I can't believe she's out!

[hotfarmboy1]

I feel terrible when my own daughter tells me she's hungry. I can't imagine denying her food....or anything else for that matter. I'd go hungry if it meant that she'd have a full belly. Maybe there should be a breeding license....

If I had kids this is exactly how I'd be too. I wouldn't care so much if I were hungry as long as my kids had food on their plate.


I just can't stomach how anyone, let alone a woman could do something like this. I hope they prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law and she gets what's coming to her. That is absolutely sickening and I'm afraid of what I'd do if I ever met her.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

she said she had no money for a doctors visit but she posted 15 grand for bail, rediculous.

whats sad is that i think after the incident where her husband beat the child and left him a vegetable she didnt want him anymore.

Well, I don't know about that.. I would guess she used a bail bondsman, but I definitely feel it is too low.

Shall I go off on a rant about favoritism towards women concerning legal matters involving children? Hmm... thinking... thinking... Meh. I shall wait.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I know he was expecting that. I was giving him a hard time because he expected me to be one of those people.

I can expect a hard time from my comment. But I am truly sick and tired of effing criminals being given a free pass; And Im sick of people making execuses for disgusting actions.


This lady doesnt deserve a trial. I had to edit my post, because what I thought I said was too aggressive.

That women, and appearantly the husband dont need a DAMN trial.

They need to be dragged out of the jailhouse, and made an example of.


She appearantly didnt care for a her son.... Her husband obviously didnt care... And certain people love to defend these cowards, as if they are worth the dog crap I scrape off my boots.

LashicoN, this isnt directed at you, or anyone else in particular, it's for everyone.
We need to push away from the mentality that a criminal is worthy of rights; Rights he never afforded the victim.


I say I dont give money, Hornydel can attest to this.. I'd give money to ensure that child to live.


Laws dont protect innocent people; They protect criminals from people like me.

 

[beararms1776]

I can't believe she's out on wreckless homicide on $1,500. That pos scum that calls himself a Dad only has 5 yrs. That means 2.5 yrs. he will be out. The kid was fine until they beat him and starved him. Is this who are courts favor know. There's guys in there with non-violent offenses doing more time.

 

[lashicoN]

Laws dont protect innocent people; They protect criminals from people like me.

This is a great line. I'm going to have to ponder on it for a while.

As for the rest of your post. The human in me agrees with you. Make an example out of them. Can't handle kids? Don't birth them. If you do birth them and starve them, this is what is going to happen to you.

But...the American in me cannot agree. We are a nation of laws, laws that are supposed to be equal. As Americans, they have a right to a fair trial.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

This is a great line. I'm going to have to ponder on it for a while.

As for the rest of your post. The human in me agrees with you. Make an example out of them. Can't handle kids? Don't birth them. If you do birth them and starve them, this is what is going to happen to you.

But...the American in me cannot agree. We are a nation of laws, laws that are supposed to be equal. As Americans, they have a right to a fair trial.

A child was brain damaged from a punk *** boy playing man, playing daddy.

A child is dead because a girl didnt have money for the child... Let him starve.


No trial is needed. They DO NOT DESERVE RIGHTS AS A CRIMINAL.

They are entitled to only as much rights as they allowed they're blessing, a gift.


I would love to meet the Father... I would not mind throwing 2.5 of my life away to brain damage him, or his wife.


Edit: LashicoN, I sure hope you fight for my rights if Society continues to tread this way. Where the Innocent and lawful cannot be protected. Where the criminal element is afforded more than what they give to they're victims.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

No, I'll play.

So, does not this individual have a right to bail?

Do we not want to ensure that she is legally convicted before we decide the sentence?

Article 1, section 17 of the Indiana Constitution:

Offenses, other than murder or treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason shall not be bailable, when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.

So the answer is no, she is not entitled to bail.

 

[E5RANGER375]

if we didnt have a welfare system, then stupid B****es like her would eventualy weed themselves out and starve to death. too many stupid and insane people are encouraged to breed in this country by treating them as equals and working for them. I hope she kills herself while she is out.

