Two men jailed for possession of caffeine and tylenol

[Smoblikat]

Feel free to provide a reasonable explanation for why someone might be transporting 330 pounds of crushed caffeine and paracetamol across international borders.

Maybe he just had a REALLY bad headache

No explanation is needed, its legal.

 

[ElFenix]

It's still technically circumstantial. I circumstantial evidence is allowed to convict, that's a VERY dangerous line to walk. In some cases it would work, in many it would be disastrous. The nature of legal precedent is that it doesn't confine itself to specific cases.

smoking guns are circumstantial. circumstantial evidence can be very good.

 

[ShawnD1]

No explanation is needed, its legal.

Try to import a large crate full of guns with no documentation into the US and see if it gets stopped at the border. Guns are legal, so obviously it should be legal to import several hundred of them.

 

[nehalem256]

Try to import a large crate full of guns with no documentation into the US and see if it gets stopped at the border. Guns are legal, so obviously it should be legal to import several hundred of them.

He actually had the equivalent of 4,000 bottles (100count) of caffeine and 4,000 bottles of tylenol.

I am thinking if they found 8000 guns in your trunk you might get arrested.

Another important question that is not addressed by the article, is whether or not he declared the insane amount of caffeine/tylenol he was bringing in. Which I am betting that $25,000+ worth of drugs is required to be.

If it was not declared that makes it pretty open and shut that he was intending to use the drugs were illegal purposes.

 

[Smoblikat]

Try to import a large crate full of guns with no documentation into the US and see if it gets stopped at the border. Guns are legal, so obviously it should be legal to import several hundred of them.

I agree. The pigs dont.

 

[shira]

Why should anyone have to provide an explanation for transporting caffeine and paracetamol? Who's the victim?

Why are you giving this news story any credence at all? This is a corporate media source, after all. Don't you automatically disbelieve everything you read or hear from corporate media?

How do you know there was a trial?
How do you know anyone was convicted of anything?
How do you know that anyone was asked to provide an explanation?

You seem to be getting upset about something that may not actually be real. Why? This IS your "assume that everything you read in corporate media self-serving and false" philosophy, isn't it?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Why are you giving this news story any credence at all? This is a corporate media source, after all. Don't you automatically disbelieve everything you read or hear from corporate media?

How do you know there was a trial?
How do you know anyone was convicted of anything?
How do you know that anyone was asked to provide an explanation?

You seem to be getting upset about something that may not actually be real. Why? This IS your "assume that everything you read in corporate media self-serving and false" philosophy, isn't it?

LOL. A pretty stupid response, even for you.