Woman calls 911, says she strangled autistic children

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Or are you saying that men shouldn't have the right to leave their wives and children to start a new life for themselves when they feel their marriage is broken?

Wives sure, children never. Absent fathers are a major cause of the juvenile related problems in this country and the idea that a man can just abandon his own children because they get in the way of his enjoyment of life contributes to it. I can think of few things that would make me respect a man any less.

Oh and you might learn a little respect for your fellow forum members too. Platapus doesn't deserve it.

Originally Posted by August

Wives sure, children never. Absent fathers are a major cause of the juvenile related problems in this country

Maybe women should think about this before initiated divorce at a ratio of 8 to 2! Not to mention that 90% of divorce is in regards to "financial" reasons. Basically the two numbers tells me that if the guy isn't making enough money to please her - she's done with him despite what's in the best interests of their children.

and the idea that a man can just abandon his own children because they get in the way of his enjoyment of life contributes to it. I can think of few things that would make me respect a man any less.

Are men not allowed to be free citizens too? You seem to want to blame men for all the problems in the relationship. What if he was being abused by his wife? Dude, a forced and unhealthy relationship would be a lot worse for everybody in that household - kids included.

Women just abort children when they feel they are going to be in the way of their own lives. Men don't have that sort of selfish luxury so men are forced into a lifestyle of whatever women choose to do with their bodies. So don't blame a man for leaving a relationship that he wasn't happy with just because some woman wanted to have kids with him to entrap him into a relationship with her. If the relationship isn't going to work for him then it's not going to work for anyone period. That's worse for the kids and the woman then having him around by far. I've also seen quite a few women abandon their kids to their ex and run off to shack up with another man. It goes both ways.

Men who kill children usually do it because of sexual mental disorders that were developed by childhood abuse they suffered themselves. Women usually kill children because of greed and selfishness because the kids were in the way of the new lifestyle they were perusing.

Recently there was a woman who divorced her husband and married another guy she had been cheating on her first husband with. She had won custody of her son, despite her ex husbands pleas to the court that she wasn't stable. Then, she and her new lover killed the boy and got married in the same day. I think the new lover beat her son to death in front of her and she did nothing to stop him. She encouraged him to kill her son. Then they buried the boy in a bag along the side of a cliff. Then she felt guilty and turned herself and her new husband over to the authorities.

There was also that woman in Florida that killed her own daughter because she wanted to go clubbing and hook up with guys. She was afraid that no guy would want her if they knew she had a kid already. Haven't heard much about her case in awhile though. I hope some female inmate killed her in prison.

Oh and you might learn a little respect for your fellow forum members too. Platapus doesn't deserve it.

BTW.. Maybe Platapus should be a little more respectful and not so sexist with his "blame the guy" attitude. Like I said before, it goes both ways.

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

BTW.. Maybe Platapus should be a little more respectful and not so sexist with his "blame the guy" attitude. Like I said before, it goes both ways.

He wasn't being nearly as sexist as you're being. For every example you post I could dig up another that shows the father to be the bad parent.

Bottom line here is that your children are still your children no matter what and if you abandon them just because you chose your women poorly then you aren't much of a father, or a man, in my book.

The death penalty?

Indeed, execute the insane...sounds nice doesn't it

At this time in the US, I'm pro death penalty for one reason, "life" doesn't always mean "life." If the murderer can ever get out for any reason (other than an overturned conviction, obviously), then I'd rather they be executed.

Hmmmmm...what use is an overturned conviction after execution?

In this case 0% is certainly possible.

Nope, think about it

hope she gets her f-ing head chopped off personally!

OK thorn , you earlier claimed you was in law enforcementwhich means you are on the loose with a gun....have you reported yourself for detention yet or has any of your family?
It C
certainly sounds like a section case.

Maybe women should think about this

County mountie with a failed marriage by any chance?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Indeed, execute the insane...sounds nice doesn't it

If someone is such a psycho they cannot help but murder---say a pedo who murders---then I have zero problem executing the insane.

Hmmmmm...what use is an overturned conviction after execution?

Sigh.

My point was that I want either death, or LIFE in jail (if the perp is insane, the "jail" can be an equally secure mental facility, but the term still needs to be "life.")

Since we do not have that in the US---people get let out early, or in the case of insanity, they can be released because they are "well"---I favor the DP. My entire point regarding a proper life term, was that it prevents accidental deaths. Note that no one goes to the DP in the US without a full set of appeals---THAT is when it would have been overturned.

Nope, think about it

If they are locked up in some facility for life, they cannot kill again---except other patients/convicts. Given their secure environment this is far less likely. Also, if they kill another murderer... I won't lose sleep.


BTW, if you mix quotes, attribute them, you made it look like I wrote some of that tripe.

BTW, if you mix quotes, attribute them, you made it look like I wrote some of that tripe.

Sorry tater, I didn't mean to associate you with that tripe.

If someone is such a psycho they cannot help but murder---say a pedo who murders---then I have zero problem executing the insane.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if someone is insane then they are innocent as they are unnaccountable for their action ain't they.....so would this mean executing the "innocent"?

My point was that I want either death, or LIFE in jail (if the perp is insane, the "jail" can be an equally secure mental facility, but the term still needs to be "life.")

So you would indeed be satisfied with the thing people objected to.

Since we do not have that in the US---people get let out early, or in the case of insanity, they can be released because they are "well"---I favor the DP.

So because yo have doubts about the legal and medical system being able to do their job to a satisfactory level you favour them just killing so its over and done with?
wind that back a bit...because they can't ensure they do their job properly they should just kil so they don't have the chance to do their job either correctly or incorrectly.

If they are locked up in some facility for life, they cannot kill again---except other patients/convicts.

Apart from the fact that patients and convists are not the only people exposed doesn't that put a rather negative turn on your arguement?
Are you saying people with mental health issues can be murdered by a nutcase and it would be Ok as they are only a patient or are you saying that someone in prison for non payment of a traffic ticket can simply be killed as they are a convict.

It was mentioned earlier the problems of dealing in absolutes wasn't it.
That was illustrated before with a statement by Aramike that frankly can only be described as ludicrous.

Originally Posted by August

He wasn't being nearly as sexist as you're being. For every example you post I could dig up another that shows the father to be the bad parent.

Bottom line here is that your children are still your children no matter what and if you abandon them just because you chose your women poorly then you aren't much of a father, or a man, in my book.

How the hell am I being sexist here? Just because I think that blaming the father in this case (where the woman self admitted to killing her own kids) is wrong!? WTF man!?

Like I said, 40+ years of man-hating feminism and social engineering has apparently brainwashed people into finding fault with a man - even in cases like this where a woman self admits to committing the crime.

Sure, males generally commit more crimes than women but the statistics of women in the US committing major crimes (especially against children and men) is alarming and has been drastically growing over the past 40+ years coincidentally enough. Statistics of major crime committed by males on the other hand has been steadily dropping over the past 40+ years. Probably has something to do with all the promoting of girls to be more like boys and boys to be more like girls that's been going on during the last 3 decades - that and an increase in drug and alcohol abuse by women.

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

How the hell am I being sexist here? Just because I think that blaming the father in this case (where the woman self admitted to killing her own kids) is wrong!? WTF man!?

And where was the father? Why was dumping them at his door not an option for this woman? Why do you think that he's not in the wrong here?

Like I said, 40+ years of man-hating feminism and social engineering has apparently brainwashed people into finding fault with a man - even in cases like this where a woman self admits to committing the crime.

Uh, huh, well murderer though she may be, you can't blame feminism for your shirkers attitude that it's ok to just walk out on your own kids because you have a right to be a "free citizen".

[conus00]

Originally Posted by tater

...I'm fine with life in prison with no parole instead of the death penalty...

Can I ask you why?
She clearly took two (young) lives and confessed to it. Why would you settle for life in prison? I'm not sure what that would achieve?
She will never be 100% reliable not do do it again. Just get rid of her (and other people like her).
I am, in general, aware of the setbacks of capital punishment but she DID do it and I don't see any reason why she should be kept in heated/air-conditioned environment, fed three meals a day, have her laundry done etc. for the rest of her life out of your and my pocket...

She's SICK? Are you f---ing kidding me? It's not like she has flu and it's gonna go away after few pills...

IMO the society grew way too soft to deal with this kind of crime....

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by conus00

Can I ask you why?
She clearly took two (young) lives and confessed to it. Why would you settle for life in prison? I'm not sure what that would achieve?
She will never be 100% reliable not do do it again. Just get rid of her (and other people like her).
I am, in general, aware of the setbacks of capital punishment but she DID do it and I don't see any reason why she should be kept in heated/air-conditioned environment, fed three meals a day, have her laundry done etc. for the rest of her life out of your and my pocket...

She's SICK? Are you f---ing kidding me? It's not like she has flu and it's gonna go away after few pills...

IMO the society grew way too soft to deal with this kind of crime....

That or maybe society has come to the conclusion that executing the mentally ill who are incapable of being responsible for the crime(s) they committed is morally wrong. That the crimes were effectively committed more by accident then by malicious design.

As for the woman being a danger in the future, its hard to say and depends on why it happened and what mental illness(es) she may have. I suspect she does not represent a danger to others if my theory is correct. If the root cause of her actions was environmentally triggered, then the chances of a repeat are improbable unless put in similar circumstances.

Originally Posted by August

And where was the father? Why was dumping them at his door not an option for this woman? Why do you think that he's not in the wrong here?

Because father's don't have a right to abort out of child raising like women do. If a man doesn't want children he has to rely on a thin piece of latex and a woman's word that she's on BC. Women have an after pregnancy option to abort unwanted children. This woman wanted her children at one point and then snuffed them out when they didn't come out completely perfect to her expectations.

BTW, I'm against abortion 110% because I feel that it rewards irresponsible people and I think it's murder in the eyes of God. The government and their laws are not higher than his. But so long as abortion is considered ethical and legal in the government's eyes, I feel that males deserve some sort of after pregnancy rights as well.

Right now, the current law requires men to be the sole responsible ones to ensure unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen and this is just wrong. Women should be equally responsible in preventing unwanted pregnancy BEFORE spreading their legs open for some guy they don't want to have a baby with.

The current law also allows women to entrap men into an 18+ years of difficult financial relationship that is usually very bitter and usually not what's going to be in the best interest of the child since the father and the mother are going to be fighting over the phone all the time.

I believe males should have "opt out" rights equivalent to women's abortion rights. "Opt out" rights for males should exempt them from child raising/support so long as it's filed PRIOR to the birth of the child. Males should be given just as much time in deciding if "opting out" is what they want to do - on par with the maximum length of time women are given to make a determination if abortion is what they want to do. This would still give women their "choice" of either having the baby or aborting it but would also give men an equal "choice" to protect their own selfish self interests all the same.

you can't blame feminism for your shirkers attitude that it's ok to just walk out on your own kids because you have a right to be a "free citizen".

Then you can't blame the man for not being there to protect the kids that he didn't want - or what's more likely - the kids she didn't want him to have custody of.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Then you can't blame the man for not being there to protect the kids that he didn't want - or what's more likely - the kids she didn't want him to have custody of.

The last time I checked, it takes two to procreate. Yes, the man is responsible as well.

[August]

Originally Posted by thorn69

If a man doesn't want children he has to rely on a thin piece of latex and a woman's word that she's on BC.

No he doesn't. He could of course actually refrain from having sex with a woman that he has no intention of marrying.

Of course that wouldn't jive with your sexist idea that it's always the womans fault for "spreading her legs" right?