My bleeding heart bleeds slightly less.

[Skirmisher]

Jury Acquits Texas Mother Who Killed Sons (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040404/ap_on_re_us/children_slain&cid=519&ncid=716)
^
^
^
^
Click link above.

Two dead innocent defensless children and one forever maimed and this woman may be free after she is "cured"

Nice.

If there is going to be a death penalty I don't have a better use for it than this. And before anyone tries to say that her guilt is somehow absolved by the husband not seeing this nightmare coming I say he is also guilty and should spend perhaps the rest of his pathetic years in jail as well.

Both are equal wastes of perfectly good flesh.

Hell, while we are at it, take the fool jury that will allow this to pass.

Yes I'm a bit peeved.

[peam]

I blame Texas.

[Weedmage Princess]

Stuff like this sickens me. I'm not without empathy for people who are truly mentally ill...and I won't say that this lady isn't. Like Skirmisher, I put *MOST* of the blame in this instance on the people close to this woman who had to have known she had mental issues. Her husband and any relatives she might have been close with..but mainly her husband. I'm sorry, but if you live with a person, you can tell after a while that there's something wrong. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the lights are on but no one's home if you're that close with a person for a decent period of time. He should not have children with this lady. No one should have, if she's that wacked.

If the justice system is worth a damn, they'd atleast fix this and make it so that lady can't have anymore children. People like that shouldn't have that option in my opinion.

It's really sad...especially when you look at all the people in the world who would love nothing more than to have a child, and can not...for someone to do such a thing. Really sad.

[Ilvane]

Putting her in jail wouldn't do a thing. She was severely mentally ill. 5 different mental health professionals agreed, which is incredibly rare. I understand what you are saying about it being awful, and that someone should have seen it coming..but hindsight is 20/20.

They said that she expected to stay in the maximum security mental health facility to about 40 years.

It's sad, and there are no winners in that case, not in the slightest, but I just don't think putting her in jail would have been the right choice.

-A

[Weedmage Princess]

I agree...prison won't do anything for someone with those kind of mental issues, Ilvane. Locking her up isn't going to do much good. However, sterilization is a course of action that should be taken in my opinion. And I do feel that her husband should at the least be tried. If nothing else, to determine whether or not he knew just how far gone she was. I thought I read somewhere that he actually testified on her behalf that she was seriously ill. That would mean he had some idea of what was going on. He shouldn't have left her with those children unsupervised if that's the case. There's blood on his hands, as well.

[Myshel]

I agree, make the husband cupable for his inaction, if she was that seriously mental, he had to have known it. Of course, he has lost his children, he has to live with that for the rest of his life.

She should be hung from the stocks insane or not.

[TheEschaton]

If deep religious convictions are "legally insane", maybe we should lock up Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson right now.


Hmmm, some good might come of this yet.


-TheE-

[i remember halloween]

who cares if someone is mentality ill. if you are incapable of following simple laws like "don't kill people" then tough fucking luck when we kill you. it sure as fuck wasn't the victims' fault so why are they paying the price? blame god, it's his fault.

a part of me is glad to see stuff like this though. it just goes to show how ridiculous our sympathetic system really is.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by i remember halloween]

[HarmNone]

I see the husband, and any other family close enough to know the score in that household, as more culpable than the murderess in this instance. There is no way that someone could be far gone enough to murder her own children while those around her had no clue. I really have to wonder about a man who would impregnate, multiple times, a woman who was obviously mentally and emotionally unable to care for children.

As to whether she should be killed or locked up, to me it seems a moot point. The children are dead, except for the poor tyke who must live on, maimed and broken. Killing her will not bring the dead back to life, or give back what the remaining little one has lost. Whether she is locked up for the rest of her life, or taken out of her misery, nothing is really gained. I do believe, however, that if she is hospitalized, she should also be sterilized.

HarmNone

[Edaarin]

I wonder. Had that been a man, would the jury have been so lenient?

[Skirmisher]

Sadly....I think not so much.

[TheEschaton]

See, you women constantly complain that us men never notice what's up with your lives, and have concluded that's just how men are....and now you want to blame the husband for not noticing?

How do anorexic/bulimic people hide their condition? How do serial killers live in society? Some of it is that they try and conceal it, but most of it is HUMAN NATURE (not male nature, mind you) to not get involved.

That being said, in Texas, men probably think all women suffer from "the hystrionics". Freud wrote about it.

-TheE-

[Myshel]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
See, you women constantly complain that us men never notice what's up with your lives, and have concluded that's just how men are....and now you want to blame the husband for not noticing?

How do anorexic/bulimic people hide their condition? How do serial killers live in society? Some of it is that they try and conceal it, but most of it is HUMAN NATURE (not male nature, mind you) to not get involved.

