Remind me why this guy should live .

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:08 am

Necrophiliac belatedly lands in prison

Cooper convicted in 2003 of mutilating girl’s corpse but initially got probation

By BEAU YARBROUGH Staff Writer

December 31, 2007 - 12:35AM

Four years after he pleaded guilty to the act, Donald Luis Cooper is now in prison for having sex with the corpse of a 4-year-old girl.

In February 2003, Cooper, 32, and his girlfriend, Chaunee Marie Helm, 30, were working for All-County Transportation, driving bodies from Victor Valley Community Hospital to the county morgue in San Bernardino.

Security cameras in the morgue captured Cooper sexually assaulting the body of Robyn Gillett, an Adelanto girl who had died of the flu. Helm served as a lookout.

But Cooper was not charged with necrophilia because it wasn’t illegal at the time. He pleaded guilty to mutilating grave remains and received a suspended two-year prison sentence.

If he kept his nose clean for the five years of his probation, he wouldn’t have to serve any additional jail time beyond the time he spent waiting for trial.

But it didn’t work out that way.

On December 3, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deputies were called to a house on the 7700 block of Victor Avenue in Hesperia. Witnesses had spotted three small children playing in the street outside.

Deputy Jeff Farrar arrived at the house and found the children’s mother, Angel Rice, 27, inside, along with her five children, ranging in age from 2 to 10 years old.

In total, there were seven children, four adults and 31 animals in the three-bedroom house, all in “extremely unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions, according to a sheriff’s department news release. Child Protective Services and Hesperia Code Enforcement were called to the house, which was full of trash and feces.

“There were animal feces and urine on the floor, in the children’s room, the living room, said Code Enforcement Supervisor Tony Genovesi. “There were feces on the wall. The odor was terrible. ... Any time you have animals that are defecating inside the house and urinating inside the house, the odor’s pretty bad.

One of the four adults arrested was Cooper, now 37, Rice’s boyfriend. He was charged with seven counts of willful cruelty to a child with the possibility of injury or death. Eight days later, those charges were dismissed and he pleaded no contest to a single count of cruelty to animals.

That violated Cooper's probation, and his two-year prison sentence was reinstated.

“Based on that, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two years in prison, with credit for 351 days he had served in the past, said Supervising Deputy District Attorney Gary Roth.

Factoring in the 235 days he served in jail while awaiting trial and 116 days’ credit for good conduct, Cooper will serve a maximum of 379 days of his two-year term.

“He basically has about another year to go in prison, Roth said.

Cooper will serve out his sentence at the California Institution for Men in Chino. He will be released by December 24, 2008, but could be out sooner with good behavior.

“The guy shouldn’t be around children, said Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, who sponsored legislation making necrophilia a crime.

She’s now working on increasing the penalties for necrophilia to a maximum of eight years in prison. The revised statute, if approved, will also require people convicted of the crime to register as a sex offender.

“He should be registered as a sex offender right now, she said.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:06 am

Basically, he shouldn't.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:19 am

That is one messed up story all the way around.

One of the four adults arrested was Cooper, now 37, Rice’s boyfriend. He was charged with seven counts of willful cruelty to a child with the possibility of injury or death. Eight days later, those charges were dismissed and he pleaded no contest to a single count of cruelty to animals.
Not only should he have been locked up in the first place, the seven charges should have stuck AND the charge of animal cruelty.

Security cameras in the morgue captured Cooper sexually assaulting the body of Robyn Gillett, an Adelanto girl who had died of the flu. Helm served as a lookout.

She needs locked up and away from children too.

Remind you why he should live? I can't think of a darn reason.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:06 am

ewwwww. Absolutely hideous, although i still dont believe in capital punishment, there are some completely sick in the head people out there.

horrid

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:23 am

You seem quite incapable of distinguishing harm from mere unsavoury nastiness pants. I'm not even slightly surprised.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:36 am

spot;752705 wrote: You seem quite incapable of distinguishing harm from mere unsavoury nastiness pants. I'm not even slightly surprised.

I gotta tell ya quite honestly that had that dead child been mine, I would be serving out a sentence for murder.... assuming anyone could be found willing to judge me guilty.

Simply as a side note here: The last sentence of yours is kinda outa line, don't you think? Come to think of it, the whole thing? Kinda 'stirring'? Kinda directed at her personally? How about you go out for a brisk walk and make leaving pants alone for the day a new years resolution?

