Brainerd Army Store = Meth?

[buck1032]

I hope I am posting this on the correct board. I had heard but not research this issue. Tonight while looking through the news I saw that Tony Honeycutt was found guilty for selling chemicals to make meth. What he was selling was one of the best water purification methods, Polar Pure. I have one partially used bottle that I used when I taught SERE for the USN. I also have a brand new unused back up. So I guess that would make me guilty as well since I possess this stuff. Quite sad.

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/jan/28/man-guilty-of-selling-meth-chemical/

[frankmako]

all of the items that you need to make meth you can get in walmart.  most people have all or most of the items in their home now.  all it takes is some common everyday items to make meth.  

[GlockSpock]

I'm guessing there is much more to the story. 21,000 bottles in 30 months? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnC]

Yeah, 21,000?

But still. If he didn't know the folks buying were cooking, or just didn't care what they were doing with it long as he made a big profit, how can they charge him and find him guilty for selling a legal product?

There has to be more to this story.

[wileecoyote]

[quote name="CZ9MM" post="1102897" timestamp="1390969490"]I'm guessing there is much more to the story. 21,000 bottles in 30 months? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote] Yeah, I had a lot of sympathy for the guy at first, and I'm not a fan of government busting you for selling legal items. But selling 700 bottles per month (24 bottles per day) for nearly 3 years at such a massive profit is pretty crazy... and if you continued to do it at such volume after the police warned you multiple times that these were drug dealers buying it... So the real question is: what does the law say about the store/vendor/business owner liability for selling legal items that are later used in a crime? I don't know the law here but suspect the seller is obligated to refuse the sale if they know or have reason to suspect that the items are being used illegally. If so, then this guy is likely guilty as charged, assuming the story is accurate.

[GlockSpock]

I would suspect that he was in some form or fashion some form of accessory to cooking it. Possibly conversations and knowledgeable selling to people he became acquainted with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArmyBrat61]

So the real question is: what does the law say about the store/vendor/business owner liability for selling legal items that are later used in a crime? I don't know the law here but suspect the seller is obligated to refuse the sale if they know or have reason to suspect that the items are being used illegally. If so, then this guy is likely guilty as charged, assuming the story is accurate.

 

 

That same reasoning could be applied to gunshop owners and ammo retailers, car dealers, spray paint dept. workers or any item that "could" be used illegally.....very slippery slope when you try to determine other people's intent, that is why proof is (or used to be) important....just my :2cents:

[DaveTN]

Intent and state of mind. The jury heard testimony that made them believe he knew what he was doing. That is not in that news story.

I would like to know more about this story. I’m curious how someone could be convicted for selling a legitimate product even if they knew it was being used for meth. Is the clerk at the store committing a crime when they sell a person rolling papers? How about the people that make those tiny little zip lock bags that crack is sold in; are they committing a crime?

I think we all would have acquitted him at face value based on that story; or at least there would be a hung jury. But not a single juror held out. So I want to know what they heard that is not in that story.

[A.J. Holst]

This reminds me of changes with the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that business is supposed to file for cash transactions over 10k to be reported to the IRS. In today's world, if the amount is under 10k, but the business "thinks/feels" it is suspicious, we are required to file a SAR.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Dad told me about some feed n seed store in chatt that got busted bad for selling too much animal iodine to the wrong people. Legit product, in the line of biz of the store. Just the wrong customer(s).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, stupid laws, stupid consequences. Put everyone in jail. I bought some Liquid Fire from a hardware store, for plumbing.

the owner, who happened to be a friend, looked at me cross-eyed. Let him sell what he wants. If he becomes concerned,

let him tell the cops about the same ones coming in and buying whatever it is.

 

Play your little societal games by making things like this illegal. All you are doing is entrapping yourself, in the end. It does

nothing to stop the flow of meth, and it does much more when you might need to buy some of the so-called goods for different

uses.

 

There are communities that don't allow the growing of vegetables for sale locally. What the Hell is that about?

 

You would do much better if you went out and shot the meth maker and quit worrying about the products used in his production

of it. All we are doing by allowing this "making of stupid things illegal" is chasing our tales. I saw my dog do that, yesterday. He

never caught it.

[DaveTN]

You would do much better if you went out and shot the meth maker and quit worrying about the products used in his production
of it.

I’m okay with that. Is that pending legislation; do I need to write letters or send emails to my legislators?

[JohnC]

This reminds me of changes with the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that business is supposed to file for cash transactions over 10k to be reported to the IRS. In today's world, if the amount is under 10k, but the business "thinks/feels" it is suspicious, we are required to file a SAR.

So if I buy 1, 2 or 3 (whatever the max you can do in one day) Barrett M107A1's, I can expect behind my back that a gun shop owner is sending a report of my transaction, or is this just if the store owner feels I am a suspicious person? How does a business even make that call?

What if I bought $10,000 in ammo to stock up?

What if I spend $10k via multiple visits and purchases in 1 month?

This type of crap seems like an invasion of privacy. I feel the Govt has no business getting reports from stores if I spend good money there. :shake:

[bersaguy]

Yeah, I had a lot of sympathy for the guy at first, and I'm not a fan of government busting you for selling legal items. But selling 700 bottles per month (24 bottles per day) for nearly 3 years at such a massive profit is pretty crazy... and if you continued to do it at such volume after the police warned you multiple times that these were drug dealers buying it... So the real question is: what does the law say about the store/vendor/business owner liability for selling legal items that are later used in a crime? I don't know the law here but suspect the seller is obligated to refuse the sale if they know or have reason to suspect that the items are being used illegally. If so, then this guy is likely guilty as charged, assuming the story is accurate.

 

Well, if the stuff is legal to sell and the police told him that it was going to meth makers yet he continued to do it, Is that any different then Eric Holder selling guns to straw buyers while all the time knowing they were going straight to drug cartels and might be used in a crime later. Surely if the Attorney General of the United States can do something the same way (that did lead to a border officer being killed) then why are they coming down so hard on this guy? ..............jmho

[Dustbuster]

Might as well close the gas stations so no one can buy gas to make it to the robbery on Friday or house burning on Wednesday.

Some business owners know damn well what it's being used for. Especially w volume purchases after they've been warned by le and provided w a list of known common items used to mfg meth.

The family of the 5 year old burned to a crisp in Vanderbilt asks why won't anyone do something?

If someone's innocent or guilty they can prove it. Ignorance of the law is typically not a valid defense.

I love free enterprise but I hate seeing children getting torched from meth labs.... For what that's worth..
They were warned and that's that..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would suspect that he was in some form or fashion some form of accessory to cooking it. Possibly conversations and knowledgeable selling to people he became acquainted with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But he didn't commit a crime, did he, even if that was the case? You don't make everything illegal just to get at a crime. That's what laws

like that do. There used to be a law that you couldn't buy more than a certain amount of sugar. It was because of moonshiners. It didn't

stop any of the moonshiners.

Even making the knowledge of the use illegal is going too far, unless you can further connect the person selling whatever it is to the person

committing the crime, like, in some way profiting from the direct sale of the product. Just because a person may be a dirtbag, and doesn't

care, after he finds out, doesn't make him a criminal.

 

but, yes, a responsible person, once he finds out about a criminal activity that he could be inadvertently benefitting, he should report it, but

as a product of his being a loyal productive member of the community, not just some idiot trying to look saintly. Laws that force this kind of

behavior are counterproductive, and only act to entrap otherwise law abiding people into becoming criminals. Does that sound okay?

 

It sounds like the local police thought that jailing a businessman, instead of the criminals, they were doing something positive. Why aren't the

police interested in all the sudafed that "falls" off the truck that gets in the hands of said criminals, instead of iodine, which has several other

uses than this. I think you "have to have Sudafed, to begin with. Now, us law abiding people have been severely restricted by the rules of the

drug stores and places like Walmart that have pulled the relatively small amounts of that product that limits the amount we can purchase.

Personally, I won't buy the stuff anymore, if I have to sign a junky card just because my nose isn't working right.

 

Loaws like this are a prime example of how little thought is being put into laws. Something to do with common sense would be a good start.

These laws, one of which got this man tie in jail, are not based in reality, and are just condiments for a prosecutor on a slow crime day.

[frankmako]

When it comes to the laws in place to fight homemade meth production, these laws do nothing more than to put limits and restrictions against the citizen on what legal products they can purchase.  These laws do nothing in stopping the production of meth.   But why make meth at home when Mexican meth is cheaper, better, and easy to get.  We need to punish the meth cooks and meth dealers with real jail time.  Not this “catch and release” program.  

[DaveTN]

When it comes to the laws in place to fight homemade meth production, these laws do nothing more than to put limits and restrictions against the citizen on what legal products they can purchase.  These laws do nothing in stopping the production of meth.     We need to punish the meth cooks and meth dealers with real jail time.  Not this “catch and release” program.

I agree. But it would require taking some money from the war on drugs and building prisons with it. Most are overcrowded now and no one wants more. Most criminals don’t have money or property and can’t pay fines. So all that can happen is lock them up or let them go.

[GlockSpock]

But he didn't commit a crime, did he, even if that was the case? You don't make everything illegal just to get at a crime. That's what laws

like that do. There used to be a law that you couldn't buy more than a certain amount of sugar. It was because of moonshiners. It didn't

stop any of the moonshiners.

Even making the knowledge of the use illegal is going too far, unless you can further connect the person selling whatever it is to the person

committing the crime, like, in some way profiting from the direct sale of the product. Just because a person may be a dirtbag, and doesn't

care, after he finds out, doesn't make him a criminal.

 

but, yes, a responsible person, once he finds out about a criminal activity that he could be inadvertently benefitting, he should report it, but

as a product of his being a loyal productive member of the community, not just some idiot trying to look saintly. Laws that force this kind of

behavior are counterproductive, and only act to entrap otherwise law abiding people into becoming criminals. Does that sound okay?

