Father Killed Child Over Video Game

[Ryuoho]

But your "a life for a life" definition is flawed then, as you said "a life for a life, you take one you don't deserve one". That doesn't take in to consideration whether or not its against the law.

And in all honesty, what's the difference in killing someone on a battlefield then on the street? Its still a life you take. The only difference is that one is against the law, the other one is not. But seriously, what's the difference?

And while we're at it, why will you get a harsher punishment for killing the president's son, then your neighbour's son? Its still a life, and isn't the old saying "Everyone is equal in front of the law", aswell as "in God's eyes everyone is equal"?

My point is, the whole law system is flawed and outdated and corrupt. There's so much they ignore, too much they don't take in to consideration, and a lot of things they deem more important then others which are not.

I say 'a life for a life' with the assumption that common sense is applied. A soilder will kill the enemy because he is orderd too, a police officer will shoot a criminal if his or her fellow officer's lives are in danger. Not because in this particular place and time he/she is pissed off and they find an easy target. Motive is the key difference.

The assassin of the president's son will get a harsher punishment because the president will have better lawyers and more resources. Really that's about it.

The whole legal system is extremly complicated and there are multiple court rulings for the relatively same case. Each case is it's own. As much as one can try to make it a fair trial there will always be extinuating circumstances. Like many other things, it's not perfect but I believe it's the best we have.

 

[Arctyrael]

Wow, libby hippies..

Wake up hippy.

Well, I guess that mystery is solved. Name calling is just soooo effective I'm suddenly swayed to your side Windaria. This man should die, in a fire, of a chemical plant. [/sarcasm]

By that same logic, me calling you a "Homophobic Conservative, " you should join my train of thought about social acceptance. However, I realize, social graces only apply if they are to your advantage.

Stop being so daft and understand their is no reason to call anyone anything because we don't agree with your views. You're just as alienated by us, as we are by you... doesn't make any opinion wrong.

If you need a proof of this:
opinion != fact

 

[Uzor]

Emotion has nothing to do with getting rid of this man. History can repeat in most cases, and his temper may get the best of him once again. Getting rid of him would Directly diminish the chances of this happening again to someone else by his hand. Preventing another occurance that was based on genetics rather than psychological alterations is the goal, so if it means ending his life to save more lives, so be it.

It has everything to do with emotions. Its a wide phenomenon among women. When a child is killed, especially murdered, or when a child is harmed or put through pain, women tend to feel sorry for them. Women have an easier time then men symphathizing(sp?) with other human beings, especially children, and want to protect them. I'm not saying the same doesn't hold true for men, but it happends more so, and stronger, for women.

That is what you call mother instinct. To protect those younger. Its nothing you can help, and is partially due to the way you're raised. But its mostly due to hormones. You'd be chocked knowing how much of the human functions, feelings, and even the way we think and act, that is controlled entirely by hormones. It is one of the strongest, and in some cases dangerous, substances that affect our body at a daily basis.

It also have a great effect on our development while we're still an embryo, and affects the way our brain developes. One kind of hormone strenghtens the sympathy, making some have more and some less. You might think this is off topic, but it really isn't.

You can say Windy (and most other humans), together with murderers who just kill someone without even caring, are two opposites on the same line. For most people, they have sympathy, and can sympathize with others, kind of like a natural wall that stops us from hurting other people. One hormone (can't think of the english name for the life of me), greatly affects the human's need for competition. Both women and men have this, but men have more of it. This hormone raises reflexes, and makes us more persistend and competitive, giving us benefit in a contest. It also makes us take larger risks, and people who produce "too much" of it, can get careless.

You can say the hormone also makes you more aggressive, as it makes you more competitive. When you get angry and upset, hormones and other substances once again comes in to play, and can temporarily "remove" the barrier, or atleast push it forward. If you, for an example, find some other guy kissing your woman, you can get pissed off, and go hit him. That'd be hormones affecting you.

So let's say the guy was playing a competitive video game. He had a lot of hormones in his body, and he might be one of the people who produce too much of it, making him take stupid risks. Then his baby comes in, and pulls the cord to it, making it fall to the floor. He now had a lot of hormones in his body, affecting his temper as he'd be much easier to upset. He might also have a harder time sympathizing with people as a result of being exposed to a lot of the specific hormone durinng his time as an embryo. This caused him to overreact and hit the baby.

He wasn't thinking, it was a spontaneous act. While yes, he was the person who commited the act, resulting in the loss of his baby. He doesn't need to "have a screw lose", or be in any way less normal then your average man. He just had to have been exposed to more or less of certain hormones during the time in which his brain was created, and during his period of which he was still developing. All of this together would make him, too, a victim of himself.

Windy, on the other hand, would be further to the left of this line. Being a woman, she was naturally born with a brain more capable of sympathizing with other humans. It benefits women greatly, as they are normally the ones taking care of the children and raising them. Women take care of the children more, not because of discrimination, but because nature created us that way. We're constantly controlled by hormones and other substances, just like any other animal is. And its hard to resist it, and impossible to completely remove.

