Re: WHY???

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Omelet said:

I

Jail violence is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
It's widely ignored and that is wrong.

We are not supposed to be a third world country, but our jails may as
well be. :-(

When a local girl and her husband sexually molested and murdered a couple
of teenage girls, one of them her own sister, she ended up ratting him out
and getting a special deal, only 12 years. He got live and dangerous
offender designation, so he stays in jail.

You're talking about Karla Homolka (now known as Leanne Teale) and Paul
Bernardo, yes?

From what I understand, "sexually molested" doesn't begin to describe what
they did to those girls before they murdered them...

Her "special deal" was made BEFORE they found the incriminating videotapes,
which clearly showed her active and willing participation in the rapes and
torture of the victims (IIRC the actual murders were never taped).

I feel for her son, who was born this past February. That poor kid doesn't
stand a chance.

Mary

"Dave Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sheldon said:

Her parents will go to their grave wishing they had the IQ to teach
her not to go traipsing about ALONE. There was no way to know that
particular preditor was out there but it is absolulutely moronic not
to realize thsat preditors are always on the lookout for easy prey.

There is a couple not too far from here who are probably wishing they had
done things a lot differently. Their daughter was locked out of the house
because she had broken her curfew. She was abducted, sexually assaulted
and murdered by a husband and wife set of serial killers after the male
half of the murderous pair found her sitting all alone in a park early in
the morning.

Lesley Mahaffy?

Mary .

"MareCat" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I feel for her son, who was born this past February. That
poor kid doesn't stand a chance.

since part of her plea deal was that she never have contact
with *any* children, how is it that the baby wasn't removed at
birth?
lee

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel for her son, who was born this past February. That
poor kid doesn't stand a chance.

since part of her plea deal was that she never have contact
with *any* children, how is it that the baby wasn't removed at
birth?

She is not incarcerated. She is a free citizen, having served her full
sentence. The law does not have the power to coerce her into any
action against her will.

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Sheldon said:

Her parents will go to their grave wishing they had the IQ to teach
her not to go traipsing about ALONE. There was no way to know that
particular preditor was out there but it is absolulutely moronic not
to realize thsat preditors are always on the lookout for easy prey.
Had that poor girl been with even one friend the cowardly preditor
(and make no mistake about it, they are all cowards) would not have
chose her... he chose her for one reason and one reason only, she was
alone, and obviously alone. Hashing and rehashing all the what ifs is
nothing but mental masturbation... do not go alone!

That's just not practical for many of us! If I never went out alone,
I'd never, ever get any time to myself. Some people do not have anyone
to go with them. There are so many different situations. It's just not
practical, I say.
I *do* make my children go in groups, though. I have 3 children(all
girls), and if they go anywhere, even to the restroom in an public
place, they are to be with a friend. Sometimes I feel like I'm going
overboard, but hell, it's good for my peace of mind.
Marie

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alexandra said:

jmcquown said:

The thing is, this was a teenager. And sadly, her parents didn't teach
her
these basic rules. Mine did. I feel for the family.

Hi all,

I live here in KC and she was abducted from my Target store. Just want
to clear one thing up. Yes, she was 18 and it was in broad daylight.
As for her family not teaching her the basic rules- He left the store
before her and waited on her. He ran up to her very quickly and she
fought back.
Not sure what else she could have done. How could she have known a
very normal looking guy in the parking lot who appeared to be also
just going to his car would RUSH her like that?
Do you recommend we never go to our car if there is ANYONE else in the
lot?

Her parents will go to their grave wishing they had the IQ to teach
her not to go traipsing about ALONE. There was no way to know that
particular preditor was out there but it is absolulutely moronic not
to realize thsat preditors are always on the lookout for easy prey.
Had that poor girl been with even one friend the cowardly preditor
(and make no mistake about it, they are all cowards) would not have
chose her... he chose her for one reason and one reason only, she was
alone, and obviously alone. Hashing and rehashing all the what ifs is
nothing but mental masturbation... do not go alone!

Sheldon

What a load of utter rubbish.

Sheldon said:

Her parents will go to their grave wishing they had the IQ to teach
her not to go traipsing about ALONE.

Get real. She was 18, not 8.

--
See return address to reply by email

Michel Boucher <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel for her son, who was born this past February. That
poor kid doesn't stand a chance.

since part of her plea deal was that she never have
contact with *any* children, how is it that the baby
wasn't removed at birth?

She is not incarcerated. She is a free citizen, having
served her full sentence. The law does not have the power
to coerce her into any action against her will.

see, it doesn't work that way in the US. if she was here,
Child Protective Services would have dogged her through her
pregnancy & been there to take the child into "protective
custody" at birth. she would not have taken it home. it's
unlikely she would even have been allowed to hold it before it
was taken from her.
lee

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

since part of her plea deal was that she never have
contact with *any* children, how is it that the baby
wasn't removed at birth?

She is not incarcerated. She is a free citizen, having
served her full sentence. The law does not have the power
to coerce her into any action against her will.

see, it doesn't work that way in the US.

Your point being?

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Michel Boucher <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> since part of her plea deal was that she never have
> contact with *any* children, how is it that the baby
> wasn't removed at birth?

She is not incarcerated. She is a free citizen, having
served her full sentence. The law does not have the power
to coerce her into any action against her will.

see, it doesn't work that way in the US.

Your point being?

if the court ordered no contact with any children, why can
she have a baby & keep it? she's breaking a court order.
i'm just curious. i don't personally believe that just
because she was involved in the horrific murder of her sister
(& others) it really doesn't mean she can't be a good parent
to her own child. in the US she just wouldn't ever get a
chance to prove it.
lee

enigma said:

Michel Boucher <[email hidden]> wrote innews:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> since part of her plea deal was that she never have
>> contact with *any* children, how is it that the baby
>> wasn't removed at birth?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> She is not incarcerated. She is a free citizen, having
> served her full sentence. The law does not have the power
> to coerce her into any action against her will.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see, it doesn't work that way in the US.

Quoted message said:

Your point being?

if the court ordered no contact with any children, why can
she have a baby & keep it? she's breaking a court order.
i'm just curious. i don't personally believe that just
because she was involved in the horrific murder of her sister
(& others) it really doesn't mean she can't be a good parent
to her own child. in the US she just wouldn't ever get a
chance to prove it.

To tell you the truth, I have not followed the baby part of the story,
but I would suspect that the lifting of all 14 bans imposed on her in
June 2005

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1117799451154_113208651/?hub=Canada

by a subsequent court order in December 2005 makes it somewhat
difficult to restrict her movements and impede her constitutionally
protected right of association:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051130/homolka_judge_051130/20051201?hub=Canada

So much for that.

"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

To tell you the truth, I have not followed the baby part of
the story, but I would suspect that the lifting of all 14
bans imposed on her in June 2005

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/11177994
51154_113208651/?hub=Canada

by a subsequent court order in December 2005 makes it
somewhat difficult to restrict her movements and impede her
constitutionally protected right of association:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051130
/homolka_judge_051130/20051201?hub=Canada

So much for that.

thank you. i'd not seen or heard anything since the bans were
imposed. i guess the lifting didn't strike the US media as
newsworthy :p
lee

enigma <[email hidden]> scripsit in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

thank you. i'd not seen or heard anything since the bans were
imposed. i guess the lifting didn't strike the US media as
newsworthy

Why does that not surprise me? :-)

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith