OT: Just when you thought you've seen it all...

[clyde_carbon]

Ohio mom charged in death of 28-pound teen girl - Yahoo! News

Charged with involuntary manslaughter? At would point would it be voluntary murder? 20 lbs? 15 lbs? 8 lbs? At what point should the mother realize that at age 14, her bones alone should weigh twice that much? This wasn't involuntary. This was premeditated murder and torture in every sense.

I'm glad lunatics and sub-humans hang out in groups now. Fuck it. Grab a gun and shoot this bitch "mother" in the forehead. That'll save us a lot of time and money. Until then, I'm not satisfied with this "justice system".

 

[tzill]

Ohio mom charged in death of 28-pound teen girl - Yahoo! News

Charged with involuntary manslaughter? At would point would it be voluntary murder? 20 lbs? 15 lbs? 8 lbs? At what point should the mother realize that at age 14, her bones alone should weigh twice that much? This wasn't involuntary. This was premeditated murder and torture in every sense.

I'm glad lunatics and sub-humans hang out in groups now. Fuck it. Grab a gun and shoot this bitch "mother" in the forehead. That'll save us a lot of time and money. Until then, I'm not satisfied with this "justice system".

Interesting. You seem to think killing is wrong, yet advocate killing.

Hmmmm

 

[SRPnVA]

Wow look she's a stupid looking fat bitch. What a piece of shit. Only word that comes to mind is trash.

 

[MHSL82]

Interesting. You seem to think killing is wrong, yet advocate killing.

Hmmmm

Killing murderers are ok, killing children (murderous or not, I guess due to mental development) are not. I know you weren't 100% serious, but it isn't that hard to understand.

Now the only disagreement I think there should be is whether it was killing or not and what method of punishment we should use to kill her :P - which I would side with Clyde here. Legally it was was involuntary homicide because the intent was weight and torture not death (I'm being lazy here to fully explain the law - cliff notes - "A person acts purposely when it is the person's conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.") so it doesn't come under voluntary unless the serious bodily injury threshold is met. Either way she did cause the death of her kid in a way that she should have known that was going to happen - which is knowingly (less than purpsefully (voluntary)) or reckless - but I think this should go beyond reckless disregard blah blah blah. I separate the law and justice here and just say starve her out - though that'd be impossible to do due to politics and misguided compassion.

 

[tzill]

Killing murderers are[sic] ok, killing children (murderous or not, I guess due to mental development) are[sic] not. I know you weren't 100% serious, but it isn't that hard to understand.

Now the only disagreement I think there should be is whether it was killing or not and what method of punishment we should use to kill her :P - which I would side with Clyde here. Legally it was was involuntary homicide because the intent was weight and torture not death (I'm being lazy here to fully explain the law - cliff notes - "A person acts purposely when it is the person's conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.") so it doesn't come under voluntary unless the serious bodily injury threshold is met. Either way she did cause the death of her kid in a way that she should have known that was going to happen - which is knowingly (less than purpsefully (voluntary)) or reckless - but I think this should go beyond reckless disregard blah blah blah. I separate the law and justice here and just say starve her out - though that'd be impossible to do due to politics and misguided compassion.

I was being serious. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill. Thus, we shouldn't kill anyone (unless it's self defense).

That is REALLY not hard to understand.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Interesting. You seem to think killing is wrong, yet advocate killing.

Hmmmm

I see what you did there!

 

[Rathman44]

ok, i apologize for my little rant here...
our justice system has gotten away from what's practical. we need to go back to the days of chain gangs. they can work agricultural fields and other jobs that Americans don't want to work. Agricultural businesses can pay the same wages they do now but it will go to the maintenance of our prison system. It won't cover all of it but it will definitely help with the rising costs of our prisons.

we can have a strict 3 strike policy where with each strike the prisoner gets thrown in solitary confinement with nothing more than food and water. at the end of the 3 strikes we throw them in max security prisons where they are in solitary confinement for the remainder of their sentence or their life.

stays like this where they are working all day rather than creating trouble will be more rewarding for them (they will feel more like they earned their second chance) and will teach discipline. we need to be in the business of rehab and not punishment.

