not doing proper background checks on the buyer. If you net $1M for giving a guy a gun and he is arrested for a minor felony gun-possession charge, your punishment on "aiding and abetting" should also be very light, as no serious crime was committed.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If the guy knowingly and willingly worked with a drug dealer to build this, maybe, just MAYBE it would hold up in court. However, legal precedent being what it is, I doubt it. If the prosecution can't establish a clear link and the guy gets convicted, we're all completely effed. IMHO, legal precedent is on this guy's side because the case of the developers of the VCR didn't hold up in copyright infringement court. Seems to me that the dividing line is whether or not a device is built specifically to break the law. Take the case of Class 3 fully-automatic weapons. Sure, one could make the parts to convert a semi-auto to a full-auto with a CNC mill. Doing so is against the law without a Class 2 manufacturers license from the BATFE. But the company that made the CNC mill isn't responsible and by extension, neither are 3D printer manufacturers. The same goes for early color copiers which were used to print phony money. Canon wasn't held liable.
Based on the article, it sounds like there's more evidence that the compartments were used to smuggle money. Still makes it likely the proceeds were from something illegal though. Along those lines it could have been drugs, prohibited substances, documents, endangered species, etc.
Wow. Can you claim that "every low priced item for sale in the real world" must be stolen, because why else would someone offer to sell something for a low value if it might have a higher value? No, sometimes people don't know the intrinsic value of something. So everyone who buys something cheaply off craigslist does not have to be complicit in the purchase of stolen goods if they didn't know the goods were stolen. You're reaching a conclusion which may seem reasonable but which, IMHO, is unreasonable.
.
Banks have mandated reporting of transactions greater than a certain amount, or even of the "unbundling" of a transaction into a series of transactions that skirt that certain amount. Not everyone who performs transactions are mandated to be reporters.
.
What amount of money is suspicious? Is carrying $3000 in cash proof of evil that requires the government to confiscate it through Asset Forfeiture laws and cases like USA vs. "large bag of cash"? Do you know how much abuse there is of these asset forfeiture laws?
.
Read up on the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal. Is every other person in the world supposed to report their suspicions to the police anytime something slightly questionable comes along? (your viewpoint certainly does not match your namesakes' reputations, attila demedici!)
since automobiles are used to transport drugs
and arrest the CEOs of Zip Lock baggies, since it is a common packaging for drugs
and while were at it arrest the CEOs of the banks that launder the money, too
the US Govt has gone insane,"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I'm as suspicious of the government as the next guy, and am frustrated as well by constant Fed overreaching as well as prosecutors that play fast&loose with the rules.
However, I'm not sure I buy this.
There's a lot in the article that's *designed* to make him a sympathetic 'victim of the man' - I don't give a crap about his background, and how hard he works.
Taking his story at face value, I believe he probably DID 'keep his customers at arms length' - it only made sense to do so, when dealing with such a dangerous world.
However, it does sound like he had a fairly extravagant lifestyle (whether he'd extended himself out on credit to do so, as his defense asserted), AND the prosecution managed to convince 12 people of this.
The article is working very hard to make him out as a pure and innocent victim.
It may mean he is, in fact, a pure and innocent victim.
But I'm instinctively suspicious of anyone who tries to pull my sympathy-strings too hard.
-Styopa
My school had a few real meth heads when I was in high school. The harm that regular meth did was demonstrable in a way that made DARE completely unnecessary. A lot of students actually avoided meth because they saw the harm it did (damaged intelligence, rotting teeth, misc health issues, etc.)
Just calling the kid(s) on stage at a pep rally for 5 minutes and saying "kids, this is what regular meth use does. This is why we don't want you to use meth. Now Johnny, Susy, etc. please be seated." would stop 95% of kids from ever doing meth. It's not like a STD or something like that it's so in-your-face and repeatable that only morons (even by teen standards) would think it doesn't apply to them.
Anya was not innocent in this issue. When he saw wads of cash in the f-150 he should have taken the safe route and refused to work for Esteban Magallon. There is no lawful reason somone would stuff $800,000 in cash under a seat. Willful ignorance is no protection from the law. He knew what his work was being used for. He knew the penalty for installing traps for drug dealers. He knew he was being paid with illegally obtained money. He just didn't think he would get caught. The so called quote by Anya, "“Get it out of here, I don’t want to know about this. I don’t want any problems.”, is further damning evidence as it was too late; he already knew. Had he cut ties at that point I could see him having an out but to continue working for the obvious drug dealer convicts him.
There is no parallel between Anya and a robot kit manufacturer. The difference is that Anya had direct contact with the drug dealers and took money from a drug deal for that service. The only ways a robot manufacturer could get into trouble is if they went to the drug dealer's lab and installed the robots or have the drug dealer return the robot, covered in drugs, for repair. The parallel is just stupid, By that logic anyone who sells anything to a drug dealer is liable.
Traps are a special case in that they are essential to smuggling and appear to have a law specifically dealing with them. Had Anya said no when he discovered the cash he probably would be in the clear. He didn't, he broke the law, he goes to jail.
