Newsstand - Quebec Man on Gas Run Winds Up in U.S. Jail

Quebec Man on Gas Run Winds Up in U.S. Jail

Canadian woodcutter arrested during a routine trip across the U.S. border to buy gasoline has become the victim of intensified security in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, his lawyer said on Friday.

Michel Jalbert drove from his hometown of Pohenegamook, Quebec to Estcourt Station, Maine to fill up on cheap American gas before a hunting trip. As he was leaving the station, U.S. border patrol agents arrested him for illegally entering the country with a firearm.

"He's become the poster boy for stricter enforcement of border laws," Bangor attorney Jon Haddow told Reuters about his client, who speaks no English and is being held in a Maine jail.

The residents of Pohenegamook, including Jalbert, have for years nipped over the border to buy gasoline at the Gazbar gas station, which sits on U.S. soil about a mile before the U.S. Customs checkpoint.

In the past, Canadians would drive in to the station, fill up their tanks, and drive back home -- never bothering to register at the U.S. checkpoint further down the road. U.S. border agents tended to look the other way.

But on Oct. 11, they zeroed in on Jalbert, who was carrying a gun and who has a criminal record in Canada, Harrow said. Jalbert could be jailed for up to 10 years if convicted on the felony charges facing him.

http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=humannews&StoryID=1674738

Another terrorist attack thwarted!

How dare he try to engage in commerce in the US and try to buy up all our cheap gas!

Give him the chair!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Yeah! God forbid this guy who clearly BROKE THE LAW should be held accountable for his actions! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Just because the law had been quite laxly enforced in the past does not make the activity legal.

Yes, he broke the law so let punishment be swift and severe! We all know that none of us would ever dream of breaking the law and if we did, we should be looking at punishment that suits the crime, just like this guy is looking at 10 long.

Let us kick off a new era in total law enforcement to show the terrorists that we are not kidding around. Our unsafe republic will quickly become a nice safe police state where no terrorist would ever dream of venturing.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SRQ Guy:
Yeah! God forbid this guy who clearly BROKE THE LAW should be held accountable for his actions! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Just because the law had been quite laxly enforced in the past does not make the activity legal.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

How ironic! Cheap gas is the root of all evil in our modern world. He went for it and paid the price. We wallow in it and incur the wrath of, well, the world.

Let those who are without SUV cast the first stone.

Jim

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Yes, he broke the law so let punishment be swift and severe! We all know that none of us would ever dream of breaking the law and if we did, we should be looking at punishment that suits the crime, just like this guy is looking at 10 long.

Let us kick off a new era in total law enforcement to show the terrorists that we are not kidding around. Our unsafe republic will quickly become a nice safe police state where no terrorist would ever dream of venturing.</font>

As I recall, you have declared yourself as a libertarian and thus are in favor of letting people have firearm and drugs, so long as they take responsibility for the results.

Now, you are doing the exact opposite. The man broke a law and you don't think he should be held responsible.

What exactly is your principle? Responsibility or just whatever position which allows you to exorciate the American government?

It's not like he robbed the gas station, he happened to have the firearm with him. Heck, it was a shotgun that was in his car.

http://www.centralmaine.com/news/stories/021101hunter_a.shtml

Responsibility? Yes. But let the punishment fit the crime. He'd be looking at less time if he had robbed the gas station!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
As I recall, you have declared yourself as a libertarian and thus are in favor of letting people have firearm and drugs, so long as they take responsibility for the results.

Now, you are doing the exact opposite. The man broke a law and you don't think he should be held responsible.

What exactly is your principle? Responsibility or just whatever position which allows you to exorciate the American government?</font>

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 11-04-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
It's not like he robbed the gas station, he happened to have the firearm with him. Heck, it was a shotgun that was in his car.

http://www.centralmaine.com/news/stories/021101hunter_a.shtml

Responsibility? Yes. But let the punishment fit the crime. He'd be looking at less time if he had robbed the gas station!</font>

If I understand this, you are saying responsibility only applies for laws which apply what you feel is a reasonable punishment. If you feel the punishment is too hard, then the criminal is not responsible? Thus no law should be applied unless you agree with it.

That's not libertarianism. That's monarchy, with you as the king.

Actually, the Quebec town has a letter from the regional head of INS which permitted them to make these gas runs. The reinterpretation was done without informing anyone in the town. However, it seems the gun is the real issue, as well as his criminal record which would normally prevent him from crossing the border. BTW, he might have a Catch22 situation, because he can be arrested by Canadian authorities for transporting a gun across the border coming back. So who's prison system should cover her food and accommodation for the next few months?

Oh, Lord.