Try and just address the thread topic, without the personal digs?

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:50 am

ata the risk of stirring up an argument, i cant see that he hurt any children.Yes they lived in an unclean house, with many animals and they should maybe have cleaned up.But i cant see that he hit any children.

The issue with the dead body is seperate.The fact that it was a 4 year old child is disturbing, as is the fact that she was dead.The family of that child would rightly be outraged at such a desecration.

But coming back to the perpetrator, i would say he is ill and needs help.Our society says that such an act is wrong and rightly so in my opinion, but i think that the disgust at the act has precluded any thought of the mans mental state when he did this.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:58 am

grh;752707 wrote: How about you go out for a brisk walk and make leaving pants alone for the day a new years resolution?

Try and just address the thread topic, without the personal digs?

I'm waiting for a car to take me to a funeral actually.

The basic law is do no harm. I can't see the slightest hint in the OP that the guy's harmed anyone.

Harm is lying about evidence in order to garner public support for going to war, for example.

Harm is putting people in jail and then not providing for their safety, knowing that there's dangerous people jailed in close proximity.

Give me a clue what harm he's done. What's indicated in the OP is a breach of cultural norms, not harm. Pants asks in the title of the thread "why this guy should live"? She's certifiable.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:13 am

lemon_and_mint;752714 wrote: At the risk of stirring up an argument, i cant see that he hurt any children.Yes they lived in an unclean house, with many animals and they should maybe have cleaned up.But i cant see that he hit any children.

The issue with the dead body is separate.The fact that it was a 4 year old child is disturbing, as is the fact that she was dead.The family of that child would rightly be outraged at such a desecration.

But coming back to the perpetrator, i would say he is ill and needs help.Our society says that such an act is wrong and rightly so in my opinion, but i think that the disgust at the act has precluded any thought of the mans mental state when he did this.

I don't think you are stirring up an argument over anything but the topic offered up for discussion. That can only be good, IMO:-6

I'm not one of those 'everyone can be helped and deserves another shot(at possibly 'my' kid) next time' folks. It's society's obsession with curing every frickin' waste of breath out there that has left the deserving mental health problems in society without focus, IMO.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:16 am

The basic law is do no harm. I can't see the slightest hint in the OP that the guy's harmed anyone.

Can you tell me, honestly, if this were your child, that the guy harmed noone?

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:20 am

grh;752717 wrote: I don't think you are stirring up an argument over anything but the topic offered up for discussion. That can only be good, IMO:-6

I'm not one of those 'everyone can be helped and deserves another shot(at possibly 'my' kid) next time' folks. It's society's obsession with curing every frickin' waste of breath out there that has left the deserving mental health problems in society without focus, IMO.

I'm not sure though that this deserves a death sentence, which is what the debate is about.

Maybe he should be taken to a place and locked up for a year with help given for his mental state, and reassessed.On the understanding that any repeat would be an instant death sentence.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:27 am

lemon_and_mint;752721 wrote: I'm not sure though that this deserves a death sentence, which is what the debate is about.

Maybe he should be taken to a place and locked up for a year with help given for his mental state, and reassessed.On the understanding that any repeat would be an instant death sentence.

Then we're giving him and everyone else out there a free pass 'once' aren't we? I much prefer giving the 'free pass' to whoever makes sure he can't ever get to anyone I love. That's the person I'm willing to offer counseling too.

And don't get me wrong here L&M - that woman who stood 'lookout'.... bye, bye you piece of crap! Total waste of breath!

lemon_and_mint · Post by **lemon_and_mint** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:30 am

grh;752724 wrote: Then we're giving him and everyone else out there a free pass 'once' aren't we? I much prefer giving the 'free pass' to whoever makes sure he can't ever get to anyone I love. That's the person I'm willing to offer counseling too.

And don't get me wrong here L&M - that woman who stood 'lookout'.... bye, bye you piece of crap! Total waste of breath!

yes i cant understand why someone would stand lookout knowing that was he planned.

I think though that if you make this a death sentence, you also open the doors for other crimes to carry the death sentence - you may disagree -

for example, in a burglary, nobody got harmed ususally, exceot that it causes great psychological harm, as in the case we are discussing.but we dont out burglars to death.

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:05 am

You want to be reminded why he should live - explain to me exactly why he should die..............

He deserves to be registered as a sex offender, he should never have contact with children again and he deserves punishment for his crimes - but to say he deserves to die - no.

He has committed an appalling catalogue of crimes but no child has died at his hands.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:34 am

Imladris;752727 wrote: You want to be reminded why he should live - explain to me exactly why he should die..............

He deserves to be registered as a sex offender, he should never have contact with children again and he deserves punishment for his crimes - but to say he deserves to die - no.

He has committed an appalling catalogue of crimes but no child has died at his hands.

I think both he and the female should die because they think it is 'okay', what they did.... oh wait, no they didn't, or else they wouldn't have felt they needed to 'lookout', they would have just done it! So they did it, knowing it was way wrong. and yeah, I would have been much more forgiving had they simply stolen a dead child's shoes or panties. Perhaps I would have been satisfied simply beating them to a pulp.

I'm an old woman now. I no longer have any trouble judging 'useless crap' in our world. I no longer have any problem opting to kill vermin like this and not apologizing for it. That no child has physically died is too high a thresh-hold for me, sorry.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:57 am

Imladris;752727 wrote: You want to be reminded why he should live - explain to me exactly why he should die..............

He deserves to be registered as a sex offender, he should never have contact with children again and he deserves punishment for his crimes - but to say he deserves to die - no.

He has committed an appalling catalogue of crimes but no child has died at his hands.

Ok third attempt . I have to agree with Floppy (i know thats a cop-out ) but in my opinion having sex with a dead four yearold is just something i can't get my head around . I don't think that it matters that he didn't kill her . I don't want to a part of a society that thinks 'well it's just a dead body - he didn't actually hurt her' so it's not that bad, because if that's the message that people like him are getting, what left to fear .

I'm having trouble getting past imagining it being my child .

Imladris, maybe because you've been in the funeral business you see it differently .

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:07 am

spot;752705 wrote: You seem quite incapable of distinguishing harm from mere unsavoury nastiness pants. I'm not even slightly surprised.

Wasn't there another story a while back where an elderly woman was beaten in the street by yobs and while she lay there dead on the pavement they sprayed her with shaving foam and then one of them urinated over her .

I remember you then saying what they'd done wasn't so bad .:-5:-5 ........why am i suprised

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:19 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;752748 wrote: Wasn't there another story a while back where an elderly woman was beaten in the street by yobs and while she lay there dead on the pavement they sprayed her with shaving foam and then one of them urinated over her .

I remember you then saying what they'd done wasn't so bad .:-5:-5 ........why am i suprised

Personally, I think we are having a really good discussion going here from something you posted 'pants'. I really hope you don't let anyone lead you off into personal bickering and in the processs take the thread down:-6

I think it's awesome, reading opinions that differ from mine. Funny thing is, a few years ago I probably would have agreed with a lot of it..

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:34 am

grh;752752 wrote: Personally, I think we are having a really good discussion going here from something you posted 'pants'. I really hope you don't let anyone lead you off into personal bickering and in the processs take the thread down:-6

I think it's awesome, reading opinions that differ from mine. Funny thing is, a few years ago I probably would have agreed with a lot of it..

Hey thanks

No, no more bickering from me . If you think about it the two stories do have something in common . This one just made me feel sick . Others i've read have made me mad, but this one just sickens me . I've no problem with other people's different view points it would be pretty boring if we all thought the same .

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:44 am

I'd like to see the link that this story was lifted from if possible?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:20 pm

Peg;752720 wrote: Can you tell me, honestly, if this were your child, that the guy harmed noone?
A dead body's so much meat. Whether it's my child or not it can be petfood for all I care. It's the living that concern me.

I'm reminded of King David.

The Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:13 pm

Indeed there should, they committed a criminal act, the courts are there to deal with them and they were dealt with by the courts. To call for an execution by the state is fundamentalist authoritarian barbarism worthy of the Third Reich.

On a point of information, exaggeration about an "elderly woman was beaten in the street by yobs" is also inflammatory when it refers to a woman who was also desecrated at or after death (the post-mortem couldn't be sure if she was actually dead when she was found by the ex-soldier who abused her body), not beaten unconscious as the words suggest. She was certainly unconscious and dying regardless of anything they did, and she was certainly unaware then or afterwards of what happened to her. It was the opinion of the medics involved that she was dead before she was ever touched.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:14 pm

abbey;752770 wrote: I'd like to see the link that this story was lifted from if possible?

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/cooper ... house.html

Try this .

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:22 pm

Perhaps "if it were my child" is relevant then. That emotion doesn't come into this thread at all as far as I know.