That being said, in Texas, men probably think all women suffer from "the hystrionics". Freud wrote about it.

-TheE-

What a load of BS.
The husband stated in court how sick she was. He didn't think that she was capable of what she did. Knowledgeable about how sick she was, but not knowledgeable enough to get her help? Please.... (insert a lot of scorn here for bs gender bashing)

[Edaarin]

Bingham pounded his fist in his hand as he recounted Joshua's killing: "He got strike after strike after strike on his head to the point that his brains were coming out of his head like liquid."

What...the...fuck...couldn't she at least have killed them in a painless way?

[Weedmage Princess]

It's one thing to be depressed, or to be eccentric, or something like that, The E. What you're talking about is minor.

To be ill enough to kill two of your children and seriously injure the third...a baby in a crib, mind you. That takes a LOT. A LOT. He testified that she wasn't sane. Therefore, he noticed something at some point. She wasn't just "a little eccentric." She was a murdering stark raving nutjob...and he knew it.

As far as "blaming the man" ..I won't speak for anyone else but if you look at my initial post...I also said relatives and anyone close to her. I was thinking along the lines of her parents. Her mother is surely a woman...and if she had a fairly close relationship with her mother..then she too has blood on her hands. I'd really rather not turn this into a male vs. female debate because it's horrible whenever it happens, despite the gender of the killer.

[TheEschaton]

She was told by God to stone her kids, Ed. She had "no choice" in how to kill them.

yeah, right.


-TheE-

[DeV]

I have to agree.. She was beyond insane obviously and for them to not give her the death penalty in Texas is a shocker in itself. I feel her family has to feel some sort of guilt or regret for not getting this woman help. Sometimes when you know someone is not all the way there, you think things will get better. In this case, to go as far as killing your children with huge rocks no less--serious fucking mental issues.

[HarmNone]

Yeah, Weedie. I, too, said "the husband and any other family close enough...". Interesting, is it not, how that gets turned into a gender issue? :rolleyes:

HarmNone

[GSTamral]

I don't see why anyone who is liberal from a social standpoint would argue that this was the wrong decision. This type of law was crafted by liberals for EXACTLY this type of case, because she is mentally ill and needs help, so therefore she cannot be responsible for any crimes she committed.

Granted when these laws were created, they were not meant to cover cases of killing little children, but as liberal america would say, she has the same rights as anyone else, and therefore is subject to the same insanity defense, even though she killed several innocent children by means of torture. Even though it seems just terrible, you reap what you sow.

Cases like this make me sick. That someone could go around, kill many children by blunt force, and then have the ability to walk free after some mental therapy honestly makes me question the sanity of this type of law. And then I realize. Those kids at columbine, had they lived, could have used the same defense. So I guess killing children isnt as big an offense to folks like Harmnone as it is to me. Is anything sacred in the eyes of liberal america?

[TheEschaton]

I think it bleeds over from a thread on the same women, where Ylena discussed how she blamed the husband.


-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Her life's over anyway. Unless there's some kind of incredible breakthrough in psychological treatment, she's going to be drugged out of her gourd for the rest of her life.

And it's nice to sit here and condemn this husband fellow. I, having never been around a "murdering stark raving nutjob", have no idea how I would act, or what I would do. Of course, if everyone who has commented to the effect of "husband sux0rz" so far has, then nevermind.edit:
Originally posted by GSTamral
then have the ability to walk free What are you, high? She's going to the nut house.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[GSTamral]

Harmnone, a simple question for you, and please answer honestly. If some random person came up to your house and killed your children/husband/loved ones, would you think it is allright and just if they could walk free after a few years of mental therapy and a doctor's note?

[GSTamral]

Latronstorm, she's going to be in a nuthouse for how long? There will be a minimum evaluation time, after which she could be released. Murderers have walked free from such evaluation in as little as 14 months. There is no time limit of treatment after the evaluation.

[TheEschaton]

A few years? They're saying she'll be committed for 40, from a post above.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Latronstorm, she's going to be in a nuthouse for how long? There will be a minimum evaluation time, after which she could be released. Murderers have walked free from such evaluation in as little as 14 months. There is no time limit of treatment after the evaluation. She's got to prove she's not crazy anymore. Which is pretty tough to do when she's drooling more than she's blinking. Even if she manages to get out, she doesn't get a clean bill of health. People will keep checking up on her. "Schizophrenia in remission" isn't a real winning item on one's resume.

[Weedmage Princess]

Question for you, Latrinsorm.

Say you were married and you discover over a period of time that your wife is..for all intent and purposes..insane. You love your wife, you stay with her, you hope she'll get better..but you know she's not mentally right. If you had children with her, knowing what you know..that she IS insane--would you leave your children with her unsupervised?

Let's keep in mind again..you KNOW she's insane. She's done things in the past unconventional enough to the point that if one day she was on trial for something, you'd be able to sit in the hotseat and testify under oath that she is definitely, beyond the shadow of a doubt..INSANE.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Weedmage Princess
Question for you, Latrinsorm.Answer: not enough data. How the hell would I know what I would do? I've never been married, I've never met a (seriously) insane person, I've never had kids, etc. etc. I could take wild stab in the dark, if you'd like, but what would the point of that be?

[Weedmage Princess]

Fair enough.

As someone with a little more experience in the matter then (having been married and having a child myself) ..I love my husband dearly. If I knew he was insane, however (like her husband did because he testified on her behalf that she was "insane" ) I certainly wouldn't leave my son with him unsupervised...and I honestly doubt I'm alone with that point of view.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Weedmage Princess]

[Edaarin]

She's asking you for advice so that she can tell her husband how to handle her.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Harmnone, a simple question for you, and please answer honestly. If some random person came up to your house and killed your children/husband/loved ones, would you think it is allright and just if they could walk free after a few years of mental therapy and a doctor's note?

While the hypothesis you present is nothing like the one we are discussing, as this woman was anything but some "random person" ( She KILLED HER OWN CHILDREN!), I shall try to answer your question as honestly as I can, having never experienced anything that would remotely compare.

If one of my loved ones was murdered, I would be devastated, I am sure. I would go through all the phases of grief, including anger, just as anyone would. No, I would not think it all right for them to walk free after "a few years" of therapy with a "doctor's note" . I cannot imagine any sentient being who WOULD find it all right.

That said, I live in a country in which a system of justice exists. Twelve jurors will decide the fate of the murderer. I may agree with their decision. I may disagree. Yet, whatever their decision, I will still be left bereft. Even bereft, I do not make the laws, nor do I, alone, decide the course of justice.

HarmNone

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by HarmNone]

[TheEschaton]

that she IS insane--would you leave your children with her unsupervised?

He was upstairs, asleep. I don't think that qualifies as "unsupervised". What, is he not supposedly to sleep, to make sure his wife doesn't snap?

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Tamral, since you selected me as an example of someone who places less value on the lives of children than you do, I must ask...where in anything I said did you find cause to make such a judgement? I will quote myself first (bold print for emphasis):

>>As to whether she should be killed or locked up, to me it seems a moot point. The children are dead, except for the poor tyke who must live on, maimed and broken. Killing her will not bring the dead back to life, or give back what the remaining little one has lost. Whether she is locked up for the rest of her life, or taken out of her misery, nothing is really gained. I do believe, however, that if she is hospitalized, she should also be sterilized.<<

Now, I will quote you:

>>Cases like this make me sick. That someone could go around, kill many children by blunt force, and then have the ability to walk free after some mental therapy honestly makes me question the sanity of this type of law. And then I realize. Those kids at columbine, had they lived, could have used the same defense. So I guess killing children isnt as big an offense to folks like Harmnone as it is to me. Is anything sacred in the eyes of liberal america?<<

In short, Tamral, I am liberal, yes. However, being liberal does not make me indifferent to the deaths of children at the hands of their insane (or sane, for that matter) parents. To put it bluntly, I resent the HELL out of the implication that it does, you self-righteous idiot! :mad:

HarmNone

[GSTamral]

<<<
That said, I live in a country in which a system of justice exists. Twelve jurors will decide the fate of the murderer. I may agree with their decision. I may disagree. Yet, whatever their decision, I will still be left bereft. Even bereft, I do not make the laws, nor do I, alone, decide the course of justice.

HarmNone
>>>

Harmnone, read your own posts. Gee, my children were killed, how sad. Twelve jurors decided, based on a law I support, that the person who killed my children will not even spend time in jail because he/she is insane. I disagree with the jury. I'm still sad. Oh well, there's nothing I can do about it, I'll just be sad and that's that.

You couldn't have answered the situation from a perspective of any more indifference to the situation. Maybe someday if you lose a loved one, you'll gain some perspective on a situation like this, and you'll comment in a different manner.

[TheEschaton]

Maybe you can gain some perspective as well, Tamral. Such as, many people realize that retribution never gets anyone their loved one back.


-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Tamral, if the day ever came where I thought as you think, I would drown myself in my pool.

HarmNone

[GSTamral]

<<<
Whether she is locked up for the rest of her life, or taken out of her misery, nothing is really gained.
>>>

What about peace of mind? Knowing that someone who should not ever be a part of society is removed from it permanently, unless we someday find a way to bring back the dead? I'd call that a significant gain. Would it be similarly allright to you, if we just put Hitler in a loony bin? I mean, he was positively insane, believing god had sent him to exterminate all Jews. You don't think peace of mind was attained knowing he was dead? Good god you need a clue.

[GSTamral]

Well Harmnone, an interesting rebuttal. I guess the day you believed that children are indeed sacred, and that crimes against children are different than crimes against adults, then yes, you would have to drown yourself, because it fights the notion of everything you seem to stand for. That I'd rather a victim be on the street than the criminal, I guess that makes me some heartless person.

[GSTamral]

TheE, you are right, the death penalty does not bring back the loved ones. But it does bring with it a sense of closure, as well as peace of mind. And in cases of grief, that is often the best you can get.

[TheEschaton]

Children are different victims, to be sure. I don't think anyone would argue crimes against them are more horrific than most. All life is sacred. So, by that logic, killing a life to atone for the killing of life, would not make any sense, now would it?


However, in today's modern society, one can conceivably "put someone away" and they'd have the same effect of "never harming anyone ever again". This woman will be in a state mental hospital for 40 years, at which point, if she is released, she'll be in her, what, 70s? 80s?

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Maybe you can gain some perspective as well, Tamral. Such as, many people realize that retribution never gets anyone their loved one back.


-TheE-

My point, exactly, TheE. The life of a loved one is irreplaceable. Once gone, it is forever gone. Killing another will not bring it back.

While I can understand how, in certain cases, the death penalty could be seen as a boon to humanity, those cases are few and far between, in my view.

Hatred and retribution do nothing to increase my enjoyment of life, nor will they bring back a loved one lost. To nurture such feelings, to give them such power, is frightening to me. I am determined never to give in to either.

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

If you need the death of someone else for closure and peace of mind, why isn't every murderer killed?

My father lost 27 friends/colleagues in the WTC. Does he have the right to watch 27 people die for his peace of mind/closure?

Do the families of those 27 killed for my father's benefit have the right to watch my father die, for killing their own?

It's all a stupid, vicious cycle, which only propogates itself.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

First of all, she'll most likely be deemed 'rehibilitated' before her 40 years are up.. Second of all, I agree 100% with what Tamral has said. It does bring a sense of closure.

[Edaarin]

Personally, I'd rather see someone rot in prison for the rest of their life, or have their head bashed in while they're in prison.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by GSTamral
What about peace of mind? Knowing that someone who should not ever be a part of society is removed from it permanently, unless we someday find a way to bring back the dead? I'd call that a significant gain. Would it be similarly allright to you, if we just put Hitler in a loony bin? I mean, he was positively insane, believing god had sent him to exterminate all Jews. You don't think peace of mind was attained knowing he was dead? Good god you need a clue.

As I have said in a previous post, I can see the death penalty being applicable in some rare cases. To bring Hitler :yawn: into the picture is ludicrous in the extreme. This woman is NOT Hitler, Tamral. Hitler is freaking DEAD! This woman does not threaten the entire WORLD, Tamral. Bringing the dreaded Tyrant into the discussion simply invalidates your arguments, in my view.

Oh, and......CLUE: HITLER IS FREAKING DEAD, TAMRAL!

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

Closure. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Society's become a pretty sick place where we can't achieve closure until revenge is exacted.

Come on, I know at least Hulkein is a Christian, not sure on Tamral. Whatever happened to Jesus's saying Moses's law (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) has been replaced with his new law, to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies as you love yourself?

Do we preach one thing and practice another? Or do we just all hate ourselves?

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

<<
If you need the death of someone else for closure and peace of mind, why isn't every murderer killed?

My father lost 27 friends/colleagues in the WTC. Does he have the right to watch 27 people die for his peace of mind/closure?

Do the families of those 27 killed for my father's benefit have the right to watch my father die, for killing their own?

It's all a stupid, vicious cycle, which only propogates itself.

-TheE-
>>

That is the most horrific twisting of an argument I have ever seen. You have the right to watch the person who did it die. Whether a person kills 1 person, or 50, it doesn't matter. If convicted of murder, they should be executed summarily. The families of the victims have the right to watch the murderer die, if they so wish.

Harmnone, or TheE, if someone kills your family, and you want to plead that their life be spared because destroying it won't help you, be my guest. In fact, maybe you will make a new friend, and strike up a very beautiful bond with said person. That is just as twisted as the double entarde filled argument you spat at me.

Taxpayers pay nearly 135,000 a year to have someone put up in a mental facility, and almost 22,000 a year for a person to be in jail. Murderers arent my responsibility. People should have the right to not pay for rehabilitation of a killer.

[i remember halloween]

i still don't understand why liberals place such value on life even when it is so twisted and demented that continuing it is only perpetuating a nightmare.

[GSTamral]

Harmnone, Hitler is the exact same case. A madman, only difference is he had a bigger arm to wield death and destruction than did the mother. He also, believing GOD HAD INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO SO, began the process of exterminating Jewish people, just as the mother exterminated her children one by one. She simply had to do it one by one, he had the ability to command people to make his will done en masse.

It is the exact same case, with the exact same insanity.

[TheEschaton]

The sick and criminals of society are very much society's responsibility. It is society's responsibility to A) treat them like human beings, something they were unable to do, B) find out why they did it, and C) work to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If I have no kids, I pay school tax. If my house doesn't burn down, I still pay for fire protection. It's called PART OF LIVING IN SOCIETY.

Go live in the hills of Montana, like Teddy K., if you don't want to be responsible for anyone else.

-TheE-

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Hulkein]

That, and they are pro-abortion.. Innocent lives are OK to kill because they have no voice, but guilty men and women are not.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Come on, I know at least Hulkein is a Christian, not sure on Tamral. Whatever happened to Jesus's saying Moses's law (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) has been replaced with his new law, to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies as you love yourself?
>>>

I am agnostic. As for your statement of love of your enemies as you love yourself, if someone kills your family, feel free to attempt to strike up a strong friendship with them, and support them as you would yourself. I don't share in that, as I find the concept to be positively full of holes, and degenerate of morality.

[HarmNone]

All yours, TheE. I refuse to participate in any discussion with these...beings.

HarmNone, with better things to do

[TheEschaton]

Ha! I'm not pro-abortion, Hulkein. I'm very much anti-abortion. ;)

Like Cardinal Bernadin said, "From the womb to the tomb." No matter what situation.

Now there was a fine man.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

degenerate of morality.


Are you serious? The BASIS of morality is that "The Ends DO NOT justify the Means." Basically, the "ends" of achieving closure/justice/peace of mind, do not justify the willful killing of another person, which is an immoral act.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I know E, you're in the minority there though. I was saying, in general.

[GSTamral]

Harmnone, so people who disagree with you are lesser beings for doing so, eh? You are a walking contradiction. That anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is a monster worthy of death, and drowning yourself is quite a commensurate honor.

You are an invalid in my book. A walking contradiction that cannot even defend her own beliefs in the face of criticism, and cannot defend her thought process by any means other than the profulgation of distaste and fear that people don't agree with you. You speak professionaly on topics and feelings you have never experienced as though it were second nature.

I truly mean this, Harmnone. Go to hell.

[TheEschaton]

Well, the idea that the Death Penalty is a good thing, among conservatives, is just as hypocritical for the ones who preach Christianity (or Judaism), as the 5th Commandment, no matter how you interpret it as killing or murder (the willful killing of another), says you cannot support the death penalty.

Q.E.mothafuckin'D.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Go to hell.

I thought you were agnostic? ;)

[GSTamral]

Yes, TheE, I do believe that argument of yours is degenerate of morality. I am loyal to my family, and will not seek to find love and friendship with those who seek to harm them. I would die defending my family, not seek to make friends with those who strike them down.

[GSTamral]

TheE, read up on the principles of being agnostic. Just because I don't believe in any one book or what anyone else tells me regarding spirituality does not mean I don't believe in god, hell, or many other such concepts. That the hell I envision and believe is very different from the ones taught in other religions does not mean I don;t believe in such a place.

[TheEschaton]

am loyal to my family, and will not seek to find love and friendship with those who seek to harm them. I would die defending my family, not seek to make friends with those who strike them down.

That is self-preservation/self-defense, which is natural law. It is, by no means, moral law. In fact, moral law tends to fly in the face of natural law, since natural law is based on animal instinct, while moral law is based on some higher order. Not to say natural law can't be moral...but it is a case-by-case sort of thing.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Hmmm, I always thought agnostic meant one "doubts the existence of God". Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see how you can doubt God exists (and thus that Satan exists) but believe in their various kingdoms.

-TheE-

[GSTamral]

TheE, I'm going to have to go with idiot on this one. Agnostics believe in a higher power, be it god, or whatever we wish to call it. We believe in what we feel is right, bound by morality over scripture. We don't blindly follow whatever is told to us by a priest/rabii/cleric/etc. We make our own conclusions.

[TheEschaton]

TheE, I'm going to have to go with idiot on this one. Agnostics believe in a higher power, be it god, or whatever we wish to call it. We believe in what we feel is right, bound by morality over scripture. We don't blindly follow whatever is told to us by a priest/rabii/cleric/etc. We make our own conclusions.