The other issue is drug-related yet non-violent crimes. There are so many of them and most of the time it's an addiction problem more than anything else. they need to be isolated in their own prisons where the focus is rehab.

i just think we need to do something drastically different than what we have been doing. in cali we spend way more money on prisons than on schools. heck, prisoners even get free health care, while many middle class citizens do not. there is something terribly wrong with that. would love to hear your guys' opinions and ideas.

oh, and i'm against the death penalty. rapists, murderers and the like deserve the worst punishment and i can't think of anything worse than rotting in a cell or being a slave for the rest of their life. killing them relieves them of this lifetime of misery.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Wow look she's a stupid looking fat bitch. What a piece of shit. Only word that comes to mind is trash.

Fat bitch was probably eating more food a day than her daughter weighed.

 

[shouldakepowens]

Eye for an eye

 

[DoobieKeebler]

Among the numerous sickening elements to this story is that 3 nurses were involved. One deranged parent is enough, but to find that 3 health care professionals, who more than likely took the Nightingale Pledge (Nursing equivalent of a 'Hippocratic oath'), failed to protect this girl is heart breaking. At best these nurses neglected and allowed this poor girl to be abused. At worst, and gut wrenchingly most likely given the situation, these nurses took part in the systematic torture & murder of a disabled girl.

Clyde is 100% right. Trying to rule this death as 'involuntary manslaughter' is a fucking joke, and this story highlights some of the many flaws in the justice system. Torture is not an aggravating factor for increasing sentencing for crimes in the state of Ohio, but there is no question in my mind that the mother should be charged with first degree murder. Starving a disabled child to this degree goes much farther than criminally negligent behavior (ie Inv. Manslaughter). No one, no matter how negligent or fucking stupid, could possibly believe a teenager could survive while weighing 28 lbs. This child was murdered. Slowly.

To watch your child waste away and die like this woman did.... just... shows so much malice. If money and space wasn't an issue, I would want the mother to rot in jail for the rest of her life. Death Row gives people an out, an opportunity to escape their prison nightmare. This one right here doesn't deserve an out; I would have her locked in a windowless cell for the rest of her life.

 

[NinerSickness]

legally it was was involuntary homicide because the intent was weight and torture not death (I'm being lazy here to fully explain the law - cliff notes - "A person acts purposely when it is the person's conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.")

What the crap???? That has to be wrong. If you intend to torture someone and they die during torture that's murder 1.

They must be calling this neglegence or something.

 

[NinerSickness]

I was being serious. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill. Thus, we shouldn't kill anyone (unless it's self defense).

That is REALLY not hard to understand.

That's beyond stupid. There's a huge difference between capital punihment for a crime and murdering someone.

Capital punishment for a crime = Justice = a good thing

Murdering an innocent person = a crime = a bad thing.

 

[imac_21]

I was being serious. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill. Thus, we shouldn't kill anyone (unless it's self defense).

That is REALLY not hard to understand.

No, if you're going to make a definite statement, you don't get to add an excepting clause.

If it's not okay to kill in self defense, it's not okay to kill.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Among the numerous sickening elements to this story is that 3 nurses were involved. One deranged parent is enough, but to find that 3 health care professionals, who more than likely took the Nightingale Pledge (Nursing equivalent of a 'Hippocratic oath'), failed to protect this girl is heart breaking. At best these nurses neglected and allowed this poor girl to be abused. At worst, and gut wrenchingly most likely given the situation, these nurses took part in the systematic torture & murder of a disabled girl.

Clyde is 100% right. Trying to rule this death as 'involuntary manslaughter' is a fucking joke, and this story highlights some of the many flaws in the justice system. Torture is not an aggravating factor for increasing sentencing for crimes in the state of Ohio, but there is no question in my mind that the mother should be charged with first degree murder. Starving a disabled child to this degree goes much farther than criminally negligent behavior (ie Inv. Manslaughter). No one, no matter how negligent or fucking stupid, could possibly believe a teenager could survive while weighing 28 lbs. This child was murdered. Slowly.

To watch your child waste away and die like this woman did.... just... shows so much malice. If money and space wasn't an issue, I would want the mother to rot in jail for the rest of her life. Death Row gives people an out, an opportunity to escape their prison nightmare. This one right here doesn't deserve an out; I would have her locked in a windowless cell for the rest of her life.

The girl was 28 lbs. at 14 yeas of age! That's what 2-year children are what supposed to weigh. Maybe it was negligence and involuntary when the girl weighed 90 lbs, 80 lbs., but as some point she'd have to realize that, oh I dunno, the girl might need FOOD?

The woman murdered her own disabled daughter. And it wasn't quick or painless. Actually I take that back. Shooting her in the head would be quick and painless. Bury her up to her neck and throw stones at her face.