 

[hornadylnl]

I can expect a hard time from my comment. But I am truly sick and tired of effing criminals being given a free pass; And Im sick of people making execuses for disgusting actions.


This lady doesnt deserve a trial. I had to edit my post, because what I thought I said was too aggressive.

That women, and appearantly the husband dont need a DAMN trial.

They need to be dragged out of the jailhouse, and made an example of.


She appearantly didnt care for a her son.... Her husband obviously didnt care... And certain people love to defend these cowards, as if they are worth the dog crap I scrape off my boots.

LashicoN, this isnt directed at you, or anyone else in particular, it's for everyone.
We need to push away from the mentality that a criminal is worthy of rights; Rights he never afforded the victim.


I say I dont give money, Hornydel can attest to this.. I'd give money to ensure that child to live.


Laws dont protect innocent people; They protect criminals from people like me.

I can attest to what? I can't make sense of the gibberish that I'm supposed to be attesting to.

 

[308jake]

This is a great line. I'm going to have to ponder on it for a while.

As for the rest of your post. The human in me agrees with you. Make an example out of them. Can't handle kids? Don't birth them. If you do birth them and starve them, this is what is going to happen to you.

But...the American in me cannot agree. We are a nation of laws, laws that are supposed to be equal. As Americans, they have a right to a fair trial.

The c@@@ should be stripped of her "American" rights for violating that little child's right to live.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Ohhhh Jake..... You do not know how wrong you are..... People who violate other peoples Rights, deserve to have rights....... I guess that's some new form of American ideology.


Sounds like liberalism has perverted America beyond belief, thank a Neocon.

 

[sj kahr k40]

Article 1, section 17 of the Indiana Constitution:

Offenses, other than murder or treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason shall not be bailable, when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.

So the answer is no, she is not entitled to bail.

Except she wasn't charged with murder, she was charged with reckless homicide which is a bailable charge.

 

[Bill of Rights]

A child was brain damaged from a punk *** boy playing man, playing daddy.

A child is dead because a girl didnt have money for the child... Let him starve.


No trial is needed. They DO NOT DESERVE RIGHTS AS A CRIMINAL.

They are entitled to only as much rights as they allowed they're blessing, a gift.


I would love to meet the Father... I would not mind throwing 2.5 of my life away to brain damage him, or his wife.


Edit: LashicoN, I sure hope you fight for my rights if Society continues to tread this way. Where the Innocent and lawful cannot be protected. Where the criminal element is afforded more than what they give to they're victims.

The problem with your stated opinions, NHV, is that unless the rights of EVERYONE are recognized, the rights of NO ONE have meaning. It's easy to recognize the rights of the people we like.

My earliest memory of this dichotomy was 1977 and/or 1978, when I was made aware that "the Nazis are marching in Skokie, IL". I was not yet a teenager, but the question occurred to me then of "Why are they allowed to do that?" and the answer was forthcoming: If we deny them the right to speak, who will be next to deny us that same right? So yes, even the worst among us MUST be recognized as having rights.

The question has been asked in this thread "Who would defend this POS?" and the answer is again, simple: Someone who thinks the rule of law is far more important than the POS he or she is standing up to represent in court. Again, if the right to have an attorney to speak for you is denied to one, it is not then a right.

Let me be crystal clear here: I am NOT in any way, shape, or form defending someone who has been accused of doing what the comments in this thread indicate. Those comments alone have been enough to convince me not to read that article, and I don't plan to do so. I've seen the worst of society and I don't like it or want any more to do with it than I've had so far-I'm certainly not going to go looking for it. From the sound of it, she needs to receive a fair trial and if (read: when) she is found guilty, she needs punished in the most severe way legally permissible. You notice I said if (when). I did so intentionally. Her trial is to be fair. She must have the same chance to present her evidence or at least her defense, if she has one, thus, "if". Based on what I've seen here, the chance of her presenting a successful defense is minimal at best. Thus, when all the evidence is heard, my prediction is that she will be found guilty.

It is not the slimeball who is accused here that I defend, but the unequaled necessity of the law being unmitigatingly, unabashedly fair. Over the Supreme Court building's entrance is the phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". It must be no more harshly applied to one nor any less applicable to another or it means nothing.

