*Warning* SICKEST Story I've Ever Read *Warning*

[DaGooseMon]

Seriouisly, I've been debating with myself for the last 10 minutes on if I should even post this. So fair warning... Do not scroll down if you can't handle what I'll phrase as "maternal cannibalism."























http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99MUM7O0&show_article=1


Police: Woman accused of killing newborn ate brain

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - A woman charged with murdering her 3 1/2-week-old son used a knife and two swords to dismember the child and ate parts of his body, including his brain, before stabbing herself in the torso and slicing her own throat, police said Monday.

Otty Sanchez, 33, is charged with capital murder in the death of her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholtz-Sanchez. She was recovering from her wounds at a hospital, and was being held on $1 million bail.

San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said the early Sunday morning attack occurred a week after the child's father moved out. The child's aunt and two cousins, ages 5 and 7, were in the house, but none were harmed.

McManus, who appeared uncomfortable as he addressed reporters, said Sanchez apparently ate the child's brain and some other body parts. She also tore his face off, chewed off three of his toes and decapitated the infant before stabbing herself.

"It's too heinous for me to describe it any further," McManus said.


More at link.


Story says the mother doesn't have a lawyer yet. Now, I believe in the justice system. I believe in our Constitution. But I have to tell you, if I was a lawyer, a public defender, and I was instructed to defend this woman, I don't know if I could do it.

[NascarGirl2448]

That is absolutely DISGUSTING

[DaGooseMon]

Can you imagine being the cop that showed up to that scene? Or the coroner or whoever that has to bag the body? I don't know how they ever get over that. I honestly don't.

And I'm not the least bit skiddish when it comes to blood and guts. But a baby? I don't know. I don't think I could handle it.

[BillBrown]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1567581

[NascarGirl2448]

People need a strong stomach to be able to be around that kind of stuff. Either that or they need counseling afterwards. I know I don't have the stomach for that kind of thing, and if I was the officer who responded to the scene, I would be going for counseling not long after.

[DaGooseMon]

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1567581


Oops. And I even looked to see if anyone else has posted this. Must have skimmed right over it.

[BillBrown]

People need a strong stomach to be able to be around that kind of stuff. Either that or they need counseling afterwards. I know I don't have the stomach for that kind of thing, and if I was the officer who responded to the scene, I would be going for counseling not long after.

What kind of counseling? By who?
Who's ever seen that kind of thing that would know how to council someone else who has?

[BillBrown]

Oops. And I even looked to see if anyone else has posted this. Must have skimmed right over it.

No problem.
This probably needs a couple of threads. It's that bad.

[NascarGirl2448]

What kind of counseling? By who?
Who's ever seen that kind of thing that would know how to council someone else who has?

Don't police departments have counselors to help officers deal with things like this? I just don't see how anyone could see something like this and keep it inside them and not talk to someone about it.

[SaintVegas]

Seriouisly, I've been debating with myself for the last 10 minutes on if I should even post this. So fair warning... Do not scroll down if you can't handle what I'll phrase as "maternal cannibalism."


I read about this. It begs a larger question. What is wrong with society today?!?! I know we tend to romantasize the past, but it seems that people long ago, when they had an issue, they went outside and had a fist fight (or shot each other at the very most). No it seems that every day brings new horrors and levels of depravity about what people do to each other. Murder by gun in some cases would be an easy blessing! Mothers kill their children with swords and eat their brains. Brothers decapitate their sisters at birthday parties while grandma puts clothes in the dryer. Rape, torture, and every other form of debauchery abound. I just don't get it. What is wrong with people? I certainly do not condone murder of the innocent by any form, but it seems people as a whole are growing steadily sicker. Sad really

[Hadassah]

From the link:



"It's too heinous for me to describe it any further," McManus said.




How could it possibly be any worse?

[USMCmom]

How...I mean how could anyone do that to a baby? Makes me weep to think what that poor baby must have endured...surely someone must have heard him screaming?

[Sketch]

my goodness.....

[Ruzzty]

How...I mean how could anyone do that to a baby? Makes me weep to think what that poor baby must have endured...surely someone must have heard him screaming?

A baby can only scream so loud..... to anyone outside, its just a baby crying.

/sad..... very sad.....

[BillBrown]

Here's her and the baby.

[angelicmadrigal]

I don't know if I'm just overly desensitized, but I'm not in a state of shock over it. Though, I am having a hard time trying to follow the mother's thought process, and believe me I'm TRYING, just to figure this out.

[sircharliebrown]

I don't know if I'm just overly desensitized, but I'm not in a state of shock over it. Though, I am having a hard time trying to follow the mother's thought process, and believe me I'm TRYING, just to figure this out.

I'm in a state of shock and don't really know how anyone could not be. But then again, just having a baby 5 months ago might make me a little sensitive to such things.

I hope this bitch ****ing fries. I want her uterus cut out of her body with a box cutter and fed to her before that same box cutter is used to slowly slit her throat.

[ISYairio]

Wow, I wasn't expecting this bad for the thread...

Nothing is sufficient to express my shock.

[Dragon1963]

The woman needs some time in a padded cell under heavy sedation. There's no way she could have done that in a sane state of mind.

I'm not shocked by the action, but I'm sure not comfortable with it.

[johnrocks]

Some people are so sick! I just saw on the news where a young woman was murdered and her fetus was cut out of her womb, hell can't be hot enough for people like this!

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Seriouisly, I've been debating with myself for the last 10 minutes on if I should even post this. So fair warning... Do not scroll down if you can't handle what I'll phrase as "maternal cannibalism."


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99MUM7O0&show_article=1




More at link.


Story says the mother doesn't have a lawyer yet. Now, I believe in the justice system. I believe in our Constitution. But I have to tell you, if I was a lawyer, a public defender, and I was instructed to defend this woman, I don't know if I could do it.