In the name of all this "enhanced security", our government is increasingly equating relatively minor offenses with terrorist activity. Should we just look the other way? No. But should we punish such offenses as if they were violent crimes or as though we were one of the nations whose barbaric penal codes we abhorr? Again, no.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
If I understand this, you are saying responsibility only applies for laws which apply what you feel is a reasonable punishment. If you feel the punishment is too hard, then the criminal is not responsible? Thus no law should be applied unless you agree with it.

That's not libertarianism. That's monarchy, with you as the king.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
In the name of all this "enhanced security", our government is increasingly equating relatively minor offenses with terrorist activity. Should we just look the other way? No. But should we punish such offenses as if they were violent crimes or as though we were one of the nations whose barbaric penal codes we abhorr? Again, no.
</font>

You've wandered off the point, and you've now implied that imprisoning this criminal is equivalent to "barbaric penal codes". All that appear to be is another effort to rant about the American government, seizing on whatever convenient excuse comes to hand.

Two separate crimes. One, crossing the border illegally. Two, possessing a firearm after having commited the first crime.

Yet you refuse to assign responsibility to the criminal. If you think this man should merely be let go, the entire claim of responsibility for one's actions is exposed as nothing more hyperbole to excuse the true goal - legalization of whatever you feel should be legalized.

Personally, I think the borders with Canada and Mexico should be loosened, not tightened, ala Europe.

As for the crimes committed... I definitely do not feel an illegal border crossing + having a shotgun (that was to be used for hunting but that's besides the point) should add up to 10 years in prison. What is the appropriate punishment? I would say a fine + some small jail time would suffice. I already stated that his offense should not be ignored, though you ignored that statement. However, I do assert that imprisoning him for 10 years for these two crimes IS equivalent to "barbaric penal codes".

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
You've wandered off the point, and you've now implied that imprisoning this criminal is equivalent to "barbaric penal codes". All that appear to be is another effort to rant about the American government, seizing on whatever convenient excuse comes to hand.

Two separate crimes. One, crossing the border illegally. Two, possessing a firearm after having commited the first crime.

Yet you refuse to assign responsibility to the criminal. If you think this man should merely be let go, the entire claim of responsibility for one's actions is exposed as nothing more hyperbole to excuse the true goal - legalization of whatever you feel should be legalized.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
As for the crimes committed... I definitely do not feel an illegal border crossing + having a shotgun (that was to be used for hunting but that's besides the point) should add up to 10 years in prison. What is the appropriate punishment? I would say a fine + some small jail time would suffice.
</font>

And that's probably all he'll get, so what's your point? Just like folks who get convicted for littering usually don't get 90 days jail time that is the maximum sentence in some states, even though they could, this person will likely get much less than the maximum sentence.

I certainly don't think it's out of line that the maximum sentence for a convicted criminal carrying a firearm across the US border be ten years, but I fully expect the judge will look at the circumstances and issue a suitable punishment.

Ordinarily, I'd say you're right. However, due to the recent "enhanced security hype" there is a real possibility that this guy could get a judge who does impose the maximum sentence.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Beckles:
And that's probably all he'll get, so what's your point? Just like folks who get convicted for littering usually don't get 90 days jail time that is the maximum sentence in some states, even though they could, this person will likely get much less than the maximum sentence.

I certainly don't think it's out of line that the maximum sentence for a convicted criminal carrying a firearm across the US border be ten years, but I fully expect the judge will look at the circumstances and issue a suitable punishment.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Personally, I think the borders with Canada and Mexico should be loosened, not tightened, ala Europe.

As for the crimes committed... I definitely do not feel an illegal border crossing + having a shotgun (that was to be used for hunting but that's besides the point) should add up to 10 years in prison. What is the appropriate punishment? I would say a fine + some small jail time would suffice. I already stated that his offense should not be ignored, though you ignored that statement. However, I do assert that imprisoning him for 10 years for these two crimes IS equivalent to "barbaric penal codes".
</font>

A looser border with Canada might have let the guy with the bomb material and a plan to bomb LAX through. Such wonderful ideas you have.

You seem to have no sense of proportion when going off on these anti-government rants. Claiming that imprisonment in an American prison is barbaric is ridiculous considering the standards of true barbarity seen abroad. Your entire acknowledgment that a crime was commited consist of

"Responsibility? Yes."

After which you immediately resumed your attack against the government by assuming that this criminal wouldn't receive an appropriate punishment. All of which is driven by your biased viewpoint of judging all law enforcement agencyes [INS, TSA, ec.] guilty prior to any impartial appreciation of the facts.

You're right. We should build two walls, one to the north, and one to the south, set up checkpoints and only let a small number of people through each checkpoint, after a very complete background check and search of their person and vehicles. Furthermore, we should shoot anyone who attempts to cross the border in either direction illegally, as they are probably terrorists, bent on destroying our liberty. Finally, we should give these checkpoints names such as Checkpoint Alpha, Checkpoint Bravo, Checkpoint Charlie etc to distinguish them from one another. A nice cheery sign at each checkpoint like "You Are Leaving The American Sector." would remind people that they are leaving freedom and liberty behind as they venture into Terrorist Country.

Imprisonment in any jail for 10 years for those two offenses is barbaric.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
A looser border with Canada might have let the guy with the bomb material and a plan to bomb LAX through. Such wonderful ideas you have.

You seem to have no sense of proportion when going off on these anti-government rants. Claiming that imprisonment in an American prison is barbaric is ridiculous considering the standards of true barbarity seen abroad. Your entire acknowledgment that a crime was commited consist of

"Responsibility? Yes."

After which you immediately resumed your attack against the government by assuming that this criminal wouldn't receive an appropriate punishment. All of which is driven by your biased viewpoint of judging all law enforcement agencyes [INS, TSA, ec.] guilty prior to any impartial appreciation of the facts.</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Spiff,

I'm about ready to give up on some of these folks. God help them if they should ever be ensnared by one of these nutty laws. It's so easy to point fingers at others and call them criminals.

Bruce

quote from the newspaper:
----------------------------------------------------------

"....But on Oct. 11, they zeroed in on Jalbert, who was carrying a gun and who has a criminal record in Canada, Harrow said. Jalbert could be jailed for up to 10 years if convicted on the felony charges facing him...."
----------------------------------------------------------

I cant feel too sorry for him, a previously convicted criminal. It is unclear what country arrested him or exactly what for. I believe bringing an undeclared gun into Canada has a higher penality than bringing it into the USA so maybe he could get charged by the other country, ie criminal double-dipping. This guy probably broke some tax laws too (again). Throw away the key!

MisterNice

"Jalbert has a 1990 conviction for breaking and entering and possession of property obtained by crime, according to Royal Canadian Mounted Police records obtained by Haddow. The charges were resolved 12 years ago, when Jalbert was 20 years old. He did not serve any jail time."

Off with his head!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MisterNice:
quote from the newspaper:</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Jim Quan:
How ironic! Cheap gas is the root of all evil in our modern world. He went for it and paid the price. We wallow in it and incur the wrath of, well, the world.

Let those who are without SUV cast the first stone.

Jim</font>

The gas was probably from Iraq too!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Imprisonment in any jail for 10 years for those two offenses is barbaric.
</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

Do you think that having a maximum penalty of 10 years for a convict crossing the border with a gun is unreasonable? I certainly don't, as I already said.

I think you're making an awfully big leap to think that he will get anywhere near the maximum. He will probably be fined and sentenced to time served, I'm not sure why your supposition that he will receive a lengthy jail sentence is any more valid than mine.

Would our idiot ASScroft send him to GUantanamo Bay?

The INS and Customs are really catching heat -- deservedly -- from all corners of the political spectrum here in DC. They have taken the approach of perception -- let's go after an easy target and make an example of him/her. They knew full well of the practice of crossing the border (another posting's information).

This is really the INS's equivalent to confiscating nail clippers. Thank God the guy wasn't smoking a Cuban cigar!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by doc:
But on Oct. 11, they zeroed in on Jalbert, who was carrying a gun and who has a criminal record in Canada, Harrow said. Jalbert could be jailed for up to 10 years if convicted on the felony charges facing him.</font>

What an idiot! And what is a convicted criminal doing with a gun in the first place? Is that legal in Canada? If so, that policy should be changed immediately. I do not want criminals to have weapons.

That's ridiculous.

Did this gentleman get any miles or points for his ill-fated gas run?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by debo_nair:
Would our idiot ASScroft send him to GUantanamo Bay?</font>

I am honestly starting to wonder if voting should be a privilege requiring an IQ test with some minimal score.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 11-05-2002).]

Why? Don't you like voting?

(sorry, folks! couldn't resist!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif )

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
I am honestly starting to wonder if voting should be a privilege requiring an IQ test with some minimal score.

[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 11-05-2002).]</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

This whole thing is a BIG waste of time and money. If you bothered to read the article you'd have seen that the U.S. Customs service wanted to "...Send a message to Canadians that casual border crossings would no longer be tolerated by U.S. agents...."

