Get rid of the candy man (Florida: legally, office, nurse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In March of 1991, Stanley and Cynthia were arrested after Stanley sold $5,700 worth of crack cocaine to undercover agents. Cynthia was in Stanley's car, which made her part of the drugs sold, and in his possession.
She got 30 Years for Crack Cocaine Conspiracy
Lovely. Here's the part you left out:
Quote:
She participated in a delivery, wired money as directed by Stanley, and Stanley was generous. She struggled with her values, but got busted before she could come to her senses, and dump the drug dealing boyfriend, and be a cop, instead.
In March of 1991, Stanley and Cynthia were arrested after Stanley sold $5,700 worth of crack cocaine to undercover agents. Cynthia was in Stanley's car, which made her part of the drugs sold, and in his possession. She'd participated a few times, which made her just as guilty as they'd find Stanley to be. Enough people talked in the broad conspiracy by the time talk got to Stanley, that he would face 5 Kilos worth of charges. Cynthia, his new girlfriend would face the same amount of prison time, even though she didn't control the business, but simply did as her boyfriend told her to do.
So like I said..if you're dumb enough to get tricked or be told what to do by your scumbag, drug-dealing boyfriend, then you deserve to go to jail. She delivered narcotics numerous times. She went to jail. Whats the problem?
So like I said..if you're dumb enough to get tricked or be told what to do by your scumbag, drug-dealing boyfriend, then you deserve to go to jail. She delivered narcotics numerous times. She went to jail. Whats the problem?
Problem was she was treated the same as if she were the actual drug kingpin instead of an underling because she didn't have anything to trade for a plea bargain:
The police knew Cynthia didn't have information beyond a few of Stanley's customers they already knew about, and there wasn't information to trade. She was never offered a 'plea deal,' to exchange information about others for less time in prison.
If you read further into the article, they discuss it more:
If Cynthia were tried today, the Pinkerton sentencing enhancements would not apply, and the judge would not be restrained by mandates, but by a broader range of sentencing guides. Cynthia would be home long before year 2017, and not imprisoned today.
Her friends write in support of her, "Cynthia Clark is a loving, kind-hearted woman who's life today revolves around what she can do to express the love the Lord gives to her each day. She's not a drug king-pin and did not deserve the 30 year sentence she received, and if sentenced today would have received decades less time! Cynthia went to trial because she wanted to defend herself against the charges of being a drug kingpin in possession of a gun."
********
There are a lot of women like Cynthia Clark serving inappropriately long sentences because they are weak with men and allow and participate in unacceptable behavior just because they don't want to be alone and need a man (and I use that term loosely in the case of drug dealers).
1. It doesn't say what the OTHER 2 were arrested or NOT ARRESTED for.
2. It doesn't say if the car was in fact the same one used in the armed robbery the previous night (if so, we can assume that the other 2 were arrested and charged with robbery - seems logical considering the person you're referring to WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY AND POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.)
The other 2 were not clients of the law firm that wrote this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuffolkGuy
3. If drugs are found in the common area of the car there are ways to determine who they belong to and who to charge. They involve tactics I'm not going to mention on a public forum. If that doesn't work, the drugs are impounded as found property. Just because there are drugs, doesn't mean you have to arrest someone for them- especially if you can't prove who had them. You need to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that suspect A had them. Well, any decent lawyer is going to throw up the flag and say "no no no, suspect B had them" It creates doubt, and the case will be dropped. AS AN OFFICER, I know not to even MAKE the arrest because A. the DA won't file charges, and B. Even if they do, it will get dropped in court.
Why not disclose the tactics if you have knowledge of them? Nobody knows who you are. Nobody knows if you are really a cop or not either.
So if I am driving around with 3 friends and we have drugs in a common area of the car and you cannot determine whose they are, we won't get arrested for the drugs? You will only take them away? You can guarantee that is what is going to happen? I don't think you can because it doesn't always happen that way.
We need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior, if people commit the crime then they need to be willing to face the punishment and if it's a long stay at a state or Federal BOP pen then so be it. They should have thought twice before doing something as dumb as dealing drugs. I shed no tears for criminals.
We need to stop making excuses for criminal behavior, if people commit the crime then they need to be willing to face the punishment and if it's a long stay at a state or Federal BOP pen then so be it. They should have thought twice before doing something as dumb as dealing drugs. I shed no tears for criminals.
I know what you mean.
But women tend to get much harsher sentences than men, even though women commit much less crime.
Problem was she was treated the same as if she were the actual drug kingpin instead of an underling because she didn't have anything to trade for a plea bargain:
The police knew Cynthia didn't have information beyond a few of Stanley's customers they already knew about, and there wasn't information to trade. She was never offered a 'plea deal,' to exchange information about others for less time in prison.
If you read further into the article, they discuss it more:
If Cynthia were tried today, the Pinkerton sentencing enhancements would not apply, and the judge would not be restrained by mandates, but by a broader range of sentencing guides. Cynthia would be home long before year 2017, and not imprisoned today.
Her friends write in support of her, "Cynthia Clark is a loving, kind-hearted woman who's life today revolves around what she can do to express the love the Lord gives to her each day. She's not a drug king-pin and did not deserve the 30 year sentence she received, and if sentenced today would have received decades less time! Cynthia went to trial because she wanted to defend herself against the charges of being a drug kingpin in possession of a gun."