And there it is! now we have the supposed 'pre-cursor' event. The baby daddy moved out.:rolleyes: That's information we didn't have in the other thread. She's gonna have one heck of a time pulling postpartum psychosis disorder in light of the new info. :think:

There is no defense for what this woman did. All her lawyers can do is claim mental illness. I can't argue that...you'd have to be one nut short of a tree to do what she did. Like a rabid dog, she should be taken out back and shot. period.

~Mysty

[birdonawire]

Bitch needs to die end of story.

[smyrna]

This is so discusting that we know she is crazy. Her brain is not operating properly. This is sick, not evil. She should be committed to a mental institution for the balance of her days having no chance be in society again.

[birdonawire]

This is so discusting that we know she is crazy. Her brain is not operating properly. This is sick, not evil. She should be committed to a mental institution for the balance of her days having no chance be in society again.

The baby didnt get a chance at life why should she?

Death penalty.

[smyrna]

The baby didnt get a chance at life why should she?

Death penalty.

You are right. There is nothing to say that would justify anything. The short of it is...if she is truly crazy, she isn't responsible for her actions. That is why I suggested that.

[birdonawire]

You are right. There is nothing to say that would justify anything. The short of it is...if she is truly crazy, she isn't responsible for her actions. That is why I suggested that.

I can understand why you would suggest it but when it comes to babies I have no sympathy at all and in this case I have even less.

Crazy or not she has no right to continue to live.

I'm not usually this harsh but this just made me ill.

[CID_0687]

You are right. There is nothing to say that would justify anything. The short of it is...if she is truly crazy, she isn't responsible for her actions. That is why I suggested that.
I'd have to say that anyone that could kill their own child...and then eat it's brain is definitely crazy.

But, I see no sense in locking her up in a mental institution, where you and I have to pay for her to live for the next 50 years or so...that would cost thousands of dollars...a bullet to the head is pocket change.

[smyrna]

I'd have to say that anyone that could kill their own child...and then eat it's brain is definitely crazy.

But, I see no sense in locking her up in a mental institution, where you and I have to pay for her to live for the next 50 years or so...that would cost thousands of dollars...a bullet to the head is pocket change.

CID, I know that what you are saying is the same as I feel inside. How about a 22-250 at 400 yards...just for practice?:))

The real truth is, are people that are sane who participate in abortion, any less guilty than this lady who is insane? We can hide behind the law and our behavior be considered acceptable by society. This mother ate her childs brain and is obviously insane. Who has more or less guilt?

May the Lord have more love and mercy for us than we have for each other.

[texan_rep]

I heard on the news on the way to work this morning that a possible outcome would be for her to be declared incompetent to stand trial and go directly to psychiatric commitment.

They've even released the 911 tape of her sister calling the police. I'm not listening to it.

[angelicmadrigal]

I'd have to say that anyone that could kill their own child...and then eat it's brain is definitely crazy.


And could likely end up crazier, there are a lot of problems associated with the consumption of neurological tissue in mammals of the same species, though I'm not sure it it has to be a repeated thing or not.

[Libstomper]

Yeah, I read that on drudge and it made me sick to my stomach. That is infinitely beyond ****ed up.

[angelicmadrigal]

But, I see no sense in locking her up in a mental institution, where you and I have to pay for her to live for the next 50 years or so...that would cost thousands of dollars...a bullet to the head is pocket change.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for it if psychologists take an opportunity to study her. I'm all for studying people that commit acts like this you know looking for possible brain and chemical abnormalities, pathologies, etc.... Plus if they throw in a good vivasection we all get what we want.

[BillBrown]

I heard on the news on the way to work this morning that a possible outcome would be for her to be declared incompetent to stand trial and go directly to psychiatric commitment.

They've even released the 911 tape of her sister calling the police. I'm not listening to it.

She'll probably wind up in Kerrville State Hospital, with the pioneer in this field- Andrea Yates.

They can compare notes, and plan their next jobs, after they are declared sane.

[gwhughes]

Can you imagine being the cop that showed up to that scene? Or the coroner or whoever that has to bag the body? I don't know how they ever get over that. I honestly don't.

And I'm not the least bit skiddish when it comes to blood and guts. But a baby? I don't know. I don't think I could handle it.

If I were the officer responding, I can't say that I wouldn't either wait long enough before calling rescue to let the woman die from her self inflicted wounds or end it for her. Wow, most disgusting thing ever.

[Vaard]

Seriouisly, I've been debating with myself for the last 10 minutes on if I should even post this. So fair warning... Do not scroll down if you can't handle what I'll phrase as "maternal cannibalism."

man, it was really eating away at you, huh?

[Vaard]

She'll probably wind up in Kerrville State Hospital, with the pioneer in this field- Andrea Yates.

They can compare notes, and plan their next jobs, after they are declared sane.

well, andrea yates was hardly the first mother to kill her kids or to get an insanity plea from it......

[Vaard]

From the link:








How could it possibly be any worse?

she used dijon mustard instead of regular mustard?

[BillBrown]

well, andrea yates was hardly the first mother to kill her kids or to get an insanity plea from it......

Yates is certainly the most notable. She pulled it off in Texas where murder of a child gets people executed, much less mass murder of five kids.
She blazed the path for this woman and several before her.

[Libstomper]

man, it was really eating away at you, huh?

Wow.

I make all kinds of horrible puns, but even I would go there!

[JudasGoat]

this reminds me of some horror movie clip on youtube I saw a while back that was beyond horrible on this scale. it too involved a pregnant woman. What was even more horriffic was the amount of young, teenaged boys that had seen it and gave it rave reviews. There is something seriously wrong with some of our kids today. I think it was a 13 year old that uploaded it. They're the type that would openly laugh at a story like this.