When the guy's lawyer tried to get him released he "...Discovered was that while the court did not want to release Jalbert because he might jump bail and return to Canada, the INS wanted to hold him so it could deport him, and send him back to Canada. The deportation process could not begin until after the criminal case is resolved, so Jalbert remains in jail.

Note that NOBODY has said this guy is dangerous, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Note that NOBODY has said this guy is dangerous, etc.</font>

So, then, you're okay with criminals having firearms? You don't have a problem with that?

I do. And seeing how someone who wasn't supposed to have a gun just shot a dozen people in my neck of the woods, I think you can understand why.

Oh, stop it, already! Nobody but you -- on either side of the border -- is calling this guy a "criminal" on the basis of relatively minor property crimes that occurred 12 years ago at age 20. He served his time and apparently has been law-abiding all his ADULT life. He lives in the woods somewhere and goes hunting with a shotgun. Comparisons to the DC-area snipers are beyond absurd. Get over it, Tony.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Oh, stop it, already! Nobody but you -- on either side of the border -- is calling this guy a "criminal" on the basis of relatively minor property crimes that occurred 12 years ago at age 20. He served his time and apparently has been law-abiding all his ADULT life. He lives in the woods somewhere and goes hunting with a shotgun. Comparisons to the DC-area snipers are beyond absurd. Get over it, Tony.

Bruce</font>

I count 4 people in this thread alone that think this guy is a criminal, as in someone who broke the law.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Comparisons to the DC-area snipers are beyond absurd. Get over it, Tony.</font>

You sure about that? The sniper who decided to hunt humans instead of game wasn't allowed to have a gun because he was convicted of a minor crime as well.

I do not want criminals to have guns. Do you really have a problem with that? I don't care what the crime was, whether it's violent or not, or whatever. I don't want criminals to have guns because they have shown that they will break the law, and now you want them to have weapons?

Someone who broke the law 12 years ago -- at age 20 -- is not a "criminal" for life, at least not in my universe. If you want to be that unforgiving, suit yourself!

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Someone who broke the law 12 years ago -- at age 20 -- is not a "criminal" for life, at least not in my universe. If you want to be that unforgiving, suit yourself!</font>

I believe that when you're 20, you're an adult. We aren't talking about someone who broke the law at age 15 here, Bruce. And breaking and entering isn't exactly something like getting busted for having a joint.

And in any case, it doesn't matter. The facts are indisputable, aren't they? The guy entered the US with a weapon, which he was not supposed to do. And that's illegal.

I don't think criminals should have guns, nor should conservatives. We liberals don't want them anyway.

As for the unfortunate M. Jalbert, can you imagine what it must be like stuck in an American jail and only being able to speak French? I hope at least they let him run the kitchen. The Maine prison system might wind up with a new recipe for homard bisque!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
I am honestly starting to wonder if voting should be a privilege requiring an IQ test with some minimal score.
</font>

I bet! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
The idea of a superior "intellectual" class, leading the masses about because of their superior ability to reason, has been around forever. The masses seem to enjoy watching these eggheads pontificate, then slapping them down as needed.</font>

Slap down anyone?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">If prosecutors indict Jalbert, he will likely plead guilty and be sentenced to the time he has already served in custody, Haddow said. At that point, the Immigration and Naturalization Service would deport him which would result in him going home shortly after Jan. 1, missing Christmas but being home for the birth of his child.</font>

http://www.centralmaine.com/news/stories/021103hunter_f.shtml

Too bad he wasn't just trying to bring in Cuban cigars -- the penalty for that is only having to surrender them, right Tony? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I can't believe they wouldn't give him 10 years like Spiff was touting! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Too bad he wasn't just trying to bring in Cuban cigars -- the penalty for that is only having to surrender them, right Tony? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif</font>

I dunna. From what I've heard, that's all they ask you to do, but then, they've never found the ones that I forgot to declare.

Hopefully, I never will find out.

I am still concerned, though, that Canada lets convicted felons possess firearms. Well, maybe we Americans shouldn't lecture other countries on firearms until we figure out what to do with them ourselves, so I'll just not go there.

Finally, I think this is an appropriate punishment for the crime. You might wonder why I feel differently about this than jokers who carry guns through security at airports. It's because this guy's actions really didn't affect anyone but himself. I am for very harsh penalties for those who do something at airports because their actions affect thousands of people.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by RichG:
I don't think criminals should have guns, nor should conservatives. We liberals don't want them anyway.

As for the unfortunate M. Jalbert, can you imagine what it must be like stuck in an American jail and only being able to speak French? I hope at least they let him run the kitchen. The Maine prison system might wind up with a new recipe for homard bisque!</font>

That's pretty funny. What if you're a middle of the road guy like me? Does half of me want a gun but the other half not want one? Kind of sounds like the country as a whole, huh?

