G
Guest
Guest
From what I read it sounds like she is guilty, I would vote guilty.
Chrisl0 said:Well he is guilty and should pay somehow also. Not being put to death but punished. How do you leave a kid with a nut job like that?
GoingNova said:Sorry, I don't buy "she has to be crazy to do what she did" defense. You could apply that to any outrageous crime.
Slack with Me said:Negligible homicide? you're fishing now Anglo
Slack with Me said:This I have no idea what you are saying but far be it for me to ask.Did y'all know hahah we got a coutnry'un on our hands!
You surly do not mean this in all seriousness, right? He was living in the home. He was aware of her condition; he chose to ignore it; he should be charged.Anglo, so then anyone that's every been related to a person with a mental illness that has harmed someone has committed negligible homicide?
There was a child in this Province who was starved to death by his mother. His father worked all the time so he really didn't pay much attention to the condition of the kid. Both parents were charged with the child's death.
Rusty Yates should be charged.
There is nothing rational when dealing with a mental case. Nut bars are capable of anything.Yea he new she was at **** crazy, but no RATIONAL person could believe she would go to this extent.
bad_habit said:
This was going to be my point. Knowing how fragile her mental state actually was, would you actually leave your children alone with her? Sure his mother would come by every now and then... but here is a woman that repeatedly said how she would kill her own children and even herself. The husband, in my opinion, should be charged as an accomplice to this, because it was his stupidity that left the children in harms way. If someone is threatening to murder her own kids, maybe it is time to distance them for a while. (at least).
You bring up an interesting point about the husband. Let's just say for the sake of argument that he wanted to protect the children by not leaving them in his wife's care. With whom should he have left them? Someone in the family had to earn money so obviously he couldn't do it himself.ANGLOIRISH said:He is guilty of not protecting those children when he was fully aware of his wife's illness.
Hey bob, nice to see you back. How goes the battle?bob_gray said:You bring up an interesting point about the husband. Let's just say for the sake of argument that he wanted to protect the children by not leaving them in his wife's care. With whom should he have left them? Someone in the family had to earn money so obviously he couldn't do it himself.
A place to debate everything and anything!