[super cool ski instructor]

she used dijon mustard instead of regular mustard?

Dude...really Vaard? That is ****ed up.

[Vaard]

Dude...really Vaard? That is ****ed up.

sorry....

i either joke or cry......

[StoneScratcher]

Except for the eating part, it's no different, really, than an abortion inside the womb. She tore her child up to pieces with the child in pain outside the womb.

Putting the eating of her baby aside--she's no different than an abortionist and a mother doing a late term abortion because of various reasons outside of true (true and honest) life and death situations.

[BillBrown]

Except for the eating part, it's no different, really, than an abortion inside the womb. She tore her child up to pieces with the child in pain outside the womb.

Putting the eating of her baby aside--she's no different than an abortionist and a mother doing a late term abortion because of various reasons outside of true (true and honest) life and death situations.

There's only her word that she cannibalized the baby.

That could easily have been a fabrication to enhance her insanity defense.

[StoneScratcher]

There's only her word that she cannibalized the baby.

That could easily have been a fabrication to enhance her insanity defense.

They should have given her ipecac immediately for evidence. Gross to think about.

[BillBrown]

They should have given her ipecac immediately for evidence. Gross to think about.

Police probably aren't trained or prepared to deal with this.
They need to get trained on it.
After it becomes apparent that this is a ticket to a nice hospital stay instead of the death chamber, there will be a lot more of it.

[jbthe20th]

I don't think this woman was mentally balanced. Simple as that.

[FreeRadical]

Except for the eating part, it's no different, really, than an abortion inside the womb. She tore her child up to pieces with the child in pain outside the womb.

Putting the eating of her baby aside--she's no different than an abortionist and a mother doing a late term abortion because of various reasons outside of true (true and honest) life and death situations.

Except an abortionist is trained, the procedure is done in a clean, sterile environment, and it is legal. Plus the fact this baby was already born. No comparison to abortion...try again...:boohoo:

[FreeRadical]

I read about this. It begs a larger question. What is wrong with society today?!?! I know we tend to romantasize the past, but it seems that people long ago, when they had an issue, they went outside and had a fist fight (or shot each other at the very most). No it seems that every day brings new horrors and levels of depravity about what people do to each other. Murder by gun in some cases would be an easy blessing! Mothers kill their children with swords and eat their brains. Brothers decapitate their sisters at birthday parties while grandma puts clothes in the dryer. Rape, torture, and every other form of debauchery abound. I just don't get it. What is wrong with people? I certainly do not condone murder of the innocent by any form, but it seems people as a whole are growing steadily sicker. Sad really

Dude...humanity's cruelty has been with us throughout our entire history. Actually we have toned down from ancient and medieval times.

[BillBrown]

Except an abortionist is trained, the procedure is done in a clean, sterile environment, and it is legal. Plus the fact this baby was already born. No comparison to abortion...try again...:boohoo:

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.

[Hadassah]

Except an abortionist is trained, the procedure is done in a clean, sterile environment, and it is legal. Plus the fact this baby was already born. No comparison to abortion...try again...:boohoo:

clean, sterile environment. :)) biggest joke i've heard all day.

[Hadassah]

She'll probably wind up in Kerrville State Hospital, with the pioneer in this field- Andrea Yates.

They can compare notes, and plan their next jobs, after they are declared sane.




You are sooooo not funny. I still want the sources for your info about Andrea that you claimed in your other thread, cause everything I read claims exactly the opposite.

[SaintVegas]

Dude...humanity's cruelty has been with us throughout our entire history. Actually we have toned down from ancient and medieval times.

Because you were there for much of that history, right?

[Mimiheart]

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.Why on earth have you latched onto this "trained" idea? Why is it more likely in your mind that a woman would be trained to do this horrendous act to her child than to have had some sort of mental breakdown?

[Hadassah]

Why on earth have you latched onto this "trained" idea? Why is it more likely in your mind that a woman would be trained to do this horrendous act to her child than to have had some sort of mental breakdown?

He seems to have it stuck in his head that being in a mental institution is "cushy", no matter how much he's told otherwise. Seems that when people who know the facts give him info, he ignores it.

[Mimiheart]

He seems to have it stuck in his head that being in a mental institution is "cushy", no matter how much he's told otherwise. Seems that when people who know the facts give him info, he ignores it.State-run mental hospitals are scary places. I'm not sure prison is a worse option. This isn't a rehab center for celebrities we're talking about.

[BillBrown]

He seems to have it stuck in his head that being in a mental institution is "cushy", no matter how much he's told otherwise. Seems that when people who know the facts give him info, he ignores it.

Yates is in the Kerrville, Texas, minimum security state hospital for the criminally insane.

Provide me with the facts on the conditions of this hospital along with sources.

I'll wait. You claim to have the facts, so it shouldn't take you but a minute.

[Groundhog]

Lock her up in the nut house and never let her out. She didn't take the medication she had been prescribed.

[Groundhog]

I read about this. It begs a larger question. What is wrong with society today?!?! I know we tend to romantasize the past, but it seems that people long ago, when they had an issue, they went outside and had a fist fight (or shot each other at the very most). No it seems that every day brings new horrors and levels of depravity about what people do to each other.

You'd be surprised at some of the many horrible and disgusting acts committed on children in the 18th and 19th century here in the USA itself. Many is in historical public records, but people had no interest in widely discussing these horrific events. I could describe some of the brutal scenes done by adult serial killers to young children in the early 1800's. Even the old timers back then still were humane to the murderous criminally insane.

Everything in society now is broadcast to the world within minutes or hours, and I see that more of as a strength, since it allows us to confront this, and not hide from the cruel reality of life.

[Gabby]

Because you were there for much of that history, right?

I think he's right... we have acutally toned down.

