home

Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-American Clerks

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:43:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

TalkLeft discussed here the folly of the government’s prosecution of convenience store clerks — mostly Indian immigrants, many of whom spoke limited English — for selling cold pills (pseudoephedrine) and antifreeze to police informants. The informants supposedly indicated that they intended to use the products to manufacture methamphetamine, but it’s unclear whether the clerks understood what the informants were saying.

As the prosecution has progressed, more people are questioning the wisdom of prosecuting merchants for selling legal products, and of singling out convenience store owners of Indian descent.

Calling federal drug charges against dozens of South Asian convenience store owners racially biased, several hundred people rallied Sunday in Decatur for an end to prosecution in what federal agents have dubbed "Operation Meth Merchant.

Sunday's rally was held in the parking lot of a strip of mostly Indian-owned shops and restaurants in Decatur. Many speakers spoke in Indian dialects, and the crowd held signs reading "Stop the Prosecution" and repeated an Indian civil rights chant that translates as "Against every injustice and oppression, we will fight!"

The ACLU points out that “the sting was rife with problems.”

They say several defendants were not even in the country at the time they are accused of illegally selling the ingredients and that informants used obscure drug slang, which the clerks, some of whom speak limited English, did not understand.

The ACLU is “investigating whether police and prosecutors selectively enforced the meth prosecution by targeting retailers with Indian surnames.” Even if the feds had some coincidental reason to chase after clerks with Indian surnames, it makes no sense to waste law enforcement resources on clerks who are selling legal products from a store — clerks who just want to do the job they’ve been hire to do, and who don’t personally profit from the sale.

As TalkLeft said in its earlier post on this ridiculous prosecution:

Come to America legally, get a job, work your tail off, sell the goods your boss has on the shelves and end up in jail. America. Prison nation.

< German Chancellor: Guantanamo Can't Exist Forever | New Law Criminalizes Anonymous Annoying E-mails and Web Posts >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-American Clerks | 18 comments (18 topical)
    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#1)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    I, for one, will sleep more securely, knowing that these dangerous Slurpee pushers have been brought to justice.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    As TalkLeft said in its earlier post on this ridiculous prosecution: Come to America legally, get a job, work your tail off, sell the goods your boss has on the shelves and end up in jail. America. Prison nation. And as I said in my earlier post on this:
    From the link: "In one instance, Mr. Nahmias said, a store owner in Whitfield County pulled out a business card from a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent and told the [undercover informant who was buying large quantities meth precurser materials] that he was supposed to contact the agent if someone requested large amounts of the materials. When the informant asked if he would call, Mr. Nahmias said, the owner replied, "No, you are my customer.""
    So, for some, apparently it's: "Come to America legally, buy a business, work your tail off, deliberately break the law, and, not suprisingly, end up in jail." Without question, some of the prosecutions will fail or be dropped, and should be. But, also, some won't, and should not.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    Hey, if my reefer merchant has to risk arrest when bringing his wares to market, it's only fair that the Sudafed merchants face the same risk. And the alcohol merchants, and the tobacco merchants, and the coffee merchants, and the chocolate merchants and so on. At least that is consistent.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    some of whom speak limited English, did not understand. Learn English...problem solved!

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:56:31 PM EST
    Great. Here's my no brainer headline in 6 months: Clerk Shot for Refusing Service to Customer AP-...The customer became irate when the store clerk refused to sell him all of the Sudaphed and antifreeze in the store. The customer later tested positive for methamphetamine. The authorities can't effectively prosecute their candystore war on drugs, despite their billions every year and their shiny helicopters. So now they expect us to do it. Either charge the clerks with conspiracy or leave them alone. There are bigger fish to fry and these guys are nothing. What an incredible waste of time and money. And what an incredible pool of stupidity this idea came from.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    "wholly without merit factually and legally. I'm not sure what made me think of that, but it really does sum up the republican party nicely.
    I dunno about you, but I think exactly the same thing of about 80% of your posts. That said, as on the previous thread about this topic, if the merchant knew they were purchasing the the precursors of methamphetamine and still sold it in violation of the law, then they should be prosecuted. If they think they are innocent, or victims of circumstances, well, that's why we have the jury system. If protestors think it's important enough for them to spend their time on, good for them.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#7)
    by ltgesq on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    "Learn english?" "that's what the jury system is for?" It would be nice to see a few of you kind hearted republicans take a trip out of the country and have a taste of the justice system when you don't know anything about the culture. Virtually anyone who lives out in the country is going to have all the meth precursors they could need to make meth already in their house and garage. As to learning english helping them from the issue of understanding the drug slang used by the informants, remember that this happened in rural georgia. I grew up in the states, english is my only language, and i can't understand some southern accents. I will never forget my son asking me in a subway in tennesee what language the people sitting next to us were speaking. When i said english, he responded with, "UN UH. NO WAY"

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    Virtually anyone who lives out in the country is going to have all the meth precursors they could need to make meth already in their house and garage.
    Either a mistake of fact or a lie, you decide. The only precurser to methamphetamine commonly used is pseudophedrine. I dunno about the country you live in, but in the country I live in, you gotta buy the stuff. Of course you can go back to the old P2P methond which does not use ephedrine or pseudo, but nowadays, these here fold in the country don't use that method no more. If your talking about brake fluid, coleman fuel, battery zinc, iodine, red P or sodium hydroxide (Lye), yup they're all readily available, but without the ephedrine, all you got is toxic goo.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 04:58:08 PM EST
    Honestly, we're talking about people who have enough english to go through the hoops in an english-speaking country to buy a biz, and who's landlords, vendors, customers, etc., generally all speak english. Drug slang?! What's that got to do with someone coming in and buying out your entire stock of Sudafed? Nope, in general, lack of english is not the issue here.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    These are all legal substances and should be able to be purchased by whoever wants them in any quanity they want. If you think they should be regulated then require a prescription for the OTC antihistimene and a note from your mechanic for the ethylene-glycol. Heck I can still buy Diesel and fertilizer at the co-op and it's been ten years since the Oklahoma City bombing. Yeah 'crank' is a sh*tty drug but making innocent folks responsible for the criminals that manufacture it is just plain stupid. If there is a suspicion that a particular store is selling way more than would be normal and I mean way more, then the wholesaler should be the one to advise the authories. Or better yet let the cops bust the manufacturers themselves or are they afraid of the cranked-up trailer-trash that they might have to confront. I guess it is safer to bust Mr Patak or Singh at the local 24/7. Either way it isn't going to look good on 'COPS' when they bust some poor clerk at the Quickie Mart.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    jimcee - Depending on the state, you must purchase them from the Pharmacy and list your name and address. You can only purchase X amount per 30 days. BTW - There are now products available that do have the offending chemical.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, That is the rule in some states but it seems that it is an extra layer of gov't intrusion on business. I don't see that 'crank' is as much of a problem as is the unnecessary harassment of some minimun wage clerk. I think that the "meth epidemic" is a myth that has been blown out of proportion by law enforcement people who often times exaggerate the damage in order to give themselves a heavier hand. The war on drugs in general has been a prime example of this mentality. As a libertarian I think drugs should be legal and regulated as are alchohol and tobacco. The underground economies created by prohibition create a criminal element replete with violence that corrupts the very fabric of society. To make criminals of clerks is a mockery of honest law enforcement.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:49:50 AM EST
    I swear...the US keeps getting dumberer and dumberer. I remember going to some drug store when I was last in the US to buy allergy and cold/flu meds. Because one cannot buy anything remotely as powerful as tylenol in Europe, I decided to stock up. At the till, my transaction gets blocked, and I get all sorts of goofy questions. Turns out that I could get my meth, er, meds easily enough by having my girlfriend buy half, and go to a different store to get the rest. So much for that. Should the merchants be prosecuted because I outwitted them?

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#14)
    by SeeEmDee on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:10:18 AM EST
    As someone who did a lot of traveling for Uncle, back when I toted a rifle for a living, I know from personal experience the problems of dealing with another culture and language. I'm only too well aware of how easy it can be to make a mistake in another person's language and, at best suffer embarassment, and at worst, find yourself in a knife fight because you unknowingly insulted someone. To ramrod these 'Apus' because they 'no savvy Eeng-gleeze' all that well is downright bogus. Bad enough people outside the US still think many of us are 'Ugly Americans'; we don't need to have that view cemented into place with insanity like this happening on the home front.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:01:54 AM EST
    sarcastic... people who have enough english to go through the hoops in an english-speaking country to buy a biz, and who's landlords, vendors, customers, etc., generally all speak english. I beg to differ... there are plenty of business owners in this country that speak little or NO English!

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    Fair comment BB, I was thinking specifically of the convenience store owners/clerks I've met over the past 4 decades.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    That was actually pretty funny, chuck! Regardless, you are now dismissed. Permanently.

    Re: Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-Amer (none / 0) (#18)
    by Patrick on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    I beg to differ... there are plenty of business owners in this country that speak little or NO English!
    Which is fine to take into consideration during the criminal process if the question is whether the person understood what they were doing was illegal. The example provided by Sarc in the second comment on this thread is a seemingly clear exception to that assumption. And seems indicative of the investigation as a whole.

    Protesters Question Prosecution of Indian-American Clerks | 18 comments (18 topical)