There is broadly applicable principle that laws should not usually yield counter intuitive results. If they do, the odds favor the law itself being unjust. In this case, we're punishing a harmless-but-stupid mechanic for making otherwise legal car customizations only because our perverse drug laws created an unreasonable situation. Also, the DEA and DOJ got pissed that he feared the drug dealers more than them.
There is ample evidence that drug prohibition causes crime and prevents treatment, making all the DEA agents, DOJ prosicutors, and prison contractors who lobby for unjust intimidating laws wholly responsible for the drug related deaths, addiction cases, etc. All the ridiculous scenarios like asset forfeiture cases or locking up mechanics who make otherwise legal mods flow entirely from the underlying corruption in our prison-industrial-complex.
There is one small measure I'd suggest that might reduce the problem somewhat : Do not permit federal prosecutors to become federal judges or win primaries for elected office. Any time we hear about a proposed judicial appointment or a new candidate in some race, just google them and find their past jobs. If they were a federal prosecutor, then google more to find if they ever brought charges under the CFAA, DMCA, etc. or if any drug cases stand out as unjust. If so, then make a stink online to help derail their career advancement. If federal prosecutors cannot usually become federal judges or representatives then they'll lose considerable lobbying power over time.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
It's not illegal to manufacture or sell something that is eventually used in a crime.
It *IS* illegal to provide material support for a criminal act. That makes you one of the criminals.
So, if I make guns that are sold at retail and a criminal comes and buys them at a store and then uses them in a crime, not my fault. But if I sell a few crates of guns to a visitting African warlord for cash, well....
If I have a business installing hidden compartments in cars, no problem. If I find out one of my customers is using the compartments to smuggle materials and I continue to serve that customer, I'm no longer just installing hidden compartments, I'm PARTICIPATING IN THE SMUGGLING.
The guy wasn't jailed for making the compartments. He was jailed for being part of the smuggling scheme.
paintball
Yo dawg, I head you like to hide stuff, so I built a secret compartment into your secret compartment. Now you can hide your stash from the police while they hide their surveillance equipment from YOU.
Build a Secret Compartment for a Drug Dealer, Go To Jail.
FTFY
Build a Secret Compartment, Go To Jail. Resale an MP3, Go To Jail. fuçk a girl without condom (Asange) with her consent, Go To Jail. Jailbreak your own phone, Go To Jail. "Steal" (copy) non-profit academic articles to ease/increase human learning (Aaron Swartz), Go To Jail. .. the list gets longer and longer.
when is going to stop?
What if it doesn't?
This is true. The loss to the global economy (or more specifically, USA & Mexico) from an additional 70k people dead is a lot more money than what is gained from the DEA by having jobs parading around arresting people for drug use.
Just like the who caused Arron Swart's suicide, this very dishonest, evil, power-abusing prosecutor should be held personally responsible.
She wants her win record, the record of being tough, as a way of getting ahead in her career. She should be fully responsible for the side-effects of her power-lust.
Hang them all.
"Sure. Its possible some of my compartments may have been used for drugs. But look at all the people who use them to hide valuables from car prowlers and guns from kids."
Have gnu, will travel.
Every time the concept of legalizing drugs is raised someone raises the issue of "widespread use" and usually of drugs with a high addiction potential.
Yet these people never explain why millions of people with no inclination to drink more than a couple of glasses of wine or beer a week -- despite the fact that it's legal, cheap and broadly accepted to drink more than that -- would suddenly start having interest in heroin, amphetamines or cocaine.
The only way I can explain this happening is "legalizing" being made semantically equivalent to "mass commercialization and marketing" and the general public suddenly being largely tricked in consuming products with these drugs blended in ("Mountain Dew Super Rush!") or in new formulations ("Tylenol UltraPain, now with 10 mg oxycodone!") or as "new" products with their real content hidden.
First of all, no legalization regime for anything stronger than marijuana would ever allow for these substances -- all accepted as drugs -- to be added to existing consumer products, and the FDA would likely NOT approve them being added to OTC drug formulations, either., even under existing law. Secondly, I don't think even the biggest legalize-everything advocates would back the kind of crass commercialism we have now, even at the limited levels permitted for alcohol sales.
Most importantly, the social stigma of these drugs wouldn't go away overnight if ever, really. I can drink a beer at a suburban kids birthday party, it seems highly unlikely though that in anything less than a generation I'd be able to snort a couple of lines of coke or heroin; even pot smoking would probably be sketchy due to the smoking aspect.
Furthermore, there's a lot of hype -- we prescribe MILLIONS of people amphetamines and opioids every day without mass addiction problems. To the extent there are problems they are driven by the illegality of the drugs or the news media's hype machine.
If this actually sticks, they need to go after the automotive industry next. I can guarantee that there's a car involved in every major crime, from burglary over drug trafficking to murder and terrorism. And while we're at it, grab the road builders as well - they provide what the cars drive on so they're as much part of it as the car builders. It should be fairly easy to prove that if all vehicles were outlawed most crime would drop significantly, proving the direct connection and the extreme importance of car and road to the criminals.