THAT is why some people enter the practice of law and work as defense attorneys. Lord knows no one's making bank on this case.

I don't like their clients, but I am awestruck by anyone who can put his disgust aside enough to defend a (rude phrase self-censored) like this and actually give her the best possible defense he can mount. I know I could not do so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mike8170]

The prosecutor must be a fracking (don't want the BANHAMMMER) moron, how is starving a child "reckless homocide". It is definately meditated. Just goes to prove a prosecutor is nothing more than a politician, therefore they can be incompetent.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Except she wasn't charged with murder, she was charged with reckless homicide which is a bailable charge.

The question wasn't whether the charges were correct. It was if bail was appropriate. In my mind, based upon news reports, it was murder, which is not bailable. So either the prosecutor doesn't have enough evidence to charge murder yet or is pandering to some interest group.

 

[beararms1776]

I would love to meet the Father... I would not mind throwing 2.5 of my life away to brain damage him, or his wife.

Easy know NHV. I wouldnt go that far. It will take care of itself.

 

[dross]

I'm all for taking away people's rights. I just want to do it after they're convicted of something. You see, there's a concept called "innocent unti proven guilty." That concept doesn't just protect scumbags, it protects people who are actually innocent. The problem with protecting the innocent is that you must afford the guilty the same process. Why? Because you don't know yet if they're guilty.

Do you see? Or maybe all we need to do is put a paragraph up on INGO and you guys can all decide which people are guilty enough that we can ignore the process.

It amazes me that I have to explain this. Big, steaming, stinking pile of fail.

 

[lashicoN]

I never understood why so many people call for the abolishment of the Second Amendment after a shooting. It's because passion takes over and people lose their senses.

We've had two cases this week. A case where police enticed perverts to come to a house where they believe children would be to have sex with them and now we have this case. An idiot mother starved her 4 year old to death.

With these two very disturbing cases, we have outcry from a group that specializes in protecting a certain right (The 2nd Amendment) to abolish, first the 8th Amendment so that we can torture to death the pedophiles, and now we have outcry to abolish both the 5th and 6th Amendment so that we can just skip the fair, speedy trial, skip due process of the law and simply execute her.

I understand why people clamber for the abolishment of the Bill of Rights. I can't say this without sounding like a jerk, but when you're calling for three of my Rights to be thrown away, I should treat you three times worse than the liberal morons from Chicago who call for my 2nd Amendment right to be taken away. People clamber for the abolishment of our Bill of Rights because they are either cowards or fools. The document is pure, while our justice system may not be. The Rights are NOT the problem.

As Dross pointed out, you can't throw everyone's rights away at the moment the government says you're a criminal and you're under arrest. We have to have a fair trial and one must be found guilty first.

 

[308jake]

Honesty, I am for COTUS, due process and rights of individuals, but I believe anyone who harms a child should not be allowed to bail out and should have an early court date.

Now as a father, I would love to have the woman, boyfriend, a rubber hose, some sand and myself locked in a room for a day or so.

The fact she bailed out already, makes me question more than I already do our pathetic judicial system

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

You guys are incredible.

The father is responsible for killing the child mentally..... He only serving 5 years? Out in 2.5 as pointed out.

NO JUSTCE SERVED AT ALL; America has NOT PROVEN HER glorious ideal of liberty, unless ofcourse you are a POS baby beating criminal.

The Mother is DIRECTLY responsible for her child dying; A slow and undoubtedly very painful death.

MY DAUGHTER HAS NOT weighed 12lb since she was a new born, but a 4 year old Child.

SHE DOES NOT NEED TO BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. THE FACTS ARE THERE, AND I HATE THE THOUGHT OF HER LIVING A SECOND LONGER.


SHE WILL PROBABLY GET OFF WITH SOME INSANITY PLEA, OR SOME BS LIKE THE COP WHO KILLED THE MOTORCYCLIST.

Crimes are always committed, and thanks to American justice system, criminals go free, live and continue.


I am reminded that once again, innocent people have only as much rights as the criminal gives them.
That once the law is brought into te equation, I can fully expect delusional people to SUPPORT THAT CRIMINALS RIGHTS.