********
There are a lot of women like Cynthia Clark serving inappropriately long sentences because they are weak with men and allow and participate in unacceptable behavior just because they don't want to be alone and need a man (and I use that term loosely in the case of drug dealers).
ummm...she was an accomplice though...not totally innocent. I am curious as to if someone who was 100% not involved in anyting relating to drugs would get the same punishment. I'm not saying you are wrong, I want actual proof. It doesn't seem like a very fair punishment...going to jail for being innocent.
Problem was she was treated the same as if she were the actual drug kingpin instead of an underling because she didn't have anything to trade for a plea bargain:
The police knew Cynthia didn't have information beyond a few of Stanley's customers they already knew about, and there wasn't information to trade. She was never offered a 'plea deal,' to exchange information about others for less time in prison.
If you read further into the article, they discuss it more:
If Cynthia were tried today, the Pinkerton sentencing enhancements would not apply, and the judge would not be restrained by mandates, but by a broader range of sentencing guides. Cynthia would be home long before year 2017, and not imprisoned today.
Her friends write in support of her, "Cynthia Clark is a loving, kind-hearted woman who's life today revolves around what she can do to express the love the Lord gives to her each day. She's not a drug king-pin and did not deserve the 30 year sentence she received, and if sentenced today would have received decades less time! Cynthia went to trial because she wanted to defend herself against the charges of being a drug kingpin in possession of a gun."
********
There are a lot of women like Cynthia Clark serving inappropriately long sentences because they are weak with men and allow and participate in unacceptable behavior just because they don't want to alone and need a man (and I use that term loosely in the case of drug dealers).
NOW you're talking about not whether or not they should be jailed at all, but now you're talking about their sentence being too long? If you recall, this started off as:
1. You saying that EVERYONE in a car can be arrested and charged with possession.
2. I proved otherwise
3. You called me a kid and asked if I was old enough to post here.
4. Then you went off on a tangent and asked me what my thoughts were on WOMEN specifically being arrested because they were 'forced' or 'tricked' into carrying drugs. How we got to that, I don't know, but there's a huge deviation between actually carrying drugs and saying that everyone in a vehicle can be arrested for possession.
5. Next, you try to come off as intelligent and make ME look bad by saying "is this is how you prepare for court, officer..." and then asking me for "facts", when in truth YOU flat out posted that the women in question WAS CARRYING NARCOTICS.
6. Then, you post an obnoxiously long article, FROM A LAWYER MESSAGE FORUM, which I'm sure isn't biased or slanted in any way, shape or form, about a man arrested for possession, when in fact, it doesn't say WHAT his other 2 companions were or werent arrested for, and that more than likely, the car they were all in was used in an armed robbery the previous night.
So where are you going with this? You went from claiming everyone in a vehicle can be arrested for possession if drugs are found in the car, to next questioning specifically females, to females who ARE in possession, to armed robbers. You're jumping around from point to point trying to elude the fact that you were wrong. Like I said, it's not as if you PURPOSELY gave out false information, you're just naive about it - just as I am sure I'm naive about things in your life. You were wrong, I called you out, you tried to discredit me, and I'd like to think I proved myself to not be a fraud. If not, oh well.
ummm...she was an accomplice though...not totally innocent. I am curious as to if someone who was 100% not involved in anyting relating to drugs would get the same punishment. I'm not saying you are wrong, I want actual proof. It doesn't seem like a very fair punishment...going to jail for being innocent.
I am racking my brain to remember the names of the cases ... it has happened.
The other 2 were not clients of the law firm that wrote this.
Why not disclose the tactics if you have knowledge of them? Nobody knows who you are. Nobody knows if you are really a cop or not either.
So if I am driving around with 3 friends and we have drugs in a common area of the car and you cannot determine whose they are, we won't get arrested for the drugs? You will only take them away? You can guarantee that is what is going to happen? I don't think you can because it doesn't always happen that way.
I know they weren't clients of the firm. It goes to show you that the biased article you posted would've been proven inaccurate if they told what the other two were arrested for.
I'm not disclosing police tactics on a public forum. I don't know who YOU or anyone else is on here that is reading this.
Whether or not you would be let go, I have no idea. I don't know what the law is in NY, but I can tell you that in FL, someone would be going to jail. If not for possession (the tactics mentioned above almost always work) then for something else. The statute book is pretty darned thick and there are a whole lot of loopholes for me to work with.
So where are you going with this? You went from claiming everyone in a vehicle can be arrested for possession if drugs are found in the car, to next questioning specifically females, to females who ARE in possession, to armed robbers. You're jumping around from point to point trying to elude the fact that you were wrong. Like I said, it's not as if you PURPOSELY gave out false information, you're just naive about it - just as I am sure I'm naive about things in your life. You were wrong, I called you out, you tried to discredit me, and I'd like to think I proved myself to not be a fraud. If not, oh well.
You have proven nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither have I at this point, but I am still looking for the cases. Neither of us is 100% "wrong" or "right." We don't know who or what you are. We only know what you are writing here and whether we accept it or not is up to the individual. You seem to expect everyone to believe you 100% with total confidence. That just doesn't happen on internet forums where anybody can post anything. Often the topic of the thread switches and people jump around adding in different things or expanding on the basic idea at hand.
Since you claim to have expertise in what tactics the police use to determine whose drugs have been found, it would be nice if you would share it. It would help your credibility (since you seem to care so much about it) if you can come up with something authentic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