Or perhaps we need to get this: Just because an object CAN be used for crime doesn't mean it will or has been. Sure, stuff like lock picks are kinda hard to explain away, but a car is rather innocent - it can be used simply to transport someone from A to B. So is a secret compartment. The most obvious use would be to hide valuables from thieves or would-be thieves, like a friend who might be borrowing the car. It could be really wise if that friend didn't find the hidden gun or the emergency cash or whatever. I know many people who have a secret safe in their house. One thing is a safe that can't easily be cracked, but if the thieves can't find it, they certainly can't crack it. Same thing with a secret compartment in a car. If the police can't find it even if they know it's there filled with drugs and the drug sniffing dogs can't find it either then some random car thief or carjacker sure ain't gonna find it either.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
> he demonstrated that he believed the money was ill gotten
I still do not get it. This proves what exactly? The craftsman suspected that the customer may be a criminal. This does NOT make him a co-conspirator in a drug smuggling operation.
"But Anaya resisted his court-appointed lawyer’s advice to plead guilty; he still couldn’t fathom how building traps made him a drug trafficker, and he was confident that a jury would sympathize with his plight."
Logical, I would think. Only the jury in Kanzas (not Anaya's state, BTW) did not sympathize for some reason. Why would that be?
While we are waiting for drugs to be legalized your job is to get on juries and make sure non-violent drug offenders are found not-guilty.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
If someone comes at you with a knife and you point a gun at him, he is very unlikely to keep coming, and far more likely to head in the other direction, perhaps in some haste, if he has a brain in his head. Only if he is an idiot are you likely to have to pull the trigger. And if he is an idiot with a knife coming after you, you had better have a trigger to pull.
Indeed, and often these incidents go unreported because, well, the police are not your friend. By all means, call them if you are the victim of a crime involving losses, but in some areas reporting that you drove off the home invaders with a gun is simply asking to have the gun confiscated, your home searched for drugs*, and you arrested for assault.
In other areas they'll ask you to shoot quicker, of course. Mileage varies an incredible amount. Know how your local PD leans, there are 'liberal'** departments in staunch 'conservative' states and vice versa...
*And plantings are not unknown.
**Used only to provide stereotypical meaning. Couldn't think of a better description at the moment. Liberal = anti-self defense, Conservative=bloody minded. Not that those are actually all that representative.
I don't read AC A human right
Then tell me that belief ever held true in America at any time.
Well, it was the jury who sent the person to prison, not DEA.
McCracken [the prosecutor]: "I don’t feel bad at all today. In fact, this is a pleasure. And Mr. Anaya says that he’s part of this big group of people that puts in compartments. He’s part of this secret society, I guess. Well, I hope he tells a friend, because we’re coming for them.”
Why do rich Americans LOVE the US justice system? Because it is the best system in the West for 'buying' justice. And the irony is, most of this 'buying' is NOT by bribing or other corrupt methods, but actually by actually being able to afford lawyers who actually understand and can argue the principles of US law in court.
American justice is BENT. In the USA, judges are instructed to pretend they know NOTHING about the principles of the law- and that the job of the lawyers for the defense and prosecution is to remind the judges of these principles. So, take this case- modifying vehicles to create hidden compartments. Is this a crime in the USA? Absolutely not! However, being involved in a criminal conspiracy to use hidden compartments in vehicles in order to commit crimes IS a crime. You CANNOT be involved in a conspiracy without intent by definition.
In a US court, the prosecution can pretend intent is not required, and the judge will ALWAYS go along with this position unless the defense is capable of informing the jury exactly how the US legal system works, in which case the judge will magically remember the concept of 'intent'. Americans are brainwashed by their Israel-loving TV channels to believe this is the whole point of lawyers. No automatic justice- just clever, well educated lawyers who only help their innocent clients by 'clever' court room shenanigans.
Most (non-black) Americans applaud their system that imprisons blacks for crimes and levels of evidence that could never convict/imprison whites. The 'incentive' to get rich in the USA is supposed to be so you can afford decent doctors and decent lawyers. The other side of this logic is that if you are not rich, you will get neither justice or reasonable medical care. What a lousy, lousy nation you Americans have. And NO, it is not like this in the other nations of the West.
"If you hide something, that is because you are a criminal"
Guns are designed for many purposes - grease guns, paint guns, pellet guns, air guns, et. al.
Firearms are designed for one purpose: to accelerate a small hunk of metal and/or plastic in a linear direction of the operator's choosing, at a very high rate of speed. PERIOD - that's what they are designed to do.
What the operator chooses to point said firearm at is NOT an aspect of the tool itself, but rather a consequence of the operator's decision.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
for Breaking Bad?
Drug treatment got increased as people are sent to treatment and not to prison, clean needles got HIV infection down, drug-related deaths went down (and then it about doubled when they about doubled the number of toxicological autopsies), reported drug use went up as one no longer faces jail time for saying he/she uses drugs, decreased use among adolescents, reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system and decreased street value of drugs.
What "staggering drug problem"?
