Monday, September 8, 2014

Black Career Criminal Sentenced to 15 Years for Gun Possession - The GOA is Completely Silent and Nowhere to be Found

(Photo: Oxford County)
Guns dot com

A Massachusetts man with a record of criminal history was sentenced to 15 years in prison on gun possession charges, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday.

Jermaine “Sin” Whindleton, 28, was convicted on April 9 following a two-day jury trial where evidence of prior convictions was heard. Because of his record, Whindleton received the enhanced minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Investigators from the Maine State Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives looked at Whindleton’s case and presented the his rap sheet to the court, which included felony drug and assault charges in Massachusetts and New York. In 2012, Whindleton assaulted a drug associate Porter, Maine, by striking him on the back of the head with the butt of a Mossberg 16 gauge pump-action shotgun, the Justice Department said.

Whindleton sold cocaine to the victim, who complained of the drug’s quality before he was assaulted, The Sun Journal reported.

The reference is to this story in which the GOA went to bat for a white Neo-Nazi.

26 comments:

  1. Because when insane LaPierre or Larry Pratt talk about good guy with a gun they mean white people, and conservatives love when minorities go to jail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Black Career Criminal Sentenced to 15 Years for Gun Possession - The GOA is Completely Silent and Nowhere to be Found"

    Likely because its a math thing Mike. "Sin" actually committed three violent crimes,

    "According to trial evidence and court documents, in 2009, Whindleton was convicted in Massachusetts of felony drug and assault charges."

    That's one....

    "Several years earlier, he had also been convicted in New York of felony drug and assault charges."

    And two.....

    "On June 12, 2012, Whindleton used a Mossberg 16 gauge pump-action shotgun in Porter, Maine to assault a drug associate by striking him on the back of his head with the butt end of the firearm during an argument over a drug debt owed to Whindleton."

    http://beforeitsnews.com/crime-all-stars/2014/09/massachusetts-man-sentenced-to-15-years-in-prison-on-gun-charge-2450744.html

    And three. In Johnson's case, the state is contending that simple possession of a firearm by a felon is a violent crime. So Johnson committed two violent crimes and one crime that has been defined as violent in some courts, and not in others.
    But just for fun, lets just say that both cases are equal. Fortunately, we seem to have attorneys coming out of the woodwork here, so perhaps they can correct me if I'm wrong.
    There are two possible outcomes in Johnson's case which is going to be heard by SCOTUS. If possession by a felon is in itself determined to be a violent crime, then both Johnson's and "Sin's" sentences under the ACCA will stand.
    However, if its determined that possession of a firearm by a felon, while still a crime isn't considered a violent felony, then Johnson will still spend 7 to 11 years in prison. So my question is, if SCOTUS determines that felon in possession isn't in itself a violent felony, does everyone currently serving the enhanced sentence get to challenge it based on SCOTUS's decision?
    My first inclination is that they could, but I'm just a dumb infantryman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they would be able to challenge under such a circumstance.

      You hit the nail on the head on this case--they already have one case at the Supreme Court which will resolve the circuit split one way or the other, so there is no point in them spending resources, at this point, on every lower case that will be affected by the decision.

      Mike's been around enough to know this, he just prefers to misrepresent things to make false racial allegations.

      Delete
    2. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em, man.

      Delete
  3. The gun rights movement has always been driven by whites. And since that movement has become driven by extremists like racist NRA members, it's no surprise these organizations don't come to the aid of blacks. Part of that racism is the thinking that blacks are the criminal element they need their guns to defend against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, How do you figure that the gun rights movement has been racist when the first weapons control laws, written by southern democrats, were implemented with the black codes? The NRA was founded by anti-slavery union veterans. The reality of racial strife, and the racial elements of gun control fall firmly at the feet of the Anti-Gun left.
      MikeZ

      Delete
    2. MikeZ, you're talking about ancient history, we're talking about the way things are today.

      CeaseFire, Colion is hardly your typical gun owner.

      Delete
    3. Get in the 21st century Mike Z. I guess you support NRA board member Nugent and his racist comments over the last few years. You gun loons would be better off without racists like Nugent, but you won't get rid of him much less speak against him, because you obviously agree with him.

      Delete
    4. Anon, how do you figure I agree with him? I think any type of racial discrimination is stupid and counter productive. I don't care what side of the debate your on. But the simple fact is that you can't argue that gun rights is motivated by racism when the documentable history of gun control is born of racism.
      MikeZ

      Delete
    5. You have been on this site a long time, I have never heard you speak against the racism of Nugent; nor have I heard SS, or any other gun loon speak against Nugent. Your 100 year old point no hasn't existed for decades, so it is null and ridiculous.

      Delete
    6. Mike, I don't think anyone is saying "gun rights is motivated by racism." That's you mischaracterizing what we say again. What we do say is that most of you gun nuts are white and racist. But, that's not the reason you fight for gun rights, you do that because you fear the big bad government or the man next door or the wind that blows a branch against your house at night.

      Delete
    7. I have been on this site for a long time, and if you were to bother to read what i have said you would know that i think any kind of racial discrimination is stupid and that just using racial terms is stupid and damages the debate. MikeB, you have a caricature in your mind, of what you consider the typical gun owner or guns rights believer is and conveniently it fits just perfectly to re-enforce your already existing bias. You have no idea as to why we fight for gun rights. you assume the most self serving reasons.
      MikeZ

      Delete
    8. "What we do say is that most of you gun nuts are white and racist."

      MOST, get it. Maybe you're an exception and you haven't got a racist bone in your body. Good for you. Or, maybe you're like most, a hidden and secret racist.

      As to why MOST gun owners own guns. Why don't you tell us?

      Delete
    9. People own guns for a variety of reasons, some for hunting some for competitive shooting, some for self defense, and while for you the default image of the gun owner appears to be the old fat white guy protecting himself from the evil black or brown boogie man, ie only envisions a threat as one who does not look like him, those who carry for self defense are aware that anyone can be a threat. And while you seem to believe that everyone who carries a weapon dreams of being John Wayne and saving the day, the reality is that no one wants to find themselves in a situation requiring self defense. Even in your response to me, you bring up your default caricature of a gun owner. And that's the threat you see. You have an inaccurate image in your head but you hold onto it like it's gospel.
      Mike Z

      Delete
    10. Anyone could be a threat, but a person carrying a gun is most certainly a bigger threat. A group that carries guns walking down the street claiming they can secure the community and don't need police while naming themselves after a convicted murderer are certainly a bigger threat than the average citizen, yet the gun loons on this site speak their praises. Hunting for food is not the everyday necessity it was 250 years ago and even hunters who do eat what they kill do not need to hunt for food, they enjoy hunting. Since crime is WAY down, what is the irrational fear driving millions to carry guns? The recent gun loons who are charged with murder killed because someone threw popcorn, or were playing music to loud. Gee, those are life threatening reasons to kill. Of course one must have a gun simply to go get a cup of coffee, or groceries for the week. There is a mental problem in those who cannot walk out their doors everyday without a weapon of murder strapped to their bodies, and those are the ones to worry about.

      Delete
    11. Actually, MikeZ, I don't think "everyone who carries a weapon dreams of being John Wayne." That's you mischaracterizing what I say again, lying in other words. What's wrong with you, man? Isn't what I actually do say bad enough for you? Do you have to exaggerate it and then argue against that as if I actually said the exaggerated version?

      A certain percentage of the 100 million lawful gun owners are unfit and dangerous. Not ALL OF THEM, but a certain percentage.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2013/12/the-famous-50-lawful-gun-owners-who.html

      Delete
  4. Not sure what the point of this post is... GOA has finite resources and can't defend every victim of unjust gun laws...

    ReplyDelete
  5. You missed the point. GOA's contention is that possession is not an act of violence. Sometimes you have to defend despicable people to make sure a bad precedent is not set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I agree with that, but I don't think that's a fair description of the Supreme Court case. Whether you call the possession of a gun by a felon and act of violence or not, it's a crime that can and should be dealt with severely.

      Delete
    2. " it's a crime that can and should be dealt with severely."

      As was mentioned earlier, even if he wins the case, he's still looking at 7 to 11 years. Wouldn't that be severe enough? Even the presiding judge thought the mandatory minimum was excessive.

      Delete
    3. The question isn't wether or not it's a crime, it's wether or not it falls under the ACCA which has enhanced minimum sentencing for anyone who has three violent crimes. In that case, they counted his mere possession of the gun "violent". GOA is saying this should be a normal possession charge, and not fall under the ACCA's minimum sentence requirement, because they don't want to see the precedent set that having a gun = "violent"... even if you're a slime ball. For the case of the black gentlemen in this post, he has three actual convictions of violence on his record.

      Delete
    4. That said, it's easier to just cry "racism" than look at the details of the case.

      Delete
  6. And here is how the ACCA works even when a gun isn't involved,

    "A federal appeals court judge on Thursday called for an overhaul of federal sentencing rules after upholding the 15-year prison term of a Tennessee man convicted of possessing seven bullets."
    Police searched Young's home in October 2011 while investigating a series of burglaries in his neighborhood. Investigators found stolen tools and the shotgun shells, but no weapons. Young had criminal convictions from the early 1990s, with the most recent being in 1996.
    Young acquired the shells while helping a neighbor dispose of her late husband's belongings. Young later told prosecutors he was unaware that the old convictions barred him from having the ammunition.
    "He acquired the shotgun shells passively, he kept them without any criminal motive, and his knowledge extended only to his possession and not to its illegality," the judges wrote in the majority opinion. "Young's Achilles heel, however, is his recidivism."

    http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/article/120343/7-bullets-15-years-in-prison-judge-calls-for-sentencing-overhaul-in-wake-of-tennessee-mans-case

    The appeals judge made a good comment,

    "Precedent compels us to conclude that this sentence does not violate the Constitution," Stranch said. "But holding that a sentence is constitutional does not make the sentence just."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This one and the one posted do indeed sound a bit excessive. But isn't it you gun-rights guys who often say violent criminals should never get out of prison? Now, what, you're arguing on their behalf?

      Delete
    2. "But isn't it you gun-rights guys who often say violent criminals should never get out of prison?"

      I can only speak for this gun right guy Mike. Even our Attorney General has been speaking out against it in come cases,

      "Much of the verbal attack has come in relation to drug offenses. U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has pushed for prosecutors to avoid activating mandatory minimum sentences when charging low-level drug crimes."

      And ironically, Young wasn't breaking state laws,

      "Stranch noted that, in Tennessee, it isn't a state crime for Young to have the shells."

      In "Sin's" case, he actually committed three violent crimes, in the other two cases talked about here, there wasn't. And as the Mother Jones article cited in your first post said, its enforcement has been anything but consistent.

      Where

      Delete