As far as Goodwin's Law's concerned it excludes areas where references to the Third Reich are germane - where else can you think of in the last hundred years that routinely invoked the death penalty for offences short of murder? Pants is calling for the execution of the socially unacceptable and not for the first time.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:57 pm

rjwould;752807 wrote: It is people attempting to empathize with those who were violated. We can say that the child was not violated because she was already dead and therefore was spared the feeling and outrage of being violated. However, the still living family member are victims as well.
Absolutely.

If you look past the unsavoury necrophilia, the facts that upset me are ...

In total, there were seven children, four adults and 31 animals in the three-bedroom house, all in “extremely unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions, according to a sheriff’s department news release. Child Protective Services and Hesperia Code Enforcement were called to the house, which was full of trash and feces.

Thank god these children and animals are safe.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:02 pm

abbey;752818 wrote: Thank god these children and animals are safe.

It's all very well describing them as "extremely unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions" but I'm by no means convinced that those conditions described were endangering either the children or the pets at all.

The most healthy bunch of children I can remember - seven of them, as it happens - were brought up in what sounds a similar environment by a friend of mine, and there were quite often four adults living there (I'm searching for equivalences). The house did indeed stink as a result of the many pets, the children did indeed play out in the street, they're all grown now and they're the best adjusted people I can think of off-hand. Their parents were both university professors and the house was a magnet for friends from all round the country.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:08 pm

rjwould;752801 wrote: I don't want to invoke Goodwins Law. Sometimes people just verbally express themselves equal to the outrage they feel. Everyone has a right to their own outrage. I agree that I don't think it merits a death sentence either, however, if it was my child, it would take a lot to hold me down. Sometimes, no matter what the state does it can't resolve the hurt and disgust one might feel about a personal transgression.

Oh no darlin'! You go right ahead and invoke it. If memory serves, spot himself has - in the past...but perhaps it was someone else in an argument with spot... you're not Paul are you?

but, in any case - I don't ask the state do anything but supply me with a jury of my peers if you or anyone else ever abuses my daughters body- whether alive or not! :-6

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:12 pm

spot;752821 wrote: It's all very well describing them as "extremely unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions" but I'm by no means convinced that those conditions described were endangering either the children or the pets at all.

The most healthy bunch of children I can remember - seven of them, as it happens - were brought up in what sounds a similar environment by a friend of mine, and there were quite often four adults living there (I'm searching for equivalences). The house did indeed stink as a result of the many pets, the children did indeed play out in the street, they're all grown now and they're the best adjusted people I can think of off-hand. Their parents were both university professors and the house was a magnet for friends from all round the country.Yes but did the father commit paedophile necrophilia?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:16 pm

abbey;752825 wrote: Yes but did the father commit paedophile necrophilia?

No, and neither did he go to jail as a result. My post concerned your "If you look past the unsavoury necrophilia [...] Thank god these children and animals are safe."

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:17 pm

rjwould;752829 wrote: The apostle? No I'm not him, he would be too old by now to be me.

Paul's a poster here who's taking time out. He's where we've heard of Goodwin's Law from previously, that's all.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:22 pm

spot;752831 wrote: No, and neither did he go to jail as a result. My post concerned your "If you look past the unsavoury necrophilia [...] Thank god these children and animals are safe."My point being, if this beast can do this deed to a corpse why not a living child?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:22 pm

rjwould;752833 wrote: I think she was taking into consideration who the father is..That's how I read her post.

My apologies, I was editing while you posted and added Abbey's "If you look past the unsavoury necrophilia" to my sentence to make it more clear that she wasn't taking that into consideration. I should think more clearly before I post, editing like that can confuse the thread.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:24 pm

abbey;752834 wrote: My point being, if this beast can do this deed to a corpse why not a living child?

The question of pro-actively intervening in breaking up family units for child safety is an obvious one, I agree. I did think from your wording that you were excluding that issue deliberately and focusing just on the housing conditions.

Mia · Post by **Mia** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:26 pm

spot;752716 wrote: I'm waiting for a car to take me to a funeral actually.

The basic law is do no harm. I can't see the slightest hint in the OP that the guy's harmed anyone.

Harm is lying about evidence in order to garner public support for going to war, for example.

Harm is putting people in jail and then not providing for their safety, knowing that there's dangerous people jailed in close proximity.

