2019 State of the Union (1 Viewer)

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
So I'll ask you this same question.
Ok, I’ll go back and use the Green River Killer as an example. The only murder that they had him on was one out of the 50+ he was suspected of. Because there were 3 other victims there they were able to charge him with the 4. Those murders they had him for first degree. However, he didn’t want to be put to death, so he admitted to the others so long as the death penalty was off the table. So in essence, in court he only admitted to them to avoid death. Some people were mad they didn’t prosecute him fully for every murder, but, what was the point? He is never leaving prison. Yeah 50+ families don’t have that guilty in a court of law proven to have killed their child. But in the end, his life is over.

Really, in the end, what does it prove to prosecute and go after every offense, when one does the job? Our system should be on law, and blind from emotion. You wanting to charge home with 2 murders doesn’t change the fact that his minimum sentence (in CA dunno N.Y.) is 17.5 years +10 for deadly weapon. So 27.5 years minimum. That puts him at 77 years old when his minimum time would be done. That’s with every good behavior accomplished. He’s essentially done anyway. Besides, to add on additional time they would have to have consecutive five sentences, which isn’t always the case and in a situation like this may not happen anyway as there were not two separate criminal events
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
Ok, I’ll go back and use the Green River Killer as an example. The only murder that they had him on was one out of the 50+ he was suspected of. Because there were 3 other victims there they were able to charge him with the 4. Those murders they had him for first degree. However, he didn’t want to be put to death, so he admitted to the others so long as the death penalty was off the table. So in essence, in court he only admitted to them to avoid death. Some people were mad they didn’t prosecute him fully for every murder, but, what was the point? He is never leaving prison. Yeah 50+ families don’t have that guilty in a court of law proven to have killed their child. But in the end, his life is over.

Really, in the end, what does it prove to prosecute and go after every offense, when one does the job? Our system should be on law, and blind from emotion. You wanting to charge home with 2 murders doesn’t change the fact that his minimum sentence (in CA dunno N.Y.) is 17.5 years +10 for deadly weapon. So 27.5 years minimum. That puts him at 77 years old when his minimum time would be done. That’s with every good behavior accomplished. He’s essentially done anyway. Besides, to add on additional time they would have to have consecutive five sentences, which isn’t always the case and in a situation like this may not happen anyway as there were not two separate criminal events
It proves that you are seeking justice for each killing. Like I said before, I'm willing to bet that the womans parents who are grieving for not only her, but the loss of their grandchild, would want to see him charged with all of the possible charges they could throw at him. The Gary Ridgway case shows that they were willing to go with a lesser sentence (life in prison) in exchange for justice for each of his victims, and the location of their bodies so that the families could have some semblance of closure. This is robbing the family of that feeling of closure.
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,287
Ratings
3,077
Age
51
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Online
With serial killers, from what I've read, it's rare for them to be charged with every murder. One reason is that it gives prosecutors options.

For example, if they had charged the Green River Killer with every murder, and prosecutors screwed up, he could have been acquitted due to their errors/misconduct, and he would be free. If they charge him with 4 murders, and they screw up, he can be acquitted...then they can charge him with another 4 murders....etc.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
With serial killers, from what I've read, it's rare for them to be charged with every murder. One reason is that it gives prosecutors options.

For example, if they had charged the Green River Killer with every murder, and prosecutors screwed up, he could have been acquitted due to their errors/misconduct, and he would be free. If they charge him with 4 murders, and they screw up, he can be acquitted...then they can charge him with another 4 murders....etc.
That's not true. At least in the case of the GRK. He took a plea deal, and the conditions of the deal were that he had to lead investigators to each body that had not yet been discovered. Had he not done so, they were going to charge him with each count that they had available to them (and seek the death penalty). There are really good documentaries on YouTube on his case. There is one specifically dealing with the investigation after he was arrested and the terms of his plea deal. They were on the verge of rescinding the deal because after 6 months he had still not led investigators to any new bodies.
 
Last edited:

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,692
Ratings
25,512
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
And for everybody calling me out on the source, it's kind of hard to link a source that this board will find acceptable when the only outlets I've seen even reporting it is The Blaze, NYP, and Fox News. All of which would get slammed on here, but at least they are reporting the story and not ignoring it. I just checked on CNN and MSNBC...no mention that I could find.
The reason people are calling you on the source is because the ones reporting it are all far-right sensationalist sources who sell their soap to people like you who will find this newsworthy only because of the fact she was pregnant and the juxtaposition of the abortion laws we've been discussing here on this thread for days.

Unfortunately, murder is too common. In my little town there are articles about a man nearly beating his kid to death over taking a long shower. There's a man who cut granite for the place we use who killed his mother in law last week because she wouldn't leave him alone. He left a note saying he was going to kill more. There's a HS teacher who's been arrested 3 times in the past month for sex with students. There's also a story about 6 middle schoolers who were planning an attack on their school. None of that is being covered nationally, but if one of the victims had been pregnant it would surely be on FOX, The Blaze and NYP.
 