Are you saying it's a problem that all negative indicators (deaths, HIV, teenage use...) are actually staggering down and the positive ones (treatment, reporting...) are staggering up?
He knew what he was doing, he deserves the sentence as much as if he trafficked himself.
Of an old Chinese blessing/curse:
"May you come to the attention of powerful people."
Sorry, but the article headline should read instead: "Build a Secret Compartment IN THE USA, Go To Jail"
It's not everywhere in the world that has a culture of incarceration.
1) Exactly what monetary value makes the cash illegal? What value should he have seen in order to lose his plausible deniability? Do you think that the drug dealer let him count the cash?
If I sell the house that I own outright for cash, and the police pull me over with $100,000 from proceeds of the sale, does that give them the right to treat me like a criminal? Do I need to show a receipt to prove my innocence? Has the United States switched to a guilty until proven innocent system (IRS = Yes)?
What is illegal about protecting your valuables? What if he creates a compartment for an actor, or sports star? If he has to open a broken compartment for them, and finds valuables, should he assume that they are also dealing drugs? Wouldn't police intervention at this point amount to illegal search and seizure, a violation of the fourth amendment?
Given only the article to read, IANAL, but the whole trial seems like a joke. The drug dealer's testimony was motivated by a plea deal, contradicts itself and the facts, and should have been inadmissible. The weapons charge should not apply because he had no prior record, and there is that little something called the second amendment. The judge meted out an exorbitant punishment. The prosecution misrepresented circumstantial evidence to elicit an emotional conviction from the jury. For instance:
"The name by his pool—not in it, as McCracken had claimed—was an $8 DIY project hacked together from grinding concrete and artfully applied stain."
Granted, reading the article, this guy looks like a complete moron. But is that illegal? If so, then we should all be in prison. This case looks to be ripe for appeal. Keep us posted, Wired.
I guess it depends on your flavor of 'partial'. I view the issue of one of harm mitigation, risk management, and that the whole thing ends up being shades of grey - the specific flavor of legalization will probably on vary a little on the actual effects.
IE I 'support' everything from full up legalization, regulation, and taxation to 'only' legalizing the safest drug of a given field that's strong enough to attract most of the users, specifically looking for drug 'types'. Well, along with that you'd want to legalize drugs that are safer, but weaker than necessary for full effect. You might legalize opium while keeping heroin illegal. Make cocaine legal while keeping meth illegal.
On the other hand, pharmaceutical grade Meth probably won't be anywhere near as damaging as the illegally produced stuff, so under a regulated and taxed market you might be able to push the vast majority of users onto cocaine by simply manipulating the regulations and tax rates so that Meth costs X times more than cocaine.
As for widespread meth use - studies have shown that what I'd call 'maladapted' or nonfunctional addict rate remains the same whether drugs are prohibited or not.
The question is whether the benefits of criminalization, the avoidance of widespread use, can be achieved without criminalization.
Indeed. The question is also whether you can avoid the downsides of criminalization, to include but not limited to-
Police militarization, increased police power(such as cash confiscation, reporting levels), surveillance, intrusion into other people's business
Secondary markets - I can't get my pseudo-ephedrine anywhere near as easily due to the 'war on meth'. There's other effects as well
Pollution - illegal producers of drugs don't worry about it
Organized crime - the core of it's diet is feeding the drug black market
Drug violence - crime against users/dealers that can't report to police, their own defense, territorial wars, 'street justice' of betrayers
Basically, the idea is that criminalization isn't actually preventing the addicts, isn't preventing the crimes, at prohibitive costs in resources, time, and lives.
I don't read AC A human right
This is one reason Portugal will be more brutally targeted by the IMF in the coming months: to change the government by bankruptcy threat, appointing their version of Pinochet or Shah to re-criminalize drug use and hand out ever more contracts to international prison corporations.
Profit! indeed.
TFA indicates that he would have known what the compartments in question would have been used for. I don't believe he was fairly sentenced. Especially, in comparison to the sentences of the actual smugglers who cooperated. It is almost as if he was punished for NOT cooperated.
And he knowing laundered hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money, terrorist financing, and even money helping Iran's nuclear program. Yet, the CEO of HSBC isn't doing any time, so your argument falls apart.
Frankly, this boils down to "prosecute little guys who can't defend themselves". The prosecutor in Kansas thought he could look tough on crime, so he went after the people who he felt he could nail with little effort.
Meantime, the real criminals get away with it because they are too big to prosecute,
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
"What do you mean, 'large quantities of cash', your honor? Everyone knows this stuff is worthless. My clients hide it to avoid embarrassment."
Have gnu, will travel.
The reason this guy got screwed so hard is for refusing to become a rat for the feds. If there is anything that they hate, it's when one of us uppity serfs chooses the path of non-compliance.
Same thing happened to Randy Weaver and his family. Feds entrapped him into illegally altering some shotguns and offered to let him off if he would agree to spy on anti-government groups. He refused and they went after him. They did not send a small army to assault his home in order to arrest him for the weapons crime. They went in to teach him a lesson about not bowing before the almighty government.
Not saying Weaver or Ananya was innocent, but the disproportionate penalties applied to them are clearly punishment for non-cooperation.