Give me a clue what harm he's done. What's indicated in the OP is a breach of cultural norms, not harm. Pants asks in the title of the thread "why this guy should live"? She's certifiable.

I think I agree with Spot here.Yes the guy is a complete sicko and needs sorting out...but not a death sentence.We have many in our prisons who have done far worse,who deserve to die for what they did.

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:31 pm

the original question was "why should this guy be alowed to live"?well roughly those words anyway,or to put it another way why shouldnt he die?..as i see it he did what he did to that 4 year olds bodey for maybe 2 reasons,,1=he wanted sex with a child,and therefore one day may rape a child,so he should die just in case.2=he may have wanted sex with a dead child,,chances are he may kill a child for that reason...so as i see it for the sake of innocent kids around him he should be put to death,,,(i muszt be honest i would want him dead just for the vengence,,and i still consider myself a christian,i just cant do the forgivness thing all the time).

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:32 pm

Mia;752838 wrote: I think I agree with Spot here.Yes the guy is a complete sicko and needs sorting out...but not a death sentence.We have many in our prisons who have done far worse,who deserve to die for what they did.I agree.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:34 pm

hoxtonchris;752844 wrote: the original question was "why should this guy be alowed to live"?well roughly those words anyway,or to put it another way why shouldnt he die?..as i see it he did what he did to that 4 year olds bodey for maybe 2 reasons,,1=he wanted sex with a child,and therefore one day may rape a child,so he should die just in case.2=he may have wanted sex with a dead child,,chances are he may kill a child for that reason...so as i see it for the sake of innocent kids around him he should be put to death,,,(i muszt be honest i would want him dead just for the vengence,,and i still consider myself a christian,i just cant do the forgivness thing all the time).You'd happily see UK law amended to grant judges the option of such a sentence in such an instance? "Just in case"?

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:36 pm

for those who think he should live try this test.you look at a cc tv camara,you see this guy in a room walking towards a child,the child is..yours!!!he dosnt seem to be doing anything,,yet,,,,a gun is available ,,,,he aproaches your kid ,,,do you shoot????funny ennit how all of a sudden he deserves to die?

hoxtonchris · Post by **hoxtonchris** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:40 pm

spot i would love the law in the uk to be amended to execute peados who are "likely to kill"oh yes indeed.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:56 pm

abbey;752818 wrote: Absolutely.

If you look past the unsavoury necrophilia, the facts that upset me are ...

Thank god these children and animals are safe.

Do we know that they are?

Unfortunately necrophilia is not a crime in many states. I don't get it but I don't make the laws.

If you've the stomach, try reading some of the crap on the web written by necrophiles explaining why and how they do their deed. Try to avoid vomiting if you can.

The only thing we can hope for is that the prisoners find out and mete out some sort of justice for raping and defiling the corpse of another human being. That it was a kid will p.iss them off even more. It's times like this I think "thank God for convicts" because sometimes they get done what the law is to chickensh*t to accomplish.

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:59 pm

Mia;752838 wrote: I think I agree with Spot here.Yes the guy is a complete sicko and needs sorting out...but not a death sentence.We have many in our prisons who have done far worse,who deserve to die for what they did.

the fact that someone may have done something far worse and deserve to die does not mean that this idiot should live... you're talking apples and oranges.:-6

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:27 pm

spot;752774 wrote: A dead body's so much meat. Whether it's my child or not it can be petfood for all I care. It's the living that concern me.

I'm reminded of King David.

The Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.

And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Do you really see things like that because i just can't get my head around that . As a parent it goes against every thing . My child will always be my child and i don't think i could ever view her as a piece of meat .

grh · Post by **grh** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:33 pm

pantsonfire321@aol.com;753054 wrote: Do you really see things like that because i just can't get my head around that . As a parent it goes against every thing . My child will always be my child and i don't think i could ever view her as a piece of meat .

See now, another way to view that would be that if this guy WERE killed then spot would no longer concern himself with him. So we'd all win, eh?:D;)

He would finally become a 'turd of life' to Spot as well as to us!:wah:

Imladris · Post by **Imladris** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:26 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;752745 wrote: Ok third attempt . I have to agree with Floppy (i know thats a cop-out ) but in my opinion having sex with a dead four yearold is just something i can't get my head around . I don't think that it matters that he didn't kill her . I don't want to a part of a society that thinks 'well it's just a dead body - he didn't actually hurt her' so it's not that bad, because if that's the message that people like him are getting, what left to fear .