If you believe in a higher power, you're at best, a theist, at least, a deist. You're not agnostic.

Agnostics say it is impossible to know whether or not their is a God, while holding out for either possibility.

As for morality over scripture, that's well and good, I'll be first to admit scripture isn't always moral, and that priests/rabbis/etc, give bad moral advice at times. However, "what you feel is right" is not morality, it is amorality. It is moral relativism. Morality, on the other hand, is concrete. It does not change. Wrong is wrong, right is right.

And the major morality (moralities differ from culture to culture) has said, for the past 5 thousand years, that the willful killing of another human being is morally wrong. It is based on scripture, but also based in natural law.

Animals don't kill their own kind, for the most kind. Lions and other higher order mammals sometimes have fights over territory, to the death, but for the most part, the majority of these fights are ceremonial in nature. Animals do not kill indiscriminately against their own.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I was under the impression agnostic's felt that there is almost definitely a God, they just don't believe there is anyway for humans to grasp or understand what is God, not enough so to form religions etc anyway.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by GSTamral
I truly mean this, Harmnone. Go to hell.

Not that HarmNone needs any defense from me or anyone else, but shut up.

You are bombastic, petty, mean spirited and altogether not a nice person.

Harmnone is one of the nicest people here and you are going to attack of all people her?

Just shut up.

Tell you what, to save us all the unpleasantness of your posts just assume we all agree with anything else you would possibly say so there is no need to grace us in the future with your time and energy.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Skirmisher]

[Hulkein]

Again, personally, I think HarmNone is capable and does insult people just as much as the next person. She will give you the kind appearence, but the fact that she insinuates anyone who disagrees with her on the stance of the death penalty is a lesser being, then I can say without a doubt she isn't the nicest person here. Not to mention she's usually pretty condescending.

[Bobmuhthol]

I truly mean this, Tamral. Get the cock out of your mouth. Then work on not being retarded.

[HarmNone]

I shall not enter again into this argument; however, I will ask this: Where did I say that anyone is a "lesser" being? I said "being". Any connotation of lesser or greater was made by the reader, based on what I, surely, do not know.

HarmNone

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Yes, TheE, I do believe that argument of yours is degenerate of morality. I am loyal to my family, and will not seek to find love and friendship with those who seek to harm them. I would die defending my family, not seek to make friends with those who strike them down. Love != friendship. Your grasp of Christian teaching is lacking. The idea that I would not punish someone I love is ludicrous.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I shall not enter again into this argument; however, I will ask this: Where did I say that anyone is a "lesser" being? I said "being". Any connotation of lesser or greater was made by the reader, based on what I, surely, do not know.

HarmNone

That'd be why I said insinuated. I made it clear that what I posted was my personal feelings, twice.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
That'd be why I said insinuated. I made it clear that what I posted was my personal feelings, twice.

Any "insinuation" you might have read into what I said, Hulkein, is yours. You are a being. I am a being. We are all beings.

HarmNone does not think of anyone as a "lesser" being. Beings are beings.

[Tendarian]

All yours, TheE. I refuse to participate in any discussion with these...beings.

You have to admit it didnt mean anything positive. If the .... wasnt there you might have a point,but with them there its as if you were trying to be polite and call them beings instead of what you really wanted to say.

[HarmNone]

If you want the truth, I had started to say "gentlemen", but decided it did not fit. ;)

HarmNone

[ElanthianSiren]

The thing I feel so repulsive is the fact that taxpayers are going to have to pay for this sick, pathetic, small woman to live out fourty years. Then, she gets out. See my other thread on this topic if you want to know what I really think because I'm not taking the time to type it all out again.

As for abortion -- I don't think that there's a single, right-minded human who wants to sit around and use abortion as birth control. We are born with the inherent instinct to protect our young; the sticky thing is when other factors become involved: economics, religion, insanity, age, possibility of medical complication, AND the age old debate over what exactly constitutes a "living" human being.

I'm not getting into my opinions on those things, just to say that I follow what my da always told me when I had that first fun 'birds and bees' talk. "If you can't feasibly see yourself raising a child from your actions, no matter how much you think you're protected, don't do it."


-Melissa

[Skirmisher]

Yeah, sorry, this liberal actualy is in favor of both abortion and the death penalty. At least at this time. This is allways of course subject to further review.:whistle:

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by GSTamral
You couldn't have answered the situation from a perspective of any more indifference to the situation. Maybe someday if you lose a loved one, you'll gain some perspective on a situation like this, and you'll comment in a different manner.