I actually read TFA (in this case, "F" means "full" ;)
Anaya seems like an extremely gifted person in extremely unfortunate circumstances. He was ensnared by an overzealous and perverse legal system that acted with profound vengeance and in no way serves any real spirit of justice and reform.
He did make two mistakes, though:
(1) Getting himself involved in bad situations and irresponsible (though not illegal) activities that accumulated sizable debt. He was desperately reliant on dealing with shady characters with big sums of cash to get out of debt quickly.
(2) Actually talking to the police without legal representation (when will we learn?). Had he not been so brazen and excitedly boastful about his work right in front of the police and, instead, immediately demanded a lawyer, he may have been able to walk away or, at least, not be facing 24 years in a PMITA prison.
Sure, they offered him a "deal" to become a snitch: install cameras and microphones in your clients' vehicles or run a new, shiny, expensive and conspicuous shop which may as well been named "DEA Custom Car Audio Systems". In other words: face prison or face death to you and your loved ones. Yeah, what a great deal.
So, when he turned down the deal, the DEA and prosecutor took their revenge out on him by gamesmanship of the legal system and coercing witness statements. An absolute travesty and miscarriage of justice.
I believe one of the key concepts on which this case hinges is that we should be constantly on the lookout for illegitimate activity. To which I say: fuck you, I am not your impromptu private investigator. Sure, if I see a situation where someone is in immediate danger, I'll speak up or do something about it, but I cannot realistically nor reasonably be expected to know and interpret someone's actions according to the millions of pages of law. Do your own fucking job and leave me out of it.
(I shit you not, the captcha is "soviet")
... but I do read law comic books.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=446
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=471
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=481
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=496
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=499
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=502
And here's the critical part for purposes of this prosecution:
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=505
"Generally speaking, you're not going to be liable for failing to act, or for selling equipment to a criminal. You don't have a duty to police others." -- Cartoon Guide to the Law idem.
The issue here is that the law starts from the principle that a vendor isn't liable for selling equipment to a criminal, but then the feds came up with the idea of prosecuting them for conspiracy. They've spread the net of liability wider and wider.
The hardware store isn't liable if somebody buys fertilizer and shovels. How does the hardware dealer know whether he's growing pot? What if the customer buys grow lights? I might be suspicious of somebody who buys grow lights, but I don't know that he's growing pot. How much evidence does the hardware dealer need before he becomes liable if the customer turns out to be growing pot? If 9 of his customers are growing orchards, and 1 of them is growing pot, is the hardware dealer going to jail because of that 1 customer growing pot? The hardware dealer could say, I know some customers are likely to be growing pot, but I don't know which ones, and I don't know for sure. What am I supposed to do, stop selling grow lights to all my customers?
(Slashdot had a story about Madoff's IT guy, who ran programs that would create phony financial reports. Madoff told him that they were running sample databases. It was a high-security business where you're not supposed to ask too many questions.)
As this comic book explains, an ordinary citizen doesn't have an obligation to do the cops' job for them. A citizen used to be able to sell dual-use equipment to anyone off the street, without being liable if they used it to commit crimes. Now the feds are expanding that liability. You're supposed to be suspicious, and refuse to sell them equipment. How suspicious? The feds are lowering the threshold. They're saying, in hindsight, "You should have known." On what evidence? Carrying large amounts of cash? Wearing flashy clothes? Being Mexican?
Yeah, the compartment guy suspected that they were dealing drugs, and he avoided dealing with them once in an abundance of caution, but he didn't know that they were dealing drugs.
A lot of people here argued that the feds were stretching the law to create conspiracy charges in order to pressure him to rat. And they didn't just want him to testify about what he knew, but to wear a wire to get new information about crimes that he didn't know about. Those arguments convinced me.
You don't have an obligation to be a cop. And if you're selling a product with legitimate uses, you're not liable if somebody uses your product for criminal purposes, under American law. Or at least that was the law before the war on drugs. Now prosecutors are expanding the law sending people to jail for activities that used to be legal.
I suggest you read the entire comic book.
He had to have known that something was up, but his knowledge that "SOME" of his customers "PROBABLY" were up to no good is hardly deserving of 20+ years in prison. The fact that he was only charging ~$5,000 for some pretty detailed & involved work when he apparently knew that millions of dollars was changing hands is telling that he did not consider himself part of the criminal enterprise. What I find very revealing is the level at which prosecutors on one hand are lambasting someone who is obviously not a threat to society because he won't cooperate (arguably out of belief that he didn't do anything reasonably illegal), while giving others who probably are a threat to society far more lenient prison times because they are cooperating (conversely who KNEW they were breaking the law). This case also smacks of some pretty serious forum shopping for the court case, trying a California resident in Kansas (a "hang 'em high state by most accounts) and then sending him back to California for is prison time.
Wanna popularize news of this travesty? Post under #FreeAnaya on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23freeanaya&src=typd
Linux? What about Windows? It seems almost trivial to infect thousands of Windows PC's and create a botnet to do your illegal online dirty work. Fraud mostly...
If we weren't spending so much tax revenue on stupid stuff....like the drug war.
Jail IS secret compartment!!!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
The same as all prosecutors do, presume guilt and keep enough exonerating information hidden as they can. And if they get caught hiding evidence or maliciously pursuing cases that can't be won, they can claim "prosecutorial immunity", AKA "we're just doing our jobs."
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
My school had a few real meth heads when I was in high school. The harm that regular meth did was demonstrable in a way that made DARE completely unnecessary. A lot of students actually avoided meth because they saw the harm it did (damaged intelligence, rotting teeth, misc health issues, etc.)
Just calling the kid(s) on stage at a pep rally for 5 minutes and saying "kids, this is what regular meth use does. This is why we don't want you to use meth. Now Johnny, Susy, etc. please be seated." would stop 95% of kids from ever doing meth. It's not like a STD or something like that it's so in-your-face and repeatable that only morons (even by teen standards) would think it doesn't apply to them.
So tell me, if amphetamines are so unfailingly damaging, why do we not see any of that damage in the millions of young people who take prescribed Adderall, which contains pure amphetamine salts as its active and only ingredient? For the most part we don't see that kind of damage in Adderall users, even those who take the drug every day, and yet it's the same drug. So your argument for prohibition instead becomes a perfect illustration of why prohibition itself is the problem, not the solution. When you make a substance illegal you lose all control of how it is made, distributed, and ingested. The end result is almost always exactly the kind of misery you observed in those meth heads, who presumably as high school students wouldn't have easy access to the drug under a legal harm-reduction substance abuse policy. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be any such casualties at all under such a regime, of course there would, but it's very likely there would be far less of the type of extreme damage we see regularly under current prohibition, and when such damage did occur despite every precaution, it would be far easier to treat because we could hospitalize people instead of warehousing them in jails. Prohibition never works, not even for a substance like meth. Think it through without the subtle biases instilled by years by drug-war propaganda. Regardless what substance you're talking about, prohibition is always worse than legal-but-discouraged. Always.
Here's why I don't like U.S. system:
Ergo: Justice is for those who can afford it. Don't kid yourself about it.
How in the name of everything that is fair and just can a maker of equipment, that can be used for smuggling drugs, while a makers of guns, which are used all the time to kill people, have no liability?
Double Standard?
Democracy works, when you have a well-educated (good high-school level general education, that covers stuff like world history, ecology, languages and math & science), confident and a relatively well-off electorate. People who are scared and ignorant make shitty decisions, such as electing Dubya. Thus, the Executive Branch is elected by people who know nothing.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
Adderall contains amphetamine, which is related to, but not the same as, methamphetamine. The pharmacology is different, look it up. Many compounds derived from the amphetamine (or rather: phenethylamine) structural backbone are psychoactive. MDMA ("ecstasy"), mescaline, amphetamine and many others fall into this class. However, they have different binding affinities to various neurotransmitter receptors and transporters in the brain, making their effects very different.
Of course not!
Laws and taxes are only for serfs!
Get back to work slaves!
I would require each person who I built a compartment for to sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that they will not use their hidden compartment for illegal purposes. I would have some kind of checklist of reasons that they are planning to use the hidden compartment. For example, "to prevent theft of legally possessed valuables", "to store electronics that are at high risk of theft", "for other legal purposes", and "for illegal purposes". Obviously, if someone checks "for illegal purposes", you refuse them service.
And I feel very unsafe working with stupid stoners that toked up at lunch and are now opperating heavy equiptment and dangererous tools and potentially endangering my life.
All but the stupidest/most extreme of legalization proponents allow the same rules as alcohol - IE you're expected to be 'sober', IE not intoxicated on ANY drugs, when you come to work unless you've made other arrangements with your employer*, and even then only if you're NOT going to be operating any potentially dangerous equipment.
If they 'toked up' at lunch they deserve to be fired, and I am a proponent of legalization.
*Maybe you're a artist that works best stoned.
I don't read AC A human right
Applying about 900 years of Anglo American precedent should have precluded such a ridiculous theory of prosecution.
These people need to hire better lawyers. There's no excuse for rolling over for such pathetic bullying.
This is insanely stupid. According to this legal precedent, Chevrolet should be in huge trouble next time someone's drunk driving in a chevy and kills a pedestrian.
If the guy knowingly and willingly worked with a drug dealer to build this, maybe, just MAYBE it would hold up in court. However, legal precedent being what it is, I doubt it.
Did you read the article? IT did hold up in court, and he got 24 YEARS...
If we establish that the technology creator is guilty if they have a reasonable basis to believe their creation will be misused... ...Then why are we having a debate on gun control?
Gun manufacturers know with 100% surety that some of their guns will be used to kill people illegally. Put gun manufacturers in jail for 24 years and problem solved.
Are hunting and target practice really the intended purposes of guns? Let me argue against it from the litmus test of scarcity. One way to consider scarcity is assuming the price is high. In face of scarcity, the intended purpose of the good is the use that extracts the most utility from it. For the test to work, let's also not consider people who collect the good with no intention to extract utility because there is no purpose without utility.
