Beerball Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Obviously he wasn't that suicidal, just kinda suicidal. This POS got 11 people (most likely 12) killed because he parked his SUV on the train tracks and then walked away. Is there a 'just' punishment for this man? Link
gantrules Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Could you imagine things being SO bad you wanted to commit suicide but then you screw that up too and kill eleven people!!! Talk about being better off dead....
stuckincincy Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Exodus 21:12 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. Exodus 21:14 - But if a man comes presumptiously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from My altar, that he may die.
stevestojan Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I would just put him in a 12x12 room. Nothing in there except a TV w/ home movies of the people he killed. On a loop. Until he dies. Absolutly nothing in the room he could possibly kill himself with. Meaning, he gets no clothes, so he couldn't try to eat them and choke himself to death. I figure he wanted to kill himself, why let him get what he wants? I swear, people like him, do they NOT have guns where they live? A quick bullet to the roof of the mouth, done.
Nervous Guy Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Exodus 21:14 - But if a man comes presumptiously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from My altar, that he may die. 220607[/snapback] hmmm...I find this most interesting...
duey Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I would just put him in a 12x12 room. Nothing in there except a TV w/ home movies of the people he killed. On a loop. Until he dies. Absolutly nothing in the room he could possibly kill himself with. Meaning, he gets no clothes, so he couldn't try to eat them and choke himself to death. I figure he wanted to kill himself, why let him get what he wants? I swear, people like him, do they NOT have guns where they live? A quick bullet to the roof of the mouth, done. 220610[/snapback] Ditto. What a ball-less POS. The suicide guy, not you stevestojan.
Bob4Bills Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 To me, the most twisted aspect is that he REALLY didn't want to kill himself, supposedly stabbing himself and slitting his wrists as well but not enough to finish the chickenshit off. Now, many families will spend their remaining days grieving over their loved ones lost, while this POS 'gets help'... un-f'in-believable!!
KRC Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Now, many families will spend their remaining days grieving over their loved ones lost, while this POS 'gets help'... 220626[/snapback] ...and these families taxes are going to be paying for that help.
BB27 Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Easy way to give him what he wants.... Tie one arm to a telephone pole on one side of the tracks, the other to the other side, and then let the family members of the people he killed go for a train ride. Train going 60 should take care of him. I have absolutely no sympathy for this ahole.
Bossman Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I would just put him in a 12x12 room. Nothing in there except a TV w/ home movies of the people he killed. On a loop. Until he dies. Absolutly nothing in the room he could possibly kill himself with. Meaning, he gets no clothes, so he couldn't try to eat them and choke himself to death. I figure he wanted to kill himself, why let him get what he wants? I swear, people like him, do they NOT have guns where they live? A quick bullet to the roof of the mouth, done. 220610[/snapback] I agree with you Steve.....sort of. Put him in a 12 X 12 room yes, but let family members of the deceased in there with a baseball bat or any other implement they choose and let them go to town. If the S.O.B. isn't dead when the families are done, take him out and tie him to the very tracks he caused this mess on and let the trains do the work they should have done yesterday. No way should this guy live out the rest of his days on the tax payer's dime....but he will.
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I can't believe they're charging him with murder...first degree, with special circumstances? Doesn't even remotely meet the definition of that crime. Realistically, what he did is first-degree manslaughter at worst, or maybe gross vehicular manslaughter (usually used for DWIs...but there's nothing that says it doesn't apply in this case.) A jury shouldn't even convict on homocide with "special circumstances"...they should convict on manslaughter 1...eleven counts. Maximum sentences each, to be served consecutively. Even with parole, he'd still never get out...
stevestojan Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I can't believe they're charging him with murder...first degree, with special circumstances? Doesn't even remotely meet the definition of that crime. Realistically, what he did is first-degree manslaughter at worst, or maybe gross vehicular manslaughter (usually used for DWIs...but there's nothing that says it doesn't apply in this case.) A jury shouldn't even convict on homocide with "special circumstances"...they should convict on manslaughter 1...eleven counts. Maximum sentences each, to be served consecutively. Even with parole, he'd still never get out... 220869[/snapback] I also found it strange that he was charged with 1st degree. Doesn't 1st degree have some sort of pre-meditation? He had no way of knowing ANYONE would die, much less the specific people he killed. I still think he's a douche who should suffer, but this just shows how far a media circus can go when it comes to condemning someone. If no one had died, would he still be charged with the attempted murder of those same 11 people that didn't die?
