Silk Road Drug Dealer Pleads Guilty After Federal Sting

Ars Technica reports that A 26-year-old Columbus, Ohio man has pleaded guilty to selling drugs through the Silk Road website. David Lawrence Handel apparently obtained methylone and other drugs from a supplier in China, which he then sold to buyers on the online black market. Among those buyers were Maryland federal agents, who were making undercover purchases. Handel shipped the drugs to them through the US Postal Service, according to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland. ... Handel faces up to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking and up to life for using and possessing a firearm. His sentencing is scheduled for May 15.

Comments

Life for Firearm Possession?

[KermodeBear]

Handel faces up to 20 years in prison for drug trafficking and up to life for using and possessing a firearm.

So... He gets 20 years for trafficking substances across international borders that will rot your brain out, but he can get life for possessing an item for personal protection? Which item was doing more damage to society? It wasn't the firearm.

I know, I know... People like to tack on + as if having one or not having one changes what was in the first place. Thing is, it doesn't.

Rob a convenience store without a gun and take all the money: Store has an empty drawer.
Rob a convenience store with a gun and take all the money: Store has an empty drawer.

The end result is the same. Saying that it is somehow worse is such a farce.

Re:Life for Firearm Possession?

[penguinoid]

Tell that to the store owner who goes through the psychological trauma of having a gun pointed in there face, many people are seriously fucked up after such incidents. The difference between the two incidents for the victims is massive.

That would only happen if the store owner is *threatened* with the gun. If the crook simply had the gun hidden on his person, the end result would have been the same whether he had the gun on him or not. Of course, a crook simply carrying a gun does increase the chances that he'd panic and shoot someone. On the other hand, a crook using a knife instead has a much higher risk that some idiot will get himself killed playing the hero because "it's only a knife".

Of course, a life sentence for merely carrying a gun seems like begging for said gun carrier to start using it.

Re:uh...

[drinkypoo]

Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.

Ah yes. The Mexicans. What has the result of US foreign policy towards Mexico? What has been the result of US drug policy towards Mexico? Don't be ignorant. If we legalize drugs at the federal level, then most of the problems with Mexico will solve themselves in relatively short order as the money being used to fund the drug war dries up.

Here's the deal.

You can stick that deal up your arse, it will be in good company with your massive fucking ego. You're not in a position to dictate terms.

Re:Using a Firearm According to the Supreme Court

[ShanghaiBill]

But that additional offense is a 5-year "enhancement" of the other sentence. Nowhere does that say anything about "life". So I'm wondering where the life sentence supposedly came from.

Here is a link directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.

He was dumb. He took a gun with him to pick up the package at the post office. Was he really planning to have a shoot out over a $4800 package? Don't carry a gun unless you are prepared to use it. He shouldn't have even picked it up himself. Instead he should have paid some underage kid to do the pickup.

Re:uh...

[careysub]

Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.

Citation please? I did some Googling to confirm this claim, but found nothing supporting it. The claim itself is odd, how is there more money to be made in a legal regulated market?

I did find this however. The story asserts that Mexican gangs are getting involved in the Colorado pot business for money laundering since it is a cash only business. In other words, they aren't really selling pot, only pretending to do so to legalize money from other sources.

And why is Colorado pot a cash only business? Because Federal pressure prevents them from using the same payment processing and banking systems other legal businesses use. Banks and payment processors won't take their money or the Feds will drop the hammer on them. In other words, the Federal government is creating this business opportunity by prohibiting normal business practice. If you prohibited any other business from using banks, forcing them to be cash only, the same thing would happen.