Suppose a gun costs $100,000 and each bullet $100 to make in today's currency. You are definitely not going to use it for target practice. Even using it for hunting is elusive. The only remaining use that extracts utility is when you use it as a weapon, either for the purpose of self-defense where the opportunity cost is to lose personal property if you don't use the weapon, or for aggression where the weapon serves to extract more utility wrongfully from other individuals.
Applying the same test to other items you mentioned, you will quickly see that your argument holds no water.
Radio controlled airplane that costs $100,000 each are still useful for exploration and surveying places that are hard to reach, or for rescue missions where the recovery of human lives outweighs the cost. You don't use it fly bombs into a building because there are cheaper ways to bomb, not to mention the bombing would destruct the plane. The target must worth the $100,000 if you were to do that and there are no cheaper alternatives.
If a kite costs $100,000, then you could still use it to carry a scientific instrument, for example weather observation. Reaching high places is also useful for surveillance purpose.
If an accordion costs $100,000, then your neighbor should better be a good accordionist, with the intended purpose to make more music using this prized accordion. Again, we do not consider collectors who do not intend to extract utility from the accordion.
Why am I using scarcity as a litmus test for intended purpose? That's because if a good is "free good" then you are free to use it for anything ridiculous. Using guns for target practice and hunting is a result that firearms have become so affordable that they are basically free goods, so you cannot argue that target practice and hunting are the intended purposes of guns.
You might also be interested to take a look at this interview with Bellesiles who did some research of historical gun ownership. He likened the cost of gun in the 18th century to buying a Lamborghini today, so my figure of $100,000 isn't actually too far fetched.
I once had a signature.
This is so lame!
Our government hardly pays lipservice to the founding ideals.
We are not free.
Apparently the drugs were kept in zip lock bags. Hopefully the DEA can shut the zip lock bag company down for co-conspiring as well.
I am just reminded of some Antique Road Show kind of thing where a drug kit was presented, send to soldiers at some front by a loving family member, maybe WW1. Heavy drugs like cocaine and heroine weren't always illegal, heroine was marketted and created by Bayers, the Aspirin people. It was hailed as a miracle drug for being non-addictive... so much for medical testing eh?
The trick people forget is that drug abuse is NOT new, when people talk about the good old times, those times NEVER existed. And opium dens are the oldies equivalent of the crack house.
You can see the effects of unlimitted drug access quite easily. In smoking. When there were no warnings and restrictions, smoking was high. When they introduced warnings and restrictions, nicotine addicts dwindled. So... restrictin stuff works?
Well, yes and no. The point is that there is no perfect solution. Google the Opium Wars. China saw just what happened when you not just allow drugs but have the government make a profit out of pushing them. People are not all that good at managing their lifes. Yes, there are responsible drug users (how many people did YOU give cancer with your drug addiction Zero Kelvin?) but are YOU willing to pay for the irresponsible ones? Either directly in supporting them or indirectly in punishing them?
There is no perfect solution. That is the biggest hurdle to overcome in this debate, stopping any faction insisting that THEIR solution will solve ALL problems.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How is this flamebait exactly?
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
It is the judges and the jurors, who determine guilt, not prosecutors. Damn it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The real problem here is the whole "Kansas" jurisdiction for the trial.
The constitution gives a guarantee of a jury of your peers. That was violated here.
Everything else is not relevant.
Was he convicted with lousy evidence from someone who was just trying to reduce their own sentence? Yes.
Was the prosecutor allowed to make crazy, unsubstantiated claims:
McCracken’s case may have been largely circumstantial, but she did an effective job of portraying Anaya as a man who enjoyed the perks of drug trafficking. She spoke of his “expensive motorcycles and four-wheel bikes to go on the sand,” his collection of guns, and his vast array of Snap-on tools. On several occasions, she mentioned that he had a backyard pool “custom built with his name in the bottom of it in marble.”
Yes.
Was he in violated of the actual law?
There is nothing intrinsically illegal about building traps, which are commonly used to hide everything from pricey jewelry to legal handguns. But the activity runs afoul of California law if an installer knows for certain that his compartment will be used to transport drugs. The maximum penalty is three years in prison.
Nothing in that article actually says that he knew for certain.
There is testomony that he actually tried to make sure it was OK.
He was tried in an unconstitutional jurisdiction.
He was tried by a jury not of his peers.
He was sentenced in violation of the appropriate law.
Sometime in late 2008, Anaya received a call from a customer who lived in the San Diego area. The man wanted him to fix a malfunctioning trap located in Tijuana. Anaya was scared to venture across the border; as much as he hated to renege on his warranty, he refused to go to Mexico.
Anaya thought he had protected himself by turning down the job, but the damage had been done the moment he answered the phone. This particular customer was the target of a DEA investigation, and agents had eavesdropped on their conversation. The DEA decided to tap Anaya’s phone too, in an effort to identify other drug traffickers who were having traps built by Valley Custom Audio.
Was this wiretapping done with a court order, or was it done without any approval, illegally?
I see illegally obtained evidence.
I see a violation of constitutional guarantees
The Justice Department occasionally goes after trap makers for violating statutes that ban the sale of drug paraphernalia, but these are difficult cases to make; they require hard evidence, such as an audio recording, that proves the defendant was explicitly told how his compartment would be used. Anaya was never caught on tape discussing drugs.
But the prosecutors in Kansas went after Anaya for a much graver crime than selling paraphernalia: They indicted him as a full-fledged conspirator in the California-to-Kansas trafficking operation. Even though he had never seen or touched any drugs and had been shunned as an informant after building just four traps in exchange for less than $20,000, Anaya faced the exact same charge as Maldanado, Montiel, and Crow.
And I see a prosecution system that is out of control.
According to this, the federal government is basically saying "We can go after you at any time, in any state, for any reason, if we don't like you".
That is unconstitutional.
This man deserves to be freed, protected from a second attempt by the government to try him (something about twice being subject to loss of life or liberty for the same crime), and the person(s) who authorized the wiretaps and prosecution in Kansas need to be tried for abuse of government authority.
From the same web site you cited: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html Seems your expert is not very well respected...
...Ford and GM indicted for enabling road deaths, Colt and Smith & Wesson for enabling gun deaths, and Boeing for building airplanes that explode.
Anyone else see the depths of ridiculous this is plumbing?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Sorry, but how's that relevant?
I once had a signature.
I think you are (correctly) arguing the high is different, but the chemicals are similar enough that things like rotten teeth shouldn't be affected by those distinctions.
Learn to love Alaska
Oh, I agree. The best I mentioned it on this thread was here, with "pharmacy grade meth". Older posts include this one
Then there's the whole issue with militarized police forces, ever so harsher imprisonment and confiscation powers, etc...
I don't want to legalize drugs in order to be able to use them. I don't smoke or drink as is. It's because I think that prohibition is worse than legalization.
I don't read AC A human right
Read some of the linked articles and you'll understand how it is relevant. The man was caught falsifying data for the book the interview was about -- including data on the cost and availability of firearms during the colonial period. My link to the same site is not ad hominem, that's providing additional data that contradicts the data provided in the interview.
Steps
1.Gather names of all those involved in the proceedings that were in favor of his conviction
2. Of those from step 1 get a list of all the services they go to
3. Bribe or convince their barbers, mechanics, pharmacists to begin asking these people if the service their buying will be used for illegal purposes.
4. ???
You don't just send someone to jail because they decide to abuse something built for a legitimate legal purpose. Do they send alcohol makers to prison when people drink too much and do stupid things? Do they send car manufacturers to jail when someone does something stupid or illegal with a vehicle? Maybe they should in this case, because they build the vehicles for which these secret compartments were made for right? There has to be more to this story and to this person's guilt (or conspiracy), if not I wouldn't know how in the world they could still hold this guy. Btw, pot, no problem. But anybody who thinks that anything outside of pot is "ok" to use, like meth, or coke, ecstacy is nuts. They learned that lesson even in Amsterdam and had to draw a distinction between soft and hard drugs. I don't really care much for the things I've seen the DEA or ATF do, especially Fast and Furious, but by the same token the use of hard drugs isn't something most people can do without their resulting behavior affecting other people in some way. And there's the rub, do what you want, as long as it affects no one else. That's nearly impossible if lots of people are using hard drugs.
IMHO, legal precedent is on this guy's side because the case of the developers of the VCR didn't hold up in copyright infringement court.
You do realize copyright law has a few different rules and a wide swath of precedents that are completely irrelevant to criminal drug cases, don't you?
Oh wait... you're just another blowhard with no discernible expertise in the field. Why did I even ask?
Yes, forget about everything else he might have said. Let's focus on gun price alone because that's the only point that matters here.
Let's find another source here that says "Whitney got a contract for $134,000 to produce 10,000 muskets in 1798. That's $13.40 per musket." Let's attempt to convert that to today's dollar.
Briefly, it says "In 2011, the relative value of $13.00 from 1798 ranges from $236.00 to $480,000.00. In detail it is revealed that $236 is calculated using GDP deflator which is similar to CPI, which assumes that gun costs are scaled the same as commodity goods such as bread and butter, but it is not. The figure $480,000 is based on share of total GDP which is akin to saying if the whole nation dedicated the same percentage of economy power to making guns, that would be the price the government pays today per gun. Bellesiles could have argued that $480,000 is the best estimate, and surely that's in the ballpark of the price of a Lamborghini. My personal choice of a fair estimate would be $7,680 based on nominal GDP per capita, which is more indicative of the financial burden to an average individual (both unskilled and skilled labor) for purchasing a gun.
And to be fair, the critics of Bellesiles are unreasonably harsh, not in the counter-evidence they presented, but on the interpretation of the evidences. Basically they show A as an evidence, and assert that A implies B where B typically falls along the line to discredit Bellesiles. I don't disagree with A, but I disagree with almost every count of A implies B they asserted. Nonetheless, the collection of evidences A is still valuable, just that the critics do not appear to understand the evidences themselves.
I once had a signature.