She was mentally ill..They say in Texas it is very hard to get 5 psych people to agree that someone is insane. The experts all agreed. She isn't going to just a mental institution, she is going to a maximum security, lockdown situation. Putting her in jail is not going to do anything for her, but for her to die there.

Mental illness isn't anything to mess around with. Someone may have been able to see that coming, but you can't always see that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to CNN: All five mental health experts consulted in the case said Laney had psychotic delusions and was incapable of knowing right from wrong at the time of the killings, the legal standard in Texas for insanity.

Reid said the case is the first time he's seen such agreement among experts in similar trials.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just don't think that she is going to a maximum security facility is a bad thing. I'm sorry if you see me as being liberal. It's not that I don't feel for the deaths of the children, but this woman was obviously crazy insane.

-A

P.S. I am also for the record, against the death penalty. Anyone who says that executing someone is cheaper, should do some research on that claim, because it isn't true. Also, killing someone who has hurt someone in your family doesn't close anything..the event is still there and someone else is dead. Who are you to decide who lives or dies? That's up to God, or your higher power, or whatever you believe in.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Ilvane]

[Meos]

Kill your kids and you should burn at the fuckin stake, insane or not.

[Weedmage Princess]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
He was upstairs, asleep. I don't think that qualifies as "unsupervised". What, is he not supposedly to sleep, to make sure his wife doesn't snap?

-TheE-

Ahh. I didn't know he was in the house.

But technically, yes...if he's asleep, he clearly isn't supervising her..so he did leave her unsupervised with the children.

My point though isn't the semantics of what qualifies and doesn't qualify as being supervised (watched) or anything of the like. My point is he clearly knew she was insane. Insane to the point that she could do something this horrible. For him to expose his children to such danger is neglegant and worthy of a count of child endangerment at the least.

[Ravenstorm]

I would think the DA's office would charge the husband with, at least, criminal negligence if there was really any evidence that he could have and should have known his children were in danger.

The standard of negligence is (to my knowledge) if any person would reasonably have been able to known that X would have happened or if any person would have been expected to do X.

In other words, would any person in his circumstances have known that his wife could kill and would any person have taken action to prevent it? If the answers are yes, I would expect him to have been charged. Especially in Texas.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by GSTamral
You couldn't have answered the situation from a perspective of any more indifference to the situation. Maybe someday if you lose a loved one, you'll gain some perspective on a situation like this, and you'll comment in a different manner.

For the record, I HAVE lost loved ones. I have lost several of them. My dearest friend died of cancer several years ago. My father died of cancer at 50. My grandfather died a couple of years ago, a victim of dementia and heart disease. I even lost a great-uncle to a robber/murderer. I know what loss is, Tamral. I simply do not require and eye for an eye to find "closure".

HarmNone

[ogurty]

I firmly agree with the Texas state policy of not executing the insane. That said, since when are we medicalizing staunch religiosity? This woman derived all of her actions from the Bible.

Are we going to "rehabilitate" her out of her religion?

This woman should be in jail, not a mental hospital; consider that all of the religious terrorists in the Middle East could not conceivably be hospitalized.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ogurty
Are we going to "rehabilitate" her out of her religion? Like all freedoms granted by the Constitution, freedom of religion can be revoked when you pass a certain line. When you start killing kids, you're well past the line.

[TheEschaton]

I think the point is that her mental illness is rooted in her religiousness. And trying to rehab her extreme religious beliefs suggests, for example, terrorists could be rehabbed as well.


-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by GSTamral
You couldn't have answered the situation from a perspective of any more indifference to the situation. Maybe someday if you lose a loved one, you'll gain some perspective on a situation like this, and you'll comment in a different manner.

For the record, I HAVE lost loved ones. I have lost several of them. My dearest friend died of cancer several years ago. My father died of cancer at 50. My grandfather died a couple of years ago, a victim of dementia and heart disease. I even lost a great-uncle to a robber/murderer. I know what loss is, Tamral. I simply do not require and eye for an eye to find "closure".

HarmNone


Harm, while I truly feel for you and your losses, one of my best friends was murdered on July 5, 2002. She was twenty-one and one day old, and the murderer had the audacity to eat some of her birthday cake before stabbing her over 20 times.

Granted, she had problems. There were reasons, but I'd still be the first in the line of volunteers to cast a stone at the bastard that killed Jenny when they find him. And there are similiarly, reasons that I know it was a "him."

-Melissa
she who smoulders when angry until she snaps.

[Drew2]

Conclusion: Religion = Insanity.


PS - Stop blaming Texas. We rock.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by ogurty
Are we going to "rehabilitate" her out of her religion? Like all freedoms granted by the Constitution, freedom of religion can be revoked when you pass a certain line. When you start killing kids, you're well past the line.