An example of this is that ancient socities used to get rid of unwante babies by burying them alive or 'exposing' them. Exposing them meant to just dump the baby in the woods or out in a field. Either the weather or predator animals would kill the baby.

We sort of frown on this type of thing now.

[toeknee]

was she mad at the Father of the baby? sounds like it to me!

[FreeRadical]

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.

Morality is an invention of Man as well.

[FreeRadical]

Because you were there for much of that history, right?

It called a book. Pick one up every now and then.

[FreeRadical]

clean, sterile environment. :)) biggest joke i've heard all day.

Have you ever been to a clinic? They are set up like most hospital rooms.

[mother2]

After it becomes apparent that this is a ticket to a nice hospital stay instead of the death chamber, there will be a lot more of it.

I sincerely disagree that a sane person would commit such an act for a reward, especially a stay in a mental institution.

[BillBrown]

I sincerely disagree that a sane person would commit such an act for a reward, especially a stay in a mental institution.

They would if they want to kill someone anyway and avoid prison or the death penalty.
Remember this happened in Texas, where people are actually executed for capital crimes.

If this woman is successful, a number of such incidents will follow.
A child or husband or boyfriend is killed- A hunk of flesh is missing - the woman claims she ate it- no needle- no prison.

[Mimiheart]

They would if they want to kill someone anyway and avoid prison or the death penalty.
Remember this happened in Texas, where people are actually executed for capital crimes.

If this woman is successful, a number of such incidents will follow.
A child or husband or boyfriend is killed- A hunk of flesh is missing - the woman claims she ate it- no needle- no prison.
Here's the part we're all having trouble with... why would she want to kill the baby anyway? This is not the act of a sane person. Sane women don't kill their babies at three weeks "anyway." The eating of body parts aside... she killed and dismembered her baby. There's something weird going on here. I think it's more than trying to avoid the death penalty and wanting free room and board.

[BillBrown]

Here's the part we're all having trouble with... why would she want to kill the baby anyway? This is not the act of a sane person. Sane women don't kill their babies at three weeks "anyway." The eating of body parts aside... she killed and dismembered her baby. There's something weird going on here. I think it's more than trying to avoid the death penalty and wanting free room and board.

I don't subscribe to the notion that only insane people commit heinous crimes. i think that is a myth.

If that was encoded into our law, then a perpetrator would make certain that their crime was particularly gruesome, so they could avoid the rope and prison.

I have no idea why she would want to kill the baby. People do it fairly frequently and I do not believe they are all insane. I think court records prove that they aren't.

[Mimiheart]

I don't subscribe to the notion that only insane people commit heinous crimes. i think that is a myth.

If that was encoded into our law, then a perpetrator would make certain that their crime was particularly gruesome, so they could avoid the rope and prison.

I have no idea why she would want to kill the baby. People do it fairly frequently and I do not believe they are all insane. I think court records prove that they aren't.
No, not only insane people kill babies. But I don't see why it's more likely that she's faking being insane than being legitimately insane.

[BillBrown]

No, not only insane people kill babies. But I don't see why it's more likely that she's faking being insane than being legitimately insane.

Because a successful insanity defense is very rare- something like 1 in 100, if I remember correctly.
Just because a person is off their rocker, does not mean they are legally insane, in a criminal sense.

Almost all states subscribe to the definition of criminal insanity as not knowing the difference between right and wrong- or not knowing their crime was wrong or illegal.

That is rare. Even most severe nut cases cannot pass this test.

Some states allow for a person knowing it was wrong but acted under a compulsion they could not control. Texas does not allow for this.

I'll stop here---BUT---Andrea Yates failed both tests. If you read an account of how she carried out her murders, it's obvious she knew it was wrong and was able to control her actions- she did control them the previous day when her mother- in - law showed up early.

[Mimiheart]

Because a successful insanity defense is very rare- something like 1 in 100, if I remember correctly.
Just because a person is off their rocker, does not mean they are legally insane, in a criminal sense.

Almost all states subscribe to the definition of criminal insanity as not knowing the difference between right and wrong- or not knowing their crime was wrong or illegal.

That is rare. Even most severe nut cases cannot pass this test.

Some states allow for a person knowing it was wrong but acted under a compulsion they could not control. Texas does not allow for this.

I'll stop here---BUT---Andrea Yates failed both tests. If you read an account of how she carried out her murders, it's obvious she knew it was wrong and was able to control her actions- she did control them the previous day when her mother- in - law showed up early.This is not about Andrea Yates. This is about another completely unrelated woman who did a different act entirely.

[BillBrown]

This is not about Andrea Yates. This is about another completely unrelated woman who did a different act entirely.

I understand that. The last paragraph- only- talked about Yates. I thought I made that clear.
The rest of it dealt with any of these people, including this woman.

[angelicmadrigal]

If that was encoded into our law, then a perpetrator would make certain that their crime was particularly gruesome, so they could avoid the rope and prison.


So how long exactly do you suspect she was planning this, since you seem to think it's a premeditated act.

[BillBrown]

So how long exactly do you suspect she was planning this, since you seem to think it's a premeditated act.

I have no way of knowing that.
Any time at all, spent planning it, constitutes premeditation.
Walking to a drawer and taking out a knife, for the purpose of using it on the baby, is premeditation.

[angelicmadrigal]

I have no way of knowing that.

So since you don't know that, then you really don't know if it was premeditated at all.

[firemommy]

What I don't get is why the heck you would go through pregnancy and labor just to eat the thing 3 weeks later? No thanks!!

[BillBrown]

So since you don't know that, then you really don't know if it was premeditated at all.

I never said it was.
You are the first one in this thread to even use that word.

[sircharliebrown]

So since you don't know that, then you really don't know if it was premeditated at all.

And we don't know that it wasn't premeditated. That's the wonderful thing about not being on a jury - we can speculate, assume, hypothesize and draw conclusions all we want!

[angelicmadrigal]

I never said it was.
You are the first one in this thread to even use that word.

Actually YOU brought up the whole idea of her being "trained" if that doesn't suggest your belief it was premeditated I don't know what else would.

[angelicmadrigal]

And we don't know that it wasn't premeditated. That's the wonderful thing about not being on a jury - we can speculate, assume, hypothesize and draw conclusions all we want!

There are much more efficent ways to kill someone other than eating them. Also there are much simpler ways to create evidence for an "insanity" defense. So you have two options:
1) the woman is insane

or

2) she's very stupid

[sircharliebrown]

There are much more efficent ways to kill someone other than eating them. Also there are much simpler ways to create evidence for an "insanity" defense. So you have two options:
1) the woman is insane

or

2) she's very stupid

How about option 3?

3) She's a cold, calculating murderer.

I'm not sure many people would chalk this up to her "being stupid".

[BillBrown]

Actually YOU brought up the whole idea of her being "trained" if that doesn't suggest your belief it was premeditated I don't know what else would.

Here is my only post using the word "trained"

Originally Posted by FreeRadical
Except an abortionist is trained, the procedure is done in a clean, sterile environment, and it is legal. Plus the fact this baby was already born. No comparison to abortion...try again...

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.


Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "may have been"?
Do you understand the meaning of the words "we don't know"?


I don't think you understand what premeditated means.
Judging from your posts, I know you don't.

[BillBrown]

There are much more efficent ways to kill someone other than eating them. Also there are much simpler ways to create evidence for an "insanity" defense. So you have two options:
1) the woman is insane

or

2) she's very stupid

Cite any news report, from any source, that says she killed the baby by eating him.

[SaintVegas]

It called a book. Pick one up every now and then.

Oh that's what those rectangular objects are. I worked in a library for many years and I always wondered what those were called.

[angelicmadrigal]

Cite any news report, from any source, that says she killed the baby by eating him.

Cite a source that said she didn't.

[angelicmadrigal]

I don't think you understand what premeditated means.
Judging from your posts, I know you don't.

premeditated=planned

It doesn't necessarily mean intended. You can have "crimes of passion" where the intent is to kill, but those are not considered premeditated. Premeditation indicates PLANNING.

[SaintVegas]

It called a book. Pick one up every now and then.

It called grammar. Try using it every now and then.

[angelicmadrigal]

How about option 3?

3) She's a cold, calculating murderer.

I'm not sure many people would chalk this up to her "being stupid".

I would, because if this is her version of "calculated" she didn't get very far with it did she. Being calculated requires a level of sophistication and finesse that is simply lacking here. Like I said, you want to kill someone and get away with it, this is not the route to go.

[sircharliebrown]

I would, because if this is her version of "calculated" she didn't get very far with it did she. Like I said, you want to kill someone and get away with it, this is not the route to go.

Oh, my mistake. I thought I read that she admitted to the crime. I didn't realize she was trying to get away with it.

[SaintVegas]

None of this changes the fact that, legally defined that way or not, there is something seriously wrong with that woman's mental state.

[angelicmadrigal]

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.

.
Why would you even bring it up unless you believed that?

[MrCapitalism]

Too soon for a zombie joke?

[angelicmadrigal]

Oh, my mistake. I thought I read that she admitted to the crime. I didn't realize she was trying to get away with it.

Well there are those that have argued in this thread she'll use the insanity defense to avoid the death penalty, which in some people's eyes would be getting away with it.

[angelicmadrigal]

Too soon for a zombie joke?

I don't think so. I say go for it.

[BillBrown]

Why would you even bring it up unless you believed that?

I'll ask again.
Show me where is said it was premeditated.

[sircharliebrown]

Well there are those that have argued in this thread she'll use the insanity defense to avoid the death penalty, which in some people's eyes would be getting away with it.

It would be.



I don't think so. I say go for it.

I'm not surprised.

[angelicmadrigal]

I'll ask again.
Show me where is said it was premeditated.

The post about being trained BEFORE the murder. Is it really so hard for you to comprehend that that implys PLANNING, hence premeditaiton.

[angelicmadrigal]

It would be.



Hence why I said if you want to get away with it don't be sloppy, or stupid about it. This woman clearly was both.

[BillBrown]

The post about being trained BEFORE the murder. Is it really so hard for you to comprehend that that implys PLANNING, hence premeditaiton.

The post "about". I don't think you're being serious.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing, knowing you stuck your foot in your mouth.

Here is the post again.

Originally Posted by BillBrown
Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.


I don't believe for a minute that you do not know the meaning of "may have been" and "we don't know".

I could well be wrong, but I think you have more sense than that.

[angelicmadrigal]

The post "about". I don't think you're being serious.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing, knowing you stuck your foot in your mouth.

Here is the post again.




I don't believe for a minute that you do not know the meaning of "may have been" and "we don't know".

I could well be wrong, but I think you have more sense than that.
I don't understand why ANYONE would bring it up if they didn't support that argument.

[BillBrown]

I don't understand why ANYONE would bring it up if they didn't support that argument.

You brought it up tonight.

You know I did not say it was premeditated.

I said it may have been.
I said we don't know.
I showed you the post twice.

[angelicmadrigal]

You brought it up tonight.

You know I did not say it was premeditated.

I said it may have been.
I said we don't know.
I showed you the post twice.

And again I hav eno idea why you would even post the conjecture unless you bought into it. So no, I don't know that you weren't implying it.

[BillBrown]

And again I hav eno idea why you would even post the conjecture unless you bought into it. So no, I don't know that you weren't implying it.

Whether I bought into it isn't the issue. I may or may not have. It's irrelevant.

You claimed I wrote that it was premeditated.
That is a false statement.
You know it is a false statement, because you have read the post in question at least twice.

[angelicmadrigal]

Whether I bought into it isn't the issue. I may or may not have. It's irrelevant.

You claimed I wrote that it was premeditated.
That is a false statement.
You know it is a false statement, because you have read the post in question at least twice.

Nope, I still believe you implied it.

[DLaw911]

........Story says the mother doesn't have a lawyer yet. Now, I believe in the justice system. I believe in our Constitution. But I have to tell you, if I was a lawyer, a public defender, and I was instructed to defend this woman, I don't know if I could do it.Just takes brain power.

[DLaw911]

Nope, I still believe you implied it.Can't you and Bill Brown stop trashing this discussion. You are worse than Crowley and Gates.

I hope this clears it up for both you and Bill Brown:

All murder which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought is murder of the first degree.
The word "willful," as used in this instruction, means intentional.
The word "deliberate", which relates to how a person thinks, means formed or arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action.
The word "premeditated" relates to when a person thinks and means considered beforehand. One premeditates by deliberating before taking action.
If you find that the killing was preceded and accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill, which was the result of deliberation and premeditation, so that it must have been formed upon pre-existing reflection and not under a sudden heat of passion or other condition precluding the idea of deliberation, it is murder of the first degree.
The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances.
The true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection. A cold, calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time, but a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not deliberation and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of the first degree.

To constitute a deliberate and premeditated killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice and, having in mind the consequences, [he] [she] decides to and does kill.
The things to learn from this are:
1. A premeditated killing is not necessarily murder. For example, abortions and executions are premeditated, and so is voluntary manslaughter.
2. To have MURDER you need malice aforethough.
3. To have capital murder you need special circumstances OR you need a murder that is willful, deliberate AND premeditated.

[angelicmadrigal]

Can't you and Bill Brown stop trashing this discussion. You are worse than Crowley and Gates.
Nope, I think the whole "trained" bussiness, is right up there with conspiracy theory.


I hope this clears it up for both you and Bill Brown:
The things to learn from this are:
1. A premeditated killing is not necessarily murder. For example, abortions and executions are premeditated, and so is voluntary manslaughter.
2. To have MURDER you need malice aforethough.
3. To have capital murder you need special circumstances OR you need a murder that is willful, deliberate AND premeditated.


Also I believe that suggesting someone was "trained" would fit critera #3, and I note the word premeditated in that description.

[DLaw911]

Nope, I think the whole "trained" business, is right up there with conspiracy theory.

Also I believe that suggesting someone was "trained" would fit critera #3, and I note the word premeditated in that description.Who cares? Does it make any difference to this case?

[angelicmadrigal]

Who cares? Does it make any difference to this case?

It does if someone believes the theory, or at the very leasts runs around repeating it over the internet.

[BillBrown]

Nope, I think the whole "trained" bussiness, is right up there with conspiracy theory.



Also I believe that suggesting someone was "trained" would fit critera #3, and I note the word premeditated in that description.

And I think for you to continue falsely attributing statements to me, after you know better, is right up there with Pinocchio and his nose.

There is a more accurate word to describe this, but the TOS prohibits its use.

[BillBrown]

Who cares? Does it make any difference to this case?

It doesn't make any difference.
She stuck her foot in her mouth and has spent the rest of the night trying to cover it up, rather than admit she was wrong.

[BillBrown]

Can't you and Bill Brown stop trashing this discussion. You are worse than Crowley and Gates.

I hope this clears it up for both you and Bill Brown:
The things to learn from this are:
1. A premeditated killing is not necessarily murder. For example, abortions and executions are premeditated, and so is voluntary manslaughter.
2. To have MURDER you need malice aforethough.
3. To have capital murder you need special circumstances OR you need a murder that is willful, deliberate AND premeditated.







That's a masterstroke of clarity and a great example of how not to trash a discussion.

Its over 300 words defining first degree murder.

This crime happened in Texas.
There is no first degree murder in Texas. The charge does not exist.

Texas doesn't officially use the terms "first degree murder" or "second degree murder," though these terms are sometimes informally used incorrectly. Texas has six potential charges for someone having caused the death of another person (including four types of criminal homicide): (1) murder, (2) capital murder, (3) manslaughter, (4) criminally negligent homicide, (5) intoxication manslaughter, and, (6) capital sabotage. (Remember 'homicide' does not necessarily mean 'murder'.)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_Texas_define_1st_degree_murder

[Poisonshady313]

Here is the relevant law from the Texas Penal Code.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:

(8) the person murders an individual under six years of age;

[Poisonshady313]

Believing that the devil gave her her marching orders, it certainly sounds like she knowingly caused the death of her 3 week old child.

[Poisonshady313]

Sec. 8.05. DURESS. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

(c) Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.



I don't believe "The devil made me do it" qualifies as duress, according to the Penal Code.

[Poisonshady313]

Sec. 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.

Protesting her culpability, claiming that the devil made her do it... indicates that while she says she didn't want to do it, she knew it was wrong.

[angelicmadrigal]

And I think for you to continue falsely attributing statements to me, after you know better, is right up there with Pinocchio and his nose.

There is a more accurate word to describe this, but the TOS prohibits its use.

I don't personally care what you think. Again, I consider what you posted a ludicrous theory, that only somone who actually BELIEVES it would have any reason to post. Even if you didn't come up with the thoery, it's up there with repeating a rumor meant to 1) start crap or 2) the person actually believes it.

[Poisonshady313]

Except for the eating part, it's no different, really, than an abortion inside the womb. She tore her child up to pieces with the child in pain outside the womb.

Putting the eating of her baby aside--she's no different than an abortionist and a mother doing a late term abortion because of various reasons outside of true (true and honest) life and death situations.

Except an abortionist is trained, the procedure is done in a clean, sterile environment, and it is legal. Plus the fact this baby was already born. No comparison to abortion...try again...:boohoo:

Sanchez may have been trained. She may have studied for months prior to her actions.
She may have had a sterilized butchery room to work in. We don't know and what does it matter?
Legality is an invention of man. It has nothing to do with morality.

One of the things we learned to do way back in grade school was learn to identify the main idea of a story.

Looks to me like BillBrown's post is a reaction to the dismissiveness of FreeRadical's post towards StoneScratcher's post.

StoneScratcher suggested that this incident was similar to abortion, FreeRadical was quick to point out things people identify with abortions in an effort to show how very different they were... and Bill was trying to say "well, you don't know nearly enough about the case to say definitively, in a knee-jerk manner, that it wasn't anything at all like an abortion."

Also... Bill tried to make a point that FreeRadical may have been too literal, whereas Bill recognized StoneScratcher's attempt to make a MORAL equivalent between the case and an abortion, rather than a literal one.


And here you are stuck on the word "training".

Stop it. It's annoying. Get off Bill's back and start talking about the case.

[Old_Mil]

It begs a larger question. ...i t seems that every day brings new horrors and levels of depravity about what people do to each other. Murder by gun in some cases would be an easy blessing! Mothers kill their children with swords and eat their brains. Brothers decapitate their sisters at birthday parties while grandma puts clothes in the dryer. Rape, torture, and every other form of debauchery abound. I just don't get it. What is wrong with people?

Remeber way back when in Sunday school they'd occasionally talk about the "Days of Noah?" There was more to it than some old coot building a boat.

[Mimiheart]

One of the things we learned to do way back in grade school was learn to identify the main idea of a story.

Looks to me like BillBrown's post is a reaction to the dismissiveness of FreeRadical's post towards StoneScratcher's post.

StoneScratcher suggested that this incident was similar to abortion, FreeRadical was quick to point out things people identify with abortions in an effort to show how very different they were... and Bill was trying to say "well, you don't know nearly enough about the case to say definitively, in a knee-jerk manner, that it wasn't anything at all like an abortion."

Also... Bill tried to make a point that FreeRadical may have been too literal, whereas Bill recognized StoneScratcher's attempt to make a MORAL equivalent between the case and an abortion, rather than a literal one.


And here you are stuck on the word "training".

Stop it. It's annoying. Get off Bill's back and start talking about the case.
I'd agree with you, if that was his only post.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1567581

The other thread he started made it very clear that he thought she'd been trained. I know that I, at least, was concentrating on his overall tone for both threads. I can't speak for AM.

[birdonawire]

I have friends that work on wards in hospitals with these type of sickos and they dont think they should be there wasting the tax payers money, they need to be planted 6 foot under.

This woman is evil and needs to be planted 6 foot under period.

[DLaw911]

That's a masterstroke of clarity and a great example of how not to trash a discussion.

Its over 300 words defining first degree murder.

This crime happened in Texas.
There is no first degree murder in Texas. The charge does not exist.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_Texas_define_1st_degree_murderYes there is first degree murder is Texas. If a person is convicted of murder he can try to prove the crime was second degree murder during the penalty phase. That fact that the code does not explicitly use words like "malice aforethought" and "first degree" is irrelevant since the terms are circumvented by their definitions.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
NOTE ADDED BY DLAW911-- (1), (2) and (3) constitute malice aforethought.(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:
(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman;
(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);
(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;
(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;
(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:
(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or
(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;
(6) the person:
(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this section or Section 19.02, murders another; or
(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;
(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
(8) the person murders an individual under six years of age; or
(9) the person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court.
(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.
(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense.
NOTE ADDED BY DLAW911 -- (1) through (9) are examples of "special circumstances."Added by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5317, ch. 977, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 44, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 652, Sec. 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 715, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 887, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 388, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 428 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/SB01791F.HTM), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.05 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.06 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 19.07 and amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

[sgtmac_46]

Seriouisly, I've been debating with myself for the last 10 minutes on if I should even post this. So fair warning... Do not scroll down if you can't handle what I'll phrase as "maternal cannibalism."























http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99MUM7O0&show_article=1




More at link.


Story says the mother doesn't have a lawyer yet. Now, I believe in the justice system. I believe in our Constitution. But I have to tell you, if I was a lawyer, a public defender, and I was instructed to defend this woman, I don't know if I could do it.

Don't worry........lawyers don't think like normal human beings. If it'll further their career or enrich them, they'll do anything........and pat themselves on the back the whole time for their contribution to humanity. ;)

[angelicmadrigal]

And here you are stuck on the word "training".
When someone opens a can of worms like that, it's not my problem.


Stop it. It's annoying. Get off Bill's back and start talking about the case.

First off,Ido NOT have to do anything you say. Second, I don't care if you're annoyed. And 3, no.

[Poisonshady313]

I'd agree with you, if that was his only post.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1567581

The other thread he started made it very clear that he thought she'd been trained. I know that I, at least, was concentrating on his overall tone for both threads. I can't speak for AM.

I would say he made it very clear that he thought she had premeditated this. I think "trained" is a word that angelic got wrongly hung up on as a misunderstanding to Bill's response to FreeRadical.

[Poisonshady313]

When someone opens a can of worms like that, it's not my problem. There was no can of worms. You misunderstood his post.

First off,Ido NOT have to do anything you say. Second, I don't care if you're annoyed. And 3, no.

Fine. Be stubbornly oblivious. Here I was trying to put to rest a several page long misunderstanding... but I guess you'd prefer to ask bill the same question over and over again instead of moving forward in a regular conversation.

Have fun.

[Mimiheart]

I would say he made it very clear that he thought she had premeditated this. I think "trained" is a word that angelic got wrongly hung up on as a misunderstanding to Bill's response to FreeRadical.Fair enough.

[DLaw911]

When someone opens a can of worms like that, it's not my problem.

First off,Ido NOT have to do anything you say. Second, I don't care if you're annoyed. And 3, no.Thanks for confusing this thread and wasting all of our time over a petty argument (with Bill Brown) that is totally irrelevant.

[mgifford]

Don't police departments have counselors to help officers deal with things like this? I just don't see how anyone could see something like this and keep it inside them and not talk to someone about it.

Counselors? Only if we kill someone. Other than that we just keep putting up with the different cases.

[notluzn]

She needs to be burned over and over and over again and then once shes awake, do it again. 5 years straight and then kill her

[DLaw911]

She needs to be burned over and over and over again and then once shes awake, do it again. 5 years straight and then kill herMaybe she watched "Night of the Living Dead" one time too many.

[BostonPatriot]

<snip>

Story says the mother doesn't have a lawyer yet. Now, I believe in the justice system. I believe in our Constitution. But I have to tell you, if I was a lawyer, a public defender, and I was instructed to defend this woman, I don't know if I could do it.Sick... Well my first gut reaction is to say that if I were the lawyer I'd be VERY tempted to delibarately lose the case...

[DLaw911]

Sick... Well my first gut reaction is to say that if I were the lawyer I'd be VERY tempted to delibarately lose the case...A lawyer would necessarily have a lot more facts at his or her disposal than we have for the purpose of this discussion.

Sometimes the only goal of the lawyer is to prevent the imposition of the death penalty. Some cases have little or no defense. The lawer's job is to ensure that justice is done fairly and within the law and that if the accused person get's a trial, it is a fair trial. That's really not difficult and the lawyer need not get wrapped up in the ugly facts since it's not his job to judge the client. If the lawyer cannot handle the case because of bias then he should recuse himself.

In my 31 years of law practice I have handled some pretty grusome cases. A few I had to pass on. The others I just did the best I could. I once defended a mother and son charged with manslaughter and elder abuse for allowing their parents to die of starvation in bed. The photos of the victims decaying and decomposing bodies made me so sick I threw up (and that's a lot considering I used to be a paramedic). That was 7-8 years ago and I still have nightmares over the photos. I had another case in which a drunk driver ran a red light at 90 mph and tore two pedestrians into 10 pieces. Arms here, legs there, head another place, torso's burst open. The photos were horrible. You never get used to it. Just ask any cop who posts here. The purpose of an attorney is to protect the interests of the client. In many cases the attorney cannot do anything to help his client.

[BostonPatriot]

I have friends that work on wards in hospitals with these type of sickos and they dont think they should be there wasting the tax payers money, they need to be planted 6 foot under.

This woman is evil and needs to be planted 6 foot under period.Now the ACLU would like to rehabilitate them. Personally, I'm OK with toastin' the scum in the electric chair. The way I see it, once they're dead, they have been rehabilitated: they will never commit another crime. That's one thing I like about Texas: victim' rights capital of the world!

[DLaw911]

Now the ACLU would like to rehabilitate them. Personally, I'm OK with toastin' the scum in the electric chair. The way I see it, once they're dead, they have been rehabilitated: they will never commit another crime. That's one thing I like about Texas: victim' rights capital of the world!That's not a function of the ACLU so you can forget that argument.

[BostonPatriot]

I only brought up the ACLU because (aside from all their other slime) they have a history of being more interested in the rights of convicted scum (I said convicted, those who have already been tried) than in the rights of law-abiding citizens. They have taken a stand against the death penalty.

Sometimes the only goal of the lawyer is to prevent the imposition of the death penalty. Some cases have little or no defense. The lawer's job is to ensure that justice is done fairly and within the law and that if the accused person get's a trial, it is a fair trial. That's really not difficult and the lawyer need not get wrapped up in the ugly facts since it's not his job to judge the client. If the lawyer cannot handle the case because of bias then he should recuse himself.But there are some lawyers who will use appeal after appeal, technicality after technicality, until they can get a conviction overturned. Or they will claim jury bias if they don't get the verdict they want.

[DLaw911]

I only brought up the ACLU because (aside from all their other slime) they have a history of being more interested in the rights of convicted scum (I said convicted, those who have already been tried) than in the rights of law-abiding citizens. They have taken a stand against the death penalty.

But there are some lawyers who will use appeal after appeal, technicality after technicality, until they can get a conviction overturned. Or they will claim jury bias if they don't get the verdict they want.Yes, as you said, even persons convicted of crimes have rights under the US and State constitutions. Some of those rights are due process of law, and the right to a fair trial by an impartial judge and jury.

And for your "convicted" slime statement, here is the ACLU's position regarding death inmates:
The administration of the death penalty is fraught with error and results in the conviction and execution of the innocent. To date, 135 death-row inmates have been exonerated in the modern death penalty era. Herman Lindsey became the 135th person exonerated from death row after the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict him and ordered his release. The most recent North Carolina exoneree was ACLU Capital Punishment Project client Levon "Bo" Jones, on May 2, 2008. Strong evidence has also emerged that seven men have been executed despite their innocence.Now keep in mind that BUT FOR modern advances in DNA testing many of those 135 innocent people would have been put to death. So what happens in cases where there is no DNA to test? The fact it DNA is only found in a small minority of cases. And of the people who were either sentenced to death, or convicted and given life sentences, MANY got there by most unreliable evidence on the planet, that is, the uncorroborated testimony of a single eye-witness who did not know the defendant.

[sisyphus]

Murder is murder.
The only time it can be accepted is in TRUE self defense.
Killing the innocent is wrong, no matter the state of mind.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesars. (her life)