 

It sounds like the local police thought that jailing a businessman, instead of the criminals, they were doing something positive. Why aren't the

police interested in all the sudafed that "falls" off the truck that gets in the hands of said criminals, instead of iodine, which has several other

uses than this. I think you "have to have Sudafed, to begin with. Now, us law abiding people have been severely restricted by the rules of the

drug stores and places like Walmart that have pulled the relatively small amounts of that product that limits the amount we can purchase.

Personally, I won't buy the stuff anymore, if I have to sign a junky card just because my nose isn't working right.

 

Loaws like this are a prime example of how little thought is being put into laws. Something to do with common sense would be a good start.

These laws, one of which got this man tie in jail, are not based in reality, and are just condiments for a prosecutor on a slow crime day.

 

I was sort of imagine something like the following may have taken place.

 

Owner suspects people may be buying product for Meth. Owner calls cops to see if product can be used to make meth. Cops say yes. Next time suspicious customers come in, he approaches them after they purchase all the product he has. He tells them he knows that they are using it for meth and hey can get them as much as they want, but they'll have to pay for it. He also says they'll have to pay 1000% markup to keep him quite about it. Maybe instead of having suspicious customer come into the store, he tells them he will deliver or meet them somewhere locally to sell the stuff by the case. 

 

I agree that if he played a "don't ask don't tell" policy he wouldn't have been guilty of anything. But at what line does he stop being an innocent supplier and start being an accomplice?

 

EDIT: I don't know the answer to that, but according to a jury he certainly crossed it somewhere.

Edited January 31, 2014 by CZ9MM

[TMF]

I don't care what the testimony was, if I was a juror they couldn't beat a guilty verdict out of me. This would be like selling rubbers to hookers. Who cares what they're gonna do with it? Not my business. Or how about someone that buys 30 cans of whipped cream? Seems suspicious like they might be using it for the nitrous oxide, but who's business is that? Maybe they're hosting a kid's party and need lots of topping. Maybe they're having an whipped cream orgy. Who cares? How does that make a business liable if they're going home and huffing nitrous. As for this case, maybe the shop owner thought they were extreme preppers. It doesn't matter anyway since he didnt make the drugs and had no intent to help make them. Stupid stupid stupid times we live in. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[frankmako]

I agree. But it would require taking some money from the war on drugs and building prisons with it. Most are overcrowded now and no one wants more. Most criminals don’t have money or property and can’t pay fines. So all that can happen is lock them up or let them go.

 

We lost the war on drugs after we shut down south Florida and the cartels change their drug routes to the Mexican border.  We could win the drug war if we shut down the boarder.  But that will not happen.  We would not have a problem with overcrowding of prisons if prisons were prisons again.  Not some country club for the dirt bag with three hots and a cot, free sex, TV, gym, and lots more.   Bring back the chain gang, put them to work cutting the highway right of ways like they did in the 60’s.  You will see a reduction in crime.  Fire up “old sparky” and clean out death row.  You will see another drop in crime.  When I was a young man in the 60’s and seeing the chain gang cutting the right of ways in the August heat I knew that I did not want to break the law.  Riding by the county work camp in the dead of winter and seeing what they were housed in also kept me out of trouble.  To most of these dirt bags prison is a badge of honor and a place to get free medical care along with a great vacation away from the many kids and old ladies that they have. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

To win a war on drugs, you would have to throw a lot of
legislators in prison, along with the meth makers. They
wrote a bunch of laws, merely to fund and make more
people guilty. That war on drugs isn't being fought, but
made into an institution. Cute billboards and slogans
from your state and local prosecutors don't fight crime.

I still say shoot them, the meth dealer and maker. The
people taking the crap are most likely going to die, also.
But before they die, they will become more of a criminal
just to fund their habit.

Some damned politician came up with criminalizing the
purchase of Sudafed by you and I, effectively. That stuff
must be very easy to get in quantity for the criminal. I can only
get a pack of Sudafed every couple weeks or some cop may
show up around me just because I sign for it. I quit taking
it. I still don't understand how that criminal gets it, other than
stealing it off the delivery truck, or that politician is in cahoots
with and somehow supplies the criminal, one way or another.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, throwing out the laws on the war on drugs would
go farther against the actual crime. Let the local law enforcement
deal with the local problem and give up on promising the moon
to us while arming up the police state. This so-called war on drugs
is an excuse to steal from us and further bureaucratize something
else in government. The only solution to this war on drugs begins
with how we raise our kids, not with turning them over to the nanny
state. You can't fix a societal problem until society understands
and deals with it from the family level. Another law can't fix that
without a whole plate of tyranny thrown at everyone.

Ha! That reminds me of the NFA.

[Patton]

. I still don't understand how that criminal gets it, other than
stealing it off the delivery truck, or that politician is in cahoots
with and somehow supplies the criminal, one way or another.

There is still one way to buy it without a prescription or without going a license number but still few know. Actually such few people know it isn't worth addressing yet. Most are getting it by recruiting smurfs who are needing money. Middle men between the smurfs and the cookers catch people walking out of payday loans, title loan places, and such who offer 35-50 dollars a box. They don't even bother to ask names or get phone numbers, they don't want them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So a little amount of Sudafed makes a lot of meth? I remember when you could get generic Sudafed for 99cents a blister

pack of 24 pills.