stuckincincy Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I can't believe they're charging him with murder...first degree, with special circumstances? Doesn't even remotely meet the definition of that crime. Realistically, what he did is first-degree manslaughter at worst, or maybe gross vehicular manslaughter (usually used for DWIs...but there's nothing that says it doesn't apply in this case.) A jury shouldn't even convict on homocide with "special circumstances"...they should convict on manslaughter 1...eleven counts. Maximum sentences each, to be served consecutively. Even with parole, he'd still never get out... 220869[/snapback] You misspelled homicide. Parking a vehicle on a rail line seems to qualify as premeditation. I'd like to see the defense attempts to explain that an adult did not understand that a train hitting a vehicle may result in injury or death of the occupants as a result of said action.
stevestojan Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 You misspelled homicide. Parking a vehicle on a rail line seems to qualify as premeditation. I'd like to see the defense attempting to explain that an adult did not understand that a train hitting a vehicle may result in injury or death of the occupants as a result of said action. 220886[/snapback] Most adults understand that blowing through a stop sign at 50MPH may result in death, however, even if you kill someone doing that, you won't get 1st degree murder.
stuckincincy Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 Most adults understand that blowing through a stop sign at 50MPH may result in death, however, even if you kill someone doing that, you won't get 1st degree murder. 220891[/snapback] More's the pity. And they don't abandon their vehicle while doing so....
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 I also found it strange that he was charged with 1st degree. Doesn't 1st degree have some sort of pre-meditation? He had no way of knowing ANYONE would die, much less the specific people he killed. I still think he's a douche who should suffer, but this just shows how far a media circus can go when it comes to condemning someone. If no one had died, would he still be charged with the attempted murder of those same 11 people that didn't die? 220875[/snapback] Not "pre-meditation" so much as "intent". The general rule of thumb (and, as near as I can tell, the California Penal Code is written - damned thing's a mass of confused and tortured statements that only the California legislature could produce) is "intent and planning or forethought" is first degree murder, "intent, no planning or forethought" is second degree, "no intent or planning" is manslaughter. And in CA, they might attach "special circumstances" to murder 1...one of which is "derailing a train". So essentially, the charges they've filed mean that the prosecutor believes that this guy acted with intent to derail the train and, in doing so, killed people. Now, maybe he did...but 1) I don't know how the prosecution can prove intent to derail a train by a guy who's intent was pretty clearly suicidal, and 2) any halfway decent defense attorney (such as my sister, who's reaction to these charges was shocked laughter) would have a field day hacking that conjecture to pieces anyway. And the charges are faintly ludicrous on another point: given the guy is apparently suicidal, the charges almost make it seem like the prosecution's theory of the crime is that the guy tried to kill himself by derailing a train and killing others, thereby being charged with first degree murder with special circumstances, thereby incurring the death penalty, thereby fulfilling his desire to die...and making the friggin' state of CA guilty of assisted suicide. There's just something somewhat odd and very Californian in saying "You intended to kill yourself and others, so since you killed the others we intend to help you kill yourself."
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 You misspelled homicide. Parking a vehicle on a rail line seems to qualify as premeditation. I'd like to see the defense attempts to explain that an adult did not understand that a train hitting a vehicle may result in injury or death of the occupants as a result of said action. 220886[/snapback] "Understanding the results" does not equal "intent". That's why there's charges such as "criminally negligent homocide" or "manslaughter"...charges that carry the implication that, whereas you didn't intend anyone to die, you were criminally reckless in creating a situation that caused an inordinate amount of danger to others and ultimately killed someone, and you should have known better. This guy did not intend to kill anyone, it seems. He WAS, however, clearly negligent and irresponsible in causing the accident.
stevestojan Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 And the charges are faintly ludicrous on another point: given the guy is apparently suicidal, the charges almost make it seem like the prosecution's theory of the crime is that the guy tried to kill himself by derailing a train and killing others, thereby being charged with first degree murder with special circumstances, thereby incurring the death penalty, thereby fulfilling his desire to die...and making the friggin' state of CA guilty of assisted suicide. There's just something somewhat odd and very Californian in saying "You intended to kill yourself and others, so since you killed the others we intend to help you kill yourself." 220896[/snapback] I would love to be a fly on the wall when BF reads that paragraph.
eSJayDee Posted January 27, 2005 Posted January 27, 2005 He was held without bail at a hospital's jail ward under suicide watch and was listed in stable condition. Suicide Watch? Why, let him do it. He's already caused a great detriment to society (an action that resulted in the death of 11 & injury to 200 plus considerable $, both directly & indirectly). Have him do everyone a favor & save the expense & effort of a trial & either cost of life in prison or the even greater cost of convicting and carying out the death penalty. I won't go far far as to call him a POS as others have, but I certainly don't think he's worthy of compassion, either.
Recommended Posts