FullMonte

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
5,287
Ratings
3,077
Age
51
Location
Shreveport/Bossier City
Online
That's not true. At least in the case of the GRK. He took a plea deal, and the conditions of the deal were that he had to lead investigators to each body that had not yet been discovered. Had he not done so, they were going to charge him with each count that they had available to them (and seek the death penalty). There are really good documentaries on YouTube on his case. There is one specifically dealing with the investigation after he was arrested and the terms of his plea deal. They were on the verge of rescinding the deal because after 6 months they had still not led investigators to any new bodies.
Sorry for the confusion...I wasn't speaking of him specifically...more a general comment on why people aren't always charged with every possible crime they are suspected of.
 
Moderator #519

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,106
Ratings
16,217
Offline
And we aren’t even 100% sure the new law in fact leaves a gap. The reporting from these three sources is suspect for a reason. They aren’t going to look into whether the new law actually precludes the charge, or whether it was a misread from the local prosecutors, they’re only going to run with whatever fits their business model.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
And we aren’t even 100% sure the new law in fact leaves a gap. The reporting from these three sources is suspect for a reason. They aren’t going to look into whether the new law actually precludes the charge, or whether it was a misread from the local prosecutors, they’re only going to run with whatever fits their business model.
Going by the New York Post article, a representative from the DA's office stated that it was due to the new law.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
And we aren’t even 100% sure the new law in fact leaves a gap. The reporting from these three sources is suspect for a reason. They aren’t going to look into whether the new law actually precludes the charge, or whether it was a misread from the local prosecutors, they’re only going to run with whatever fits their business model.
"Queens District Attorney Richard Brown sent out a press release saying Anthony Hobson, 48, would be charged with second-degree abortion as well as murder in Sunday’s fatal stabbing of Jennifer Irigoyen, 35.

But a DA spokeswoman later told The Post that the abortion charge “was repealed by the Legislature, and this is the law as it exists today.”"
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
Sorry for the confusion...I wasn't speaking of him specifically...more a general comment on why people aren't always charged with every possible crime they are suspected of.
If they are merely suspected of it, I would agree with you. If they have hard conclusive evidence, such as in this case, they prosecute because each killing that is linked to the killer only strengthens their case.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
With serial killers, from what I've read, it's rare for them to be charged with every murder. One reason is that it gives prosecutors options.

For example, if they had charged the Green River Killer with every murder, and prosecutors screwed up, he could have been acquitted due to their errors/misconduct, and he would be free. If they charge him with 4 murders, and they screw up, he can be acquitted...then they can charge him with another 4 murders....etc.
They only had evidence of his DNA from one of the crime scenes and matched with a piece of his chewing gum. Those were the original ones in the river. They didn’t have the evidence to convict him of any of the others. The plea deal he made providdd closure for many families, even though one or two of the ones that he could’ve been prosecuted for were very upset that he wasn’t trued, found guilty and given the death penalty.

Anyway back on topic. Like any newly passed law there is the possibility of confusion. So it is. They changed the charges to show that. However, they charged him with abortion, not a murder charge anyway. So it wasn’t 2 counts of murder. Laws vary, but doubtful an abortion like that carries the level of willful murder.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
And for everybody calling me out on the source, it's kind of hard to link a source that this board will find acceptable when the only outlets I've seen even reporting it is The Blaze, NYP, and Fox News.
Generally speaking, this is probably telling. There are objective, centrist news sites you can consult. If you are only finding it at the intersection of Blaze, NYP, and Fox, then that probably speaks to the legitimacy or implications of the case at this point. Perhaps something will come of it. Perhaps it's something worth watching. But if these are the "only outlets" where you can find it, the first question you should be asking is why that's the case.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
761
Ratings
737
Offline
Generally speaking, this is probably telling. There are objective, centrist news sites you can consult. If you are only finding it at the intersection of Blaze, NYP, and Fox, then that probably speaks to the legitimacy or implications of the case at this point. Perhaps something will come of it. Perhaps it's something worth watching. But if these are the "only outlets" where you can find it, the first question you should be asking is why that's the case.
Or that the other sites are purposefully not writing about it.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Or that the other sites are purposefully not writing about it.
for what reason(s)? Include all of the fringe left, center left, center, and center right sources - why would they all be 'purposefully not writing about it'?

And I didn't say nothing would come of it. But right now, this is just media literacy basics.
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,042
Ratings
16,393
Age
47
Location
Coalinga CA
Online
for what reason(s)? Include all of the fringe left, center left, center, and center right sources - why would they all be 'purposefully not writing about it'?

And I didn't say nothing would come of it. But right now, this is just media literacy basics.
Because the liberal conspiracy
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
20,523
Ratings
32,254
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Here's a chart to see where Fox News and Blaze line up. There are a lot of things to the left of it - including right sources.

There are a lot of places here where we could start searching.

 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads



Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom