rhino 0 #1 February 3, 2006 If I were her husband I would put a bullet in that bitch... First of all their would never have been a trial of that happened to my kids.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #2 February 3, 2006 no, rhino, she didn't "walk." Her guilty verdict was overturned by appeals, and she is scheduled to go back to court in March. Furthermore, because of the system, she was able to "bail out", and is now in a mental institution (where she belongs, frankly). Should she leave the institution, she will have violated her conditions of bail, bail will be revoked, and she will be back inside a prison while she awaits her next trial. Additionally, the State has withheld two charges of murder so that should a verdict go against them, they are able to slap new charges on her immediately (which bothers me a great deal, honestly). Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #3 February 3, 2006 Quote Additionally, the State has withheld two charges of murder so that should a verdict go against them, they are able to slap new charges on her immediately (which bothers me a great deal, honestly). I think it's a great move by the DA to get another shot at her without any double-jeopardy bullshit.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 3, 2006 yep, dodging the Constitution is great, isn't it? I thought you military guys swore an oath to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #5 February 3, 2006 Quoteyep, dodging the Constitution is great, isn't it? I thought you military guys swore an oath to it. I'd call it creatively working within the rules. Prosecutors have discretion. As long as it fits the letter of the law, it's fine. They're villified for creativity, but if defense counsel did it, they'd be praised at the ABA Christmas party.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #6 February 3, 2006 what is there about dodging the constitution saving a couple charges against her? Too bad people like her don't just do themselves in and let people that want to be here, be here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flynlois 0 #7 February 3, 2006 QuoteIf I were her husband I would put a bullet in that bitch... First of all their would never have been a trial of that happened to my kids.. Rhino The depths of understanding in this post is just incredible. You will not see me begging the court for mercy on this woman and for what she's done, but really... she's mentally ill. Should she ever be outside an institution? Probably not. Is she a bitch because she's crazy? Your answer there saddens me deeply, as does reactionary response to heart-wrenching situation involving a very disturbed woman. I really hope your family is spared from mental illness. I don't think you'll handle it well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #8 February 3, 2006 QuoteIf I were her husband I would put a bullet in that bitch... First of all their would never have been a trial of that happened to my kids.. Rusty Yates should've stood trial right along with her. He didn't commit the act, but he fostered the atmosphere that led to the act, and further, against the advice of the psychiatrist, encouraged her to get pregnant again and to stop taking the Haldol. Living on the bus helped to drive her over the edge. After they moved and she was on medication, she started acting well nigh normal again. It was the final pregnancy and the medical non-compliance that started the downward spiral which led to the killing of her children. And that can be laid right in the lap of her husband. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #9 February 3, 2006 QuoteAdditionally, the State has withheld two charges of murder so that should a verdict go against them, they are able to slap new charges on her immediately (which bothers me a great deal, honestly). Ciels- Michele You're correct. The prosecutors should not be able to string out the charges so that if one doesn't pan out for them, they can tie you up for the rest of your life in trials. What if a person was charged with 180 counts of mail fraud? Should the prosecution MALEVOLENTLY charge you ONE AT A TIME, and force you to hire a lawyer for 180 separate trials? How about if they charged you 18 times at a shot? If you got an acquittal each time, they could force you back into court (and likely into jail while you await each trial, if you can't afford bond) 9 more times. That is truly fucked up. But what's also fucked up is that a woman who was so whacked that she clearly did what she did (there is no question, folks, lack-of-guilty-verdict or not) is not mandated to be out of circulation for good, and that there is any possibility that she could be anywhere on her own without an armed guard keeping her on lockdown. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #10 February 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteyep, dodging the Constitution is great, isn't it? I thought you military guys swore an oath to it. I'd call it creatively working within the rules. That's bullshit. It's vindictive end-running around a person's right to a speedy trial. See my other post. If that happened to me, I would surely haul their fuckin' scumbag asses into the Supreme Court. If you have crimes to charge me with, fuckin' charge me with them and let me defend myself, win or lose. Metering out the charges one at a time so that you can force me back into court at tremendous expense over and over again, that's just a huge abuse by the government against the people. (Yes, a criminally accused person is still of "the people." Don't believe me? Then why are there always issues of whether a criminal's Constitutional rights have been violated? They still have rights, or we ALL don't.) --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #11 February 3, 2006 Andrea Yates isn't likely to be a repeat offender, as long as she doesn't have any more children. She should, however, be in a mental hospital for however long it takes her to recover, and have her meds monitered for the rest of her life. Medication works for her, as long as she takes it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #12 February 3, 2006 It was the final pregnancy and the medical non-compliance that started the downward spiral which led to the killing of her children. Bitches aint shit but trix's and hoes' Lyin an" cheatin is all they know. Alex crowley is the devil look it it people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #13 February 3, 2006 QuoteAndrea Yates isn't likely to be a repeat offender, as long as she doesn't have any more children. She should, however, be in a mental hospital for however long it takes her to recover, and have her meds monitered for the rest of her life. Medication works for her, as long as she takes it. Then if she were to be released, ever, would you - agree to a legal mandate for her to take her medications? (I'm not sure how that stands, legally. The government saying you MUST take pharmaceuticals? I guess it could be made a condition of release, and if she doesn't agree to it, well bitch I guess you stay locked up...) - agree to a legal PROHIBITION ON HER PROCREATING? That'd be a tough one to make a lot of people swallow, and there'd be protesters everywhere taking her side. But once again, I guess if it were a condition of release, she could always just say no to it and remain locked up. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #14 February 3, 2006 A parole board could probably do both, although I'm not sure how it would end up if she tried to take it to court (although, when one is let out on parole, they generally don't complain about it). I wouldn't have a problem with it, and honestly, I doubt she would either, since evidence seems to indicate that she resisted going off her meds and having another child, but was talked into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #15 February 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteyep, dodging the Constitution is great, isn't it? I thought you military guys swore an oath to it. I'd call it creatively working within the rules. That's bullshit. It's vindictive end-running around a person's right to a speedy trial. See my other post. If that happened to me, I would surely haul their fuckin' scumbag asses into the Supreme Court. If you have crimes to charge me with, fuckin' charge me with them and let me defend myself, win or lose. Metering out the charges one at a time so that you can force me back into court at tremendous expense over and over again, that's just a huge abuse by the government against the people. (Yes, a criminally accused person is still of "the people." Don't believe me? Then why are there always issues of whether a criminal's Constitutional rights have been violated? They still have rights, or we ALL don't.) - That psychotic cunt deserves a .45 ACP round point-blank to the base of her skull. Since that won't happen, I have no pity for her, and applaud all efforts of the Govt to keep her in the License Plate Academy until she fucking drops dead.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #16 February 3, 2006 Quote- agree to a legal PROHIBITION ON HER PROCREATING? That'd be a tough one to make a lot of people swallow, and there'd be protesters everywhere taking her side. But once again, I guess if it were a condition of release, she could always just say no to it and remain locked up. Can you imagine the can of worms that would open up. IMO I think some people should be legally prohibited from having kids, but thats a whole other post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #17 February 3, 2006 Quote(where she belongs, frankly) Frankly.. Any woman the murders her 5 children.. sick or not.. belongs in the electric chair.. She has no place breathing in my opinion.. She is an absolute, pathetic, guilty piece of shit.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #18 February 3, 2006 Quote It was the final pregnancy and the medical non-compliance that started the downward spiral which led to the killing of her children. Bullshit.. She chose to drown her children.. one by one.. chasing them down, pushing their little heads under the water until the life left their helpless bodies.. All you sick, sympathetic fucks are pathetic.. This cunt killed 5 children in cold blood. She is a cunt.. Bottom line.. She was convicted of murder by a jury.. She diserved nothing less than death.. You people are defending that cunt.. Who is thinking about those children..??? I am......... Fuck her... Think about the kids.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #19 February 3, 2006 QuoteThat psychotic cunt deserves a .45 ACP round point-blank to the base of her skull. Since that won't happen, I have no pity for her, and applaud all efforts of the Govt to keep her in the License Plate Academy until she fucking drops dead. Thank God.. A fellow sane person in this forum.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flynlois 0 #20 February 3, 2006 Again, I hope you or ex never experience first hand the horror of mental illness. This isn't about forgetting about the children. None of us have forgotten the children. It just makes me sad that you can't see past your anger and instead stoop to using such abominable language. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #21 February 3, 2006 Are you looking for justice?... Or just some sort of vicarious revenge? Legal punishments, even capital punishment is designed as a deterrent. Unfortunately, if someone isn't sane then they can't make a sane judgement! Hopefully the court will make a proper investigation to determine the facts of this case & her sanity... Hopefully the court case WON'T degenerate into some point-scoring-farce to further some lawyers' future political career! As for the prosecution holding 2 cases back in case they lose, that is reprehensible and suggests that the prosecutor is already playing at politics - he certainly isn't upholding the law. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #22 February 3, 2006 QuoteAgain, I hope you or ex never experience first hand the horror of mental illness. People don't deserve the death penalty just because they are, through no fault of their own, stricken with mental illness. When that illness causes them to be a tremendous danger to those around them, they need to be removed from society. Permanently. Whether that would be by imprisonment or execution is open for discussion. QuoteThis isn't about forgetting about the children. None of us have forgotten the children. No? Seemed so to me, too. Everyone making such a hubbub about how unfair it is to treat a mentally ill murderer AS a murderer... --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flynlois 0 #23 February 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteAgain, I hope you or ex never experience first hand the horror of mental illness. People don't deserve the death penalty just because they are, through no fault of their own, stricken with mental illness. When that illness causes them to be a tremendous danger to those around them, they need to be removed from society. Permanently. Whether that would be by imprisonment or execution is open for discussion. QuoteThis isn't about forgetting about the children. None of us have forgotten the children. No? Seemed so to me, too. Everyone making such a hubbub about how unfair it is to treat a mentally ill murderer AS a murderer... - She killed her children. When was that ever debated here? Were her actions somehow influenced by a mental illness? Undeniable. Should she be removed from "normal" society because of her history? Absolutely. Is she a "cunt" who deserves a bullet in the head? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #24 February 3, 2006 QuoteIs she a "cunt" who deserves a bullet in the head? No. You've opened that right up for someone to suggest "drowning." --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #25 February 3, 2006 QuoteAndrea Yates isn't likely to be a repeat offender, as long as she doesn't have any more children. She should, however, be in a mental hospital for however long it takes her to recover, and have her meds monitered for the rest of her life. Medication works for her, as long as she takes it. I would not feel comfortable with her living in a non-institutionalized environment ...unless it were after a long period (years) of institutional evaluation and treatment. Seems there is a societal tendency to understand and forgive women who break the law.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