I do feel some sympathy for Mr. Jalbert -- does anyone but me notice that his name is very close to jailbird and that if you pronounce it French style, it sounds very similar. But he did break the law, and it seems like he admits it, so he has to be punished in some way.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:

I am still concerned, though, that Canada lets convicted felons possess firearms. Well, maybe we Americans shouldn't lecture other countries on firearms until we figure out what to do with them ourselves, so I'll just not go there.

</font>

Good thing I read the second sentence as the first one alone would surely have had folks (me) bouncing off the ceiling http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cloud Lounger:
Good thing I read the second sentence as the first one alone would surely have had folks (me) bouncing off the ceiling http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif</font>

Hey, I'm more than willing to admit that the US has its problems and that in some cases, such as firearms, we really shouldn't be talking to other countries about how to keep those things from falling into the wrong hands.

I remember one summer I was in Toronto and they were reporting a murder. It was August, and there were still only single digits for the number of murders in Toronto. I remember thinking to myself that it whatever that number was only amounted to a bad weekend in any major American city.

Why is the border post not at the border?

Umm...Poor chap...

I guess Canadian's buying cheap USA gas is okay....The same as USA residents crossing our borders to buy prescription drugs.!...

I say close the borders...keep the Americans out.. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

We don't want to be label as war mongers to the rest of the world...
We are peace loving people.!.

It has to be a two way street....the whole thing is getting ridiclous....my business trips to the US have been cut by 60% because of the aggirvation experinced at the US airports...the cost to the economy must be huge....

way to go.

[This message has been edited by Ferrari (edited 11-06-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
I do feel some sympathy for Mr. Jalbert -- does anyone but me notice that his name is very close to jailbird and that if you pronounce it French style</font>

French "style?" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Don't you mean "properly" instead? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
I dunna. From what I've heard, that's all they ask you to do, but then, they've never found the ones [Cuban cigars] that I forgot to declare.</font>

As I pointed out in a UA thread, the penalty for bringing in Cuban cigars is:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The penalties for doing so include, in addition to confiscation of the cigars, civil fines of up to $55,000 per violation and in appropriate cases, criminal prosecution which may result in higher fines and/or imprisonment.</font>

Wouldn't it be mdtonyesque then for you to receive more than the typical light confiscation and face fine/jail time? The "number of people inconvenienced" legal standard seems somewhat dubious, I'd have to say.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SMessier:
Wouldn't it be mdtonyesque then for you to receive more than the typical light confiscation and face fine/jail time? The "number of people inconvenienced" legal standard seems somewhat dubious, I'd have to say. </font>

Dem be the breaks. If a prosecutor decides to go full throttle and go for a huge fine and jail time, well, he's entitled to do so. I broke the law and am subject to all the penalties that are allowed by it.

Of course, they won't do that, but if they want to, they can, and my recourse? None.

Oh boy, today itsa 10 years for "Gas Runs" and I guess tomorrow it will be 10 years for "Mileage Runs".

MisterNice

If you pronounce my surname "French style", it's only one phoneme away from "Jalbert". Maybe that's why I'm sympathetic to the unfortunate rifle-toting gas-runner.

I think a fair sentence would be to send him back and ban him from the U.S. for 5 years. I'd still like to know if he (or anyone) had fair notice that something that had been routinely tolerated for a long time had suddenly become a problem. With the gas station located before the customs station, it's not as if he'd lied to anyone about the gun.

What harm was done to any person or property?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by eMailman:
What harm was done to any person or property?</font>

Nothing, and that's why the sentence should be relatively light. This isn't some joker trying to carry a gun through security. When someone does that, they cause a lot of economic damage to the airlines, to the passengers waiting (if nothing else, think about the time they had to cool their heels and multiply it by the minimum wage and then multiply it by the number of folks who had to wait), and to the vendors at the airport. That's why I am for very stiff penalties in that situation and not for stiff penalties in this situation.

Allowing that 20+ years have gone by, we could send M. Jalbert home before Christmas -- that's where the INS and Justice Department apparently want to send him, anyway -- and call it a belated "thank you" for Canada hosting some Americans in the Canadian Embassy in Tehran in 1979/80 when Khomeini's ruffians were taking hostages.

------------------
"Yes, but at least mine will be found in a first class seat." -- Peattie and Taylor

I think the real crime here is that gas prices in the US are so low that they don't come anywhere near the true cost of gas. Drivers, particularly SUV drivers are essentially stealing from the rest of us with each mile they drive.

d