State Police witness man shoot and kill 3 month old baby; open fire on suspect

Originally posted by zetamafia911
I don't understand why the article says he might be charged with "second degree murder".

"Captain Coots said that Theall could be looking at a second-degree murder charge, but that it was too early to know all the charges."

wait...what?

Second degree murder makes plenty of sense to me.

Mind if I ask what you think it should be and why?

As to state sponsored execution NO

I am opposed to the government having the right to kill people when they cant even get a bottle of water to the superdome in five days....

It is a long slippery on our road to tyranny we are on...

Now with this said on the basis of society at large... On a personal level

If I watched it personally, I would kill the man...

The other individual was correct on the police being required to requal...

As for being sick in the head... It seems obvious to me.

All this being said somethings seem odd about this to me.

Cops show up without guns drawn...
Then after the trigger is pulled tell him to put it down..
Then we do not know if drugs where present...

My understanding is that if a gun present the first words are to put it down. If the trigger is pulled then they would fire....

A blood test would have been administered in the case at the hospital. (of course the surgeon should be applauded for not making a single 'accidental' mistake )

I am not trying to excuse any possible acts. I just hate being ignorant on what occurred then have a highly emotional driven blurb tossed in front of me.

Anyone have any more exact details?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by black cat
To answer your question - yes, youa re lacking in heart, humanity and sense. If that killer somehow gets paroled or let out of jail and goes out to kill another child, does the cost in dollars that you saved really compare to another human life lost? I didn't think so.

What makes you think that someone who shoots a baby in the face in front of police is going to get parole?

This is what makes me think that he might get out:

Paroled Sex Killer Strikes Again, Gets Death Penalty for the Third Time

Arthur Shawcross - killed two children, paroled, then killed 11 more times

Man who killed again while on parole for murder will die in prison

Those are just a few and aren't even the really bad ones, except for Shawcross. Check out these for further proof (source www.wesleylowe.com...):

John Miller -- California. Killed an infant 1957, convicted of murder, 1958. Paroled 1975. Killed his parents 1975. Life term 1975.

John McRae -- Michigan/Florida. Life for murder of 8-year-old boy. Pedophile. Paroled 1971. Convicted of another murder of a boy after parole, in Michigan 1998. Charges pending on 2 other counts in Florida.

Timothy Buss -- Murdered five-year-old girl. Sentenced to 25 years in 1981. Paroled 1993. Murdered 10-year-old boy. Condemned 1996.

Jimmy Lee Gray -- who was free on parole from an Arizona conviction for killing a 16-year-old high school girl, kidnapped, sodomized, and suffocated a three-year-old Mississippi girl.

David E. Maust -- Hammond, Illinois. Murdered a 15-year-old boy in 1981. After released murdered three teenage boys, in circumstances similiar to John Wayne Gacy... burying their bodies in concrete in his basement.

William Coday Jr. -- convicted of murdering 19-year-old Lisa Hullinger in September 1978. After spending just 15 months in a German prison, he was released. In April 2002, he was convicted of having murdered Gloria Gomez on 13 July, 1997.

Chad Allen Lee -- Convicted of capital murder. Sentenced to other than death. Released and went on murder spree. Murdering Linda Reynolds, a pizza delivery person, and 9 days later robbed and murdered David Lacey, a taxi cab driver. Lee then robbed a mini-market 7 days after than. Shooting the owner, Harold Drury, multiple times without reason.

Dwain Little -- Oregon. Raped/Stabbed 16-year-old girl. Life term 1966. Paroled 1974. Returned as Parole Violator 1975. Again Released 1977. Then shot family of 4. Three consecutive life terms for rape and murder 1980.

Charles Crawford -- Missouri. Life term in 1965 for murder. Paroled 1990. Convicted of murder again in 1994.

Arthur James Julius -- convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. In 1978, he was given a brief leave from prison, during which he raped and murdered a cousin. He was sentenced to death for that crime and was executed on November 17, 1989.

Zeno E. Sims -- sent to prison for eight years for the murder of a 24-year-old-man. Released on parole, in Kansas City, he then murdered DeAntreia L Ashley, a 15-year-old-girl, after a minor traffic accident.

What further evidence do you need that the value of human life outweighs the "costs" you care so much about? Ask the families and friends of those who were murdered after these killers were paroled if they share your belief that the death penalty is wrong and that it should be a question of dollars and cents. You could ask those who were murdered if they believe their deaths were justified given that it's more expensive to execute a convicted killer, except they don't have the luxury of being able to answer that question anymore.



[edit on 24-6-2010 by black cat]

Some of these posts are quite bizarre. For people not to think that a child murderer doesn't deserve to be offed . . .

I just don't know. Sometimes an over-engineered conscience is just . . inhumane.

I'll take the label of a hypocrite, idiot, and monster from people who live in la-la land.

Give me the gun. I'm ready to off scum like this in a second.

The difference is that I'm not going around killing innocent people.

I'd be offing conscienceless scum that aren't worth the air they consume.

Originally posted by black cat
This is what makes me think that he might get out:

Paroled Sex Killer Strikes Again, Gets Death Penalty for the Third Time

Sorry but I have to stop you at your first example. Thank you for starting my day with a laugh by the way. Let me see if I understand the point you are trying to make.

You think that he should get the death penalty because otherwise he stands the chance of getting out and committing another violent crime. Right? Did I miss something?

reply to post by unityemissions


How do you reply to someone like me that is against it for completely different reasons?

I am against the increased cost of death row inmates over lifers.
I am against the idea that a person can be let go from a life of torment.

How does the family get over their pain? How do they recoup what they lost? How do they become whole again? Does killing this man achieve any of that? No. Only they can figure out how to do that. So it simply comes down to punishment. Anyone that thinks lethal injection is a worse punishment than life in prison has never been in prison.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by black cat
This is what makes me think that he might get out:

Paroled Sex Killer Strikes Again, Gets Death Penalty for the Third Time

Sorry but I have to stop you at your first example. Thank you for starting my day with a laugh by the way. Let me see if I understand the point you are trying to make.

You think that he should get the death penalty because otherwise he stands the chance of getting out and committing another violent crime. Right? Did I miss something?

I'm glad you find the concept of gambling with human lives against saving money so amusing. To me it re-affirms why I added you to my foes list. If there was a list for people I find contemptuous I would consider that also. And to answer your question, you understand it right. I'm talking about playing it safe and executing someone who is in prison for what should be life for a heinous crime as opposed to gambling with our legal system and chancing that they will never be released and free to committ another crime. The gamble of human lives versus money.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by black cat]

so basically any news that turns your stomach (and probably everyone else's too) is now a conspiracy worthy or mention on ATS?

isn't there enough doom and gloom that we can read the depressing MSM news all on our own?

sorry, i just am so sick of having to read such awful headlines ...i understand "if you don't like it don't read it..." but it really can't be helped when the whole awful meat of the story is your headline. :'(

seriously...
i have two young children and seeing things like this really horrifies me.
its like when you eat something disgusting and try to get other people to try it...like..WTF. WHY?!

[edit on 6/24/2010 by double_frick]

Originally posted by black cat

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by black cat

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If this SOB survives, I dare you to look me in the eye and tell me that you are against the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty.

You're against the death penalty for a man who was witnessed killing a three month old baby? If so then you have no heart, sir. None whatsoever.

Right, I have no heart because I believe killing someone is bad.

Your logic is impeccable.

Killing good people is bad. Killing bad people isn't. It's not that hard for a smart person to figure out.

No, killing people in general is bad. Apparently that is hard for people to figure out. Notice I opted out the smart part.

I think someone who commits a crime such as this should have to have their body donated to medical science for the betterment of mankind. I mean, why use innocent monkies e.c.t to test possible life saving drugs when we can use the scum of the earth instead?

You see, once someone takes a life, especially in circumstances such as this....the killer should lose his/her human rights, unless someone here can tell me why should they keep them?

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
the killer should lose his/her human rights, unless someone here can tell me why should they keep them?

That depends to what extent of their rights should be revoked.

Ability to be happy? Well, that is a state of mind, but you sure as hell can make this incredibly difficult to accomplish.

Freedom? Obviously this isn't a problem.

Their life? Now you come to the philosophical conundrum of whether a human has the ability to take the life away from another human without their consent. Po-tay-toe or Po-Tah-Tou, it's still a potatoe. You can try to rationalize around it, you can try to throw logic to the wind, you can try every which way you want, but you can't justify murder, even if you're trying to murder a murderer.

I mean, what makes it proper? Because they committed a murder?

Then anyone who has killed anyone should be capable of being killed by anyone. That sounds rather chaotic though, don't you think?

So again, what makes it proper? Because the state sanctions it?

Then you agree that the state has the ability to say who can live and who can die. I don't like that potential slippery slope.

So tell me, what justifies murder? What differentiates the act of murder the murderer committed and the act of murder against said murderer?

Nothing does. Absolutely nothing. Your own emotional zeal, coloring your vision is the only reason anyone can say there is a difference.

Originally posted by black cat


I'm glad you find the concept of gambling with human lives against saving money so amusing.

That is not at all what I found so amusing.

To me it re-affirms why I added you to my foes list. If there was a list for people I find contemptuous I would consider that also. And to answer your question, you understand it right. I'm talking about playing it safe and executing someone who is in prison for what should be life for a heinous crime as opposed to gambling with our legal system and chancing that they will never be released and free to committ another crime. The gamble of human lives versus money.

I find it silly that you would argue he should get the death penalty in order to prevent him from ever getting out, considering the evidence you used to make your point. Did you read what you posted?

Your first example was someone who got sentenced to death 3 times. Apparently the death penalty did not do a damn thing to keep him from getting out, did it?

What I find funny is that you destroyed your own point with your own evidence. This is why I asked you to clarify just so I was not putting words in your mouth. You refused to answer so I just re-read your posts.

Here is your stand.

He should get death as opposed to life because it will guarantee he does not ever get out and do it again.

As evidence of people getting out to commit more crimes when not getting death, you cite - Paroled Sex Killer Strikes Again, Gets Death Penalty for the Third Time

That is funny. See, because he got the death penalty and he still got back out - TWICE.

So...sorry. You argument that I should pay more and he should suffer less just so you feel safe goes byebye thanks to what you gave me.


[edit on 24-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by KrillsAngelWings


So, i guess at the comfort of keyboard we are able to post what we want ?.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
I think someone who commits a crime such as this should have to have their body donated to medical science for the betterment of mankind. I mean, why use innocent monkies e.c.t to test possible life saving drugs when we can use the scum of the earth instead?

This is part of the reason I am against the death penalty. I still feel these people can be useful to society.

You see, once someone takes a life, especially in circumstances such as this....the killer should lose his/her human rights, unless someone here can tell me why should they keep them?

The only thing that worries me are cases where there will be a dispute as to what actually happened. Unfortunately, around where I live it would not be really that far fetched for the cops to shoot at the man, hit the baby and then cover for each other. Not saying that happened here but there are plenty of innocent people in jail now so it is a possibility that very few cases are going to be so clear cut as to allow me to justify it. But hey, if it can be proven beyond ALL SHADOW of ANY DOUBT, I say find a way to make their lives worth something to the society they took from. So I guess I agree with you for the most part.

Update on this incident below.This just make's me cringe.This poor family has had to deal with so much loss and heartbreak.






Sandra Baker already was coping with the May 2 death of her son Jadreck Baker, 20, and on Thursday she saw for the first time the man who police believe shot and killed her son on East Bloomfield Street following a late-night dispute.



[im][atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21379369d92f.jpg[/atsimg][/im]