 

[MHSL82]

legally it was was involuntary homicide because the intent was weight and torture not death (I'm being lazy here to fully explain the law - cliff notes - "A person acts purposely when it is the person's conscious object to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death.")

What the crap???? That has to be wrong. If you intend to torture someone and they die during torture that's murder 1.

They must be calling this neglegence or something.

Sorry, I was being lazy and running out of time before needing to leave. If torture is a felony and you are found to have purposefully tortured the victim and she dies, it's felony murder without any intent of killing the person. Violent acts are much easier to show purpose. I'm talking about intent for first degree murder re: starvation. As bad as this is, the prosecutor didn't think that he could get voluntary homicide because he could not prove that the intent was to kill. I shouldn't have added the word torture there, I meant just weight.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Sorry, I was being lazy and running out of time before needing to leave. If torture is a felony and you are found to have purposefully tortured the victim and she dies, it's felony murder without any intent of killing the person. Violent acts are much easier to show purpose. I'm talking about intent for first degree murder re: starvation. As bad as this is, the prosecutor didn't think that he could get voluntary homicide because he could not prove that the intent was to kill. I shouldn't have added the word torture there, I meant just weight.

From a defense standpoint, what can they possibly claim the intent was? A monkey knows that a 14 year old shouldn't weigh 28 lbs. If she truly had no clue, she should have her uterus surgically removed. Awake.

 

[MHSL82]

I was being serious. If it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill. Thus, we shouldn't kill anyone (unless it's self defense).

That is REALLY not hard to understand.

I wouldn't kill anyone (except in self defense) and I don't really advocate killing anyone. I was making a distinction in what Clyde was saying. You were saying that he was being contradictory and I was simply saying that he wasn't. He could, of course, differ in what he thinks, but it wasn't contradictory.

As for my comments, I think you know me enough (maybe?) that I don't usually say stuff like, "That's really not hard to understand". I guess I was just having a bad day. I started with a joke about needing to choose how to punish her, then I guess I went overboard because I said to starve her out - a tribute to an eye for an eye. I was overcompensating for those who would defend her.

You inserted [sic] after both parts of my first sentence, but I assume you agree with the second part (that it's not ok to kill kids)?

 

[MHSL82]

From a defense standpoint, what can they possibly claim the intent was? A monkey knows that a 14 year old shouldn't weigh 28 lbs. If she truly had no clue, she should have her uterus surgically removed. Awake.

I should read the article, shouldn't I? I assumed it was a weight thing where she controlled what her kid ate to the point of death. The standard can be a reasonable person standard or should have known, but that takes it out of the murder you want her tried for. She no doubt knew she had malnutrition and that she looked too skinny. And she had to know that if someone starved, they could die. But it would be hard to show that she knew this level was fatal and purposely brought that to happen. Again, you can still get her based upon the fact that she should have known 28 lbs is too small, but unless you have more facts, which sounds like they don't, it would be involuntary.

But this is the type of case where they get experts to talk about the mother's mental issues and excuse her, which is terrible. Nearly everyone has a disorder of some type, someone will try to sympathyze with this woman who probably had weight issues all her life.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I should read the article, shouldn't I? I assumed it was a weight thing where she controlled what her kid ate to the point of death. The standard can be a reasonable person standard or should have known, but that takes it out of the murder you want her tried for. She no doubt knew she had malnutrition and that she looked too skinny. And she had to know that if someone starved, they could die. But it would be hard to show that she knew this level was fatal and purposely brought that to happen. Again, you can still get her based upon the fact that she should have known 28 lbs is too small, but unless you have more facts, which sounds like they don't, it would be involuntary.

But this is the type of case where they get experts to talk about the mother's mental issues and excuse her, which is terrible. Nearly everyone has a disorder of some type, someone will try to sympathyze with this woman who probably had weight issues all her life.

Mental issues? I doubt it considering there were three other women in on it. One a nurse.

I'm actually starting to believe that the only reason they kept her around this long was to collect a check. Absolutely disgusting.

 

[MHSL82]

Mental issues? I doubt it considering there were three other women in on it. One a nurse.

I'm actually starting to believe that the only reason they kept her around this long was to collect a check. Absolutely disgusting.

So I finally followed my own advice and read the darn article. I take back everything I said in the post. This is what I get when I start running my mouth off assumptions. Do you have any sand I can bury my head under?