I agree, and we don't know in actuality how insane she is. I hate to sound like a doubting Thomas, but I don't buy "I was insane" or "The dog made me do it." or "God made me do it."

I believe they did execute the son of sam. Turn the word Dog around, and you have this woman's defense. What makes one more credible than the other?

I'm going to let you in on a little bit about myself here. I was in a M/I when I was a teenager for bodily harm. I was let out in a week because I convinced them I was very sane. I was not very sane. I knew how to play the system. It happens. If this woman has seen that many shrinks, she most likely knows how to play the system, so it's feasible and probable that five shrinks could agree. In the case of serial murders, they're often not seen for therapy until apprehended because they are good at living dual lives.

It's no doubt that this woman was sick, but how sick? None of us can really know. Similarly, we can't know if God really told her what to do, and in the case of two mutilated school age children and one screwed up forever baby, I err on the side of removing her from the gene pool forever.

You harm your children. I harm you. You kill your children. You deserve to die in my eyes. I can't see it any other way. I just can't honestly.

-Melissa

[i remember halloween]

but if a doctor kills your kid its ok? interesting.

[TheEschaton]

Harm, while I truly feel for you and your losses, one of my best friends was murdered on July 5, 2002. She was twenty-one and one day old, and the murderer had the audacity to eat some of her birthday cake before stabbing her over 20 times.

Wow, I actually know a girl born on July 4th, 1981 (which was this person's birthdate, if I can figure it out right). Was her name Kristin? Don't think she was murdered though.

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
but if a doctor kills your kid its ok? interesting.

A doctor who kills a 4 year old, a 6 year old, and an infant should be put to the same fate. Where did anyone mention that doctors are absolved from homocide?

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I would think the DA's office would charge the husband with, at least, criminal negligence if there was really any evidence that he could have and should have known his children were in danger.

The standard of negligence is (to my knowledge) if any person would reasonably have been able to known that X would have happened or if any person would have been expected to do X.

In other words, would any person in his circumstances have known that his wife could kill and would any person have taken action to prevent it? If the answers are yes, I would expect him to have been charged. Especially in Texas.

Raven

Agree.


Originally posted by TheEschaton
Wow, I actually know a girl born on July 4th, 1981 (which was this person's birthdate, if I can figure it out right). Was her name Kristin? Don't think she was murdered though.

-TheE-

No; her name was Jennifer Louise Still, and if she was 21 in 2000, it would be 1979, which was the year of her birth... or did I post wrong? I did. Apologies. I went forward instead of backward. I'm blaming it on insomnia. Yep.

-Melissa

edit: Fixed E's math! :P Err fixed MY math :P :P

[Edited on Sun, April th, 2004 by ElanthianSiren]

[Warriorbird]

The irony here is I can see this being slanted by the whole "a woman gets a free kill" trend in criminal cases and "she's just a poor deluded female" and the fact that she killed them "for God" just as much as by "liberal idiocy".

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The irony here is I can see this being slanted by the whole "a woman gets a free kill" trend in criminal cases and "she's just a poor deluded female" and the fact that she killed them "for God" just as much as by "liberal idiocy".

Hon, don't make me lose my mind. Yes, that trend is deplorable. I'm sorry that it exists. Yes, the woman should be on death row. I agree, but don't use words like 'free kill'. It makes it sound like all us women are out just scouting for little children to maim.

There is nothing "Free" about what Laney did. If any of us truly thought that there was, we wouldn't be having this board discussion right now. Even those who advocate her insanity defense have said... she has to live with that on her conscience for the rest of her life.

Personally, I don't know the woman, never even saw her face or her kids or her husband, and it eats me alive. I don't think I could see any pictures in fact because there would be too much of a connection, and I would start crying, so please don't lump all women into a group of people wanting to go out and get free kills on children under our justice system.

-Melissa
attempting perhaps vainly not to be offended.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Harm, while I truly feel for you and your losses, one of my best friends was murdered on July 5, 2002. She was twenty-one and one day old, and the murderer had the audacity to eat some of her birthday cake before stabbing her over 20 times.

Granted, she had problems. There were reasons, but I'd still be the first in the line of volunteers to cast a stone at the bastard that killed Jenny when they find him. And there are similiarly, reasons that I know it was a "him."

-Melissa
she who smoulders when angry until she snaps.

I am so sorry you lost your friend in such a horrible way. I know it must hurt you terribly to think of it, and I can certainly understand the anger you feel.

Your convictions lead you to one way of thinking, mine lead me to another. It does not mean that you are wrong for feeling as you do, nor I wrong for feeling the way I do. We are simply different. No judgement need be made. :)

HarmNone