I'm having trouble getting past imagining it being my child .

Imladris, maybe because you've been in the funeral business you see it differently .

Sorry for the delay in replying Pants.

I think because I have seen so many dead bodies I am actually a little more not less sensitive about how the deceased are treated. I have always worked with the understanding that each person is treated the way I would want a relative treated. At no time do I or will I ever consider a body as a piece of meat.

that said my objection to these people is the way they treated the living not the dead, their behaviour marks them out as scum and less than human but I stand by my original post in that I do not believe they deserve to die. If they had neglected the children to the point of death or tortured them then I may change my mind. The vital thing is that they are never ever put in a position of caring for a child again - I would never let them have their freedom.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:35 am

It absolutely turns my stomach, but even if i advocated the death penalty, it certainly wouldnt be for things done to people already dead.

Of course if it was my child, id want to kill them myself, but we dont have vigilante law. For the law to work, we need to look at things objectively too.

The highest sentances need to be for those who actually kill

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:33 am

RedGlitter;752855 wrote: The only thing we can hope for is that the prisoners find out and mete out some sort of justice for raping and defiling the corpse of another human being. That it was a kid will p.iss them off even more. It's times like this I think "thank God for convicts" because sometimes they get done what the law is to chickensh*t to accomplish.

Posting on ForumGarden is eye-opening. If I'd been asked five years ago I'd have discussed direct democracy as a feasible political system, with transferable representation on specified issues and direct voting on anything an enfranchised citizen felt strongly enough to make the effort. Now I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole, I had no idea there was such manifest bigotry and intolerance in the country. Maybe I ought to have read the tabloid press more closely and watched it develop.

One of the wonderful aspects of the British constitution is that it establishes rights which can be enforced by the judiciary. A major plank among those rights is that the state can't take your life and has a duty to protect you physically if it imprisons you. All this foaming at the mouth about prisoners making each others' lives hell might excite a few fantasists but if it happened it would get to court and prison officers would be disciplined and dismissed if they'd failed to exercise due care. That, at least, applies to British prisons.

Imladris wrote: that said my objection to these people is the way they treated the living not the dead, their behaviour marks them out as scum and less than humanYou know, what's in the article and what I described about my friends really is quite comparable and my friends were quite definitely neither scum nor subhuman. The upbringing they gave their seven children was enviable. I was chatting with one of those children yesterday and he agreed entirely as far as that goes. He's a great guy.

hoxtonchris;752849 wrote: for those who think he should live try this test.you look at a cc tv camara,you see this guy in a room walking towards a child,the child is..yours!!!he dosnt seem to be doing anything,,yet,,,,a gun is available ,,,,he aproaches your kid ,,,do you shoot????funny ennit how all of a sudden he deserves to die?I can't believe you even wrote the question. Of course I don't! For one thing (though it's not the deciding factor) to the best of my knowledge he's never harmed anyone in his life!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:10 am

spot;753155 wrote:

One of the wonderful aspects of the British constitution is that it establishes rights which can be enforced by the judiciary. A major plank among those rights is that the state can't take your life and has a duty to protect you physically if it imprisons you. All this foaming at the mouth about prisoners making each others' lives hell might excite a few fantasists but if it happened it would get to court and prison officers would be disciplined and dismissed if they'd failed to exercise due care. That, at least, applies to British prisons.

Of course I don't know about British prisons but it so happens I have some secondhand knowledge of American prisons and prison justice is a common occurrence. And in the case of rapists and child molesters, thankfully so.

Seriously Spot, I think you and some others think these things through so much that you lose the ability to see what is acceptable and what is not. You reason out things that have absolutely no justification.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:35 am

You're kidding, surely. Deliberately putting a convict in a position of danger is barbaric, how you can refer to it as "prison justice" completely baffles me. It's criminal, not to mention unethical.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:49 am

Yeah this area is southern California’s answer to the movie Deliverance. Found on the way to Vegas from LA and Orange counties, one is ok to stop there for gas or food as long as they don't venture too far from the 15 Freeway.

The area is a blight of crystal meth abuse and associated crime. This sort of freakishness coming out of this area does not surprise me.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:17 am

spot;753247 wrote: You're kidding, surely. Deliberately putting a convict in a position of danger is barbaric, how you can refer to it as "prison justice" completely baffles me. It's criminal, not to mention unethical.

yeah it is, but I dont tend to shed many tears over it