Anyway, moving on, where was I... Aah, right.

As Windy have a brain more capable of smpathizing, she immediatly puts herself in the possition of the dead baby. She, herself, mentioned that the baby won't get to learn to ride a bike etc. She synpathizes with the baby, and understands the situation. She's emotional about it. She feels sorry for it, and want to protect it. But don't worry, that's completely normal for a woman to do, as its the way humans were created.

It affects us all the time, from childood, to young adults, to adults, to death. We might think we act on our own, but we "feel" the hormone levels in our bodies, and act accordingly. We're also driven by other things. We "feel" we're hungry, and act accordingly. We feel we need to drink, and act accordingly. We feel a sex drive, and reproduce.

Taking this in to consideration, atleast from my point of view, you'd see why it would be wrong to kill the person in question. While yes, it can happen again, it isn't very likely, as he can, to some extent, learn to controll it. Anger, and a lot of other stuff, are controllable. His hormone levels are not. Isn't it wrong to kill a person who him, himself, is his own victim? I'm sure he feels regret over what he's done, and thus, he will most likely try his hardest to not let it happen again.

While men have a harder time most of the time sympathizing, that doesn't mean we lack it. We still have emotions and can sympathize, but everyone isn't as good at it. That's why it is widely known that men don't show their feelings, and its for more then one reason.

 

[Uzor]

I say 'a life for a life' with the assumption that common sense is applied. A soilder will kill the enemy because he is orderd too, a police officer will shoot a criminal if his or her fellow officer's lives are in danger. Not because in this particular place and time he/she is pissed off and they find an easy target. Motive is the key difference.

The assassin of the president's son will get a harsher punishment because the president will have better lawyers and more resources. Really that's about it.

The whole legal system is extremly complicated and there are multiple court rulings for the relatively same case. Each case is it's own. As much as one can try to make it a fair trial there will always be extinuating circumstances. Like many other things, it's not perfect but I believe it's the best we have.

That's what they want to make you believe, but the president wouldn't even need a lawyer to get the person convicted for life, because he's the president. He's more famous, and have more power.

The legal system isn't fair. Look at the ammount of people who got put on the death row, there's more black people who got put there then white people. Does that mean more black people have less money then white?

The legal system is far from fair. It discriminates and favours, and the first people it favours are those with power, fame, and money first hand.

 

[Ryuoho]

That's what they want to make you believe, but the president wouldn't even need a lawyer to get the person convicted for life, because he's the president. He's more famous, and have more power.

The legal system isn't fair. Look at the ammount of people who got put on the death row, there's more black people who got put there then white people. Does that mean more black people have less money then white?

The legal system is far from fair. It discriminates and favours, and the first people it favours are those with power, fame, and money first hand.

To answer your 2nd paragraph, yes.
And like I said it isn't perfect but it more than offers a fair trial.

Edit: To elaborate on your 2nd paragraph, there are way too many factors to pin the ratio of blacks to whites on death row down to money.

 

[Uzor]

To answer your 2nd paragraph, yes.
And like I said it isn't perfect but it more than offers a fair trial.

Yeah. its a fair trial when a black man gets arrested, and put on the death row because he's black, while the police officers and the judge ignore all the evidence that proves him innocent. That's really a fair trial.

After being in jail for a couple of years he was finally proven innocent. Extremely fair, eh?

Or how about all of those people proven to be innocent after they died? Guess they don't have much to say anymore.

Putting people for death for everything that happends is just stupid.

Killing a man makes you a murderer, killing ten makes you a monster. Killing a whole nation makes you a king, and killing all of humanity makes you a god. But all in all, what's really the difference between one life and the other?

You can't honestly say killing a one person justifies killing the person who killed him. That makes both of them murderers. Saying "But he killed someone first! I just returned the favour!" is the law's way of saying its right. But at the bottom its still right, and just as horrible.

The only difference to this is the soldiers, as they were ordered to kill, and then left alone in a country surrounded by enemy troops. They have to kill in order to survive, so the offender in that case is really the leader's of the country who ordered the attack.

Thought I might aswell add this in this post, instead of editing my previous one.

Humans are very much like robots. One could say we're programmed to act a certain way to certain situations. We're programmed to drink when we're thirsty, programmed to eat when we're hungry. Its not much different from a machine programmed to recharge its batteries when it's almost out. This, if anything, proves that we're not much better then any other animal on this earth, as we have one thing in common; we're all controlled by hormones (and a lot of other substances). We go by reflexes, and constantly run those "programs" in the back of our minds.

 

[Ryuoho]

Yeah. its a fair trial when a black man gets arrested, and put on the death row because he's black, while the police officers and the judge ignore all the evidence that proves him innocent. That's really a fair trial.

After being in jail for a couple of years he was finally proven innocent. Extremely fair, eh?

Or how about all of those people proven to be innocent after they died? Guess they don't have much to say anymore.

Putting people for death for everything that happends is just stupid.

Killing a man makes you a murderer, killing ten makes you a monster. Killing a whole nation makes you a king, and killing all of humanity makes you a god. But all in all, what's really the difference between one life and the other?

You can't honestly say killing a one person justifies killing the person who killed him. That makes both of them murderers. Saying "But he killed someone first! I just returned the favour!" is the law's way of saying its right. But at the bottom its still right, and just as horrible.

The only difference to this is the soldiers, as they were ordered to kill, and then left alone in a country surrounded by enemy troops. They have to kill in order to survive, so the offender in that case is really the leader's of the country who ordered the attack.

Now, what YOU described isn't a fair trial. Except that's not how it works. It is extremely difficult to put someone on death row and even harder to keep them there. It comes down to how smart you and your lawyer are. Not what the color of your skin is.

I don't know where you got the impression that the legal system is sending convicted criminals to death row left and right but you couldn't be furthur from the truth.

I say you can justify killing a murderer. Like I said, "You have no respect for life, you don't deserve it."

I'm just gonna ignore the rest of your post because that's another argument for another day.

 

[Uzor]

Now, what YOU described isn't a fair trial. Except that's not how it works. It is extremely difficult to put someone on death row and even harder to keep them there. It comes down to how smart you and your lawyer are. Not what the color of your skin is.

I don't know where you got the impression that the legal system is sending convicted criminals to death row left and right but you couldn't be furthur from the truth.

I say you can justify killing a murderer. Like I said, "You have no respect for life, you don't deserve it."

I'm just gonna ignore the rest of your post because that's another argument for another day.

What I described isn't a fair trial, no. But what I described is also happening. And what I described is a read case. And the legal system is discriminating, the general population just doesn't see it.

And I know the legal system isn't sending criminals left and right, and that's a good thing. But even a lot of the few they do send, are innocent. And sending someone to the death row for killing a baby, like you and windy suggest, is outrageous.

And the argument in my earlier post that you ignored have everything to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Ryuoho]

What I described isn't a fair trial, no. But what I described is also happening. And what I described is a read case. And the legal system is discriminating, the general population just doesn't see it.

And I know the legal system isn't sending criminals left and right, and that's a good thing. But even a lot of the few they do send, are innocent. And sending someone to the death row for killing a baby, like you and windy suggest, is outrageous.

And the argument in my earlier post that you ignored have everything to do with the issue at hand.

I've never heard of such a case but I don't doubt it hasn't happend before. But I can assure you it isn't the norm. Same goes for death row inmates, it's unavoidable. Believe me I really think that sucks.

There are several reasons why I can justify putting him to death.
1. He's a grown man.
2. The reasoning couldn't be sadder.
3. He killed a baby girl with his bare hands. He punched her twice and threw her over a chair. It was a hell of a lot more than pulling a trigger or pressing the gas peddle. It's mind boggling to me how someone could do that. And you better believe the D.A. is gonna use these to sway the jury in their favor.

As for the rest, well, you throw politics into anything and it goes down the shitter.

 

[Uzor]

I've never heard of such a case but I don't doubt it hasn't happend before. But I can assure you it isn't the norm. Same goes for death row inmates, it's unavoidable. Believe me I really think that sucks.

There are several reasons why I can justify putting him to death.
1. He's a grown man.
2. The reasoning couldn't be sadder.
3. He killed a baby girl with his bare hands. He punched her twice and threw her over a chair. It was a hell of a lot more than pulling a trigger or pressing the gas peddle. It's mind boggling to me how someone could do that. And you better believe the D.A. is gonna use these to sway the jury in their favor.

As for the rest, well, you throw politics into anything and it goes down the shitter.

Even though he's a grown man, its hella hard for some reason to controll themselves over something nature programmed in to them, being hormones and other natural substances that controll our everyday life.

By studying animals (and we, too, are animals), you can really see how strongly hormones and other natural substances affect us.

When they're left by themselves for a long enough time, they will start performing their normal everyday habbits in the air. The males of the species will start trying to mate with anything that doesn't even resemble the female counterpart. Same holds true for humans, with all kinds of people. Murderers, sexual offenders etc. The second strongest factor is money. Money rules the world, that's the way it is. People will do anything to get money, and those that go as far to steal, have higher levels of the "adventuring hormone" in their bodies, making them more prone to risks, like robbing a bank, murdering someone for money, selling drugs etc.

Then there's the gamblers. They don't do it for the money, like some people might think. They do it because of the kick they get when they win. Its the happy drug, as some might call it. Its naturally produced by the body to reward you, like a treat you give to a dog when it's been good. They win, get a treat, and get addicted to it. They'll keep doing it to get the treat, not to get the money. They are driven by the substances the body make.

Money and natural substances produced by the body. They rule our world. There's nothing you can do about it.

Tell me, how many people have gotten a death penalty, and how many have been put to death when they're innocent? I'm sure its quite a few out of those, and for every innocent people they kill, shouldn't the people who testified against him, contributing to his death, be killed too as they are now murderers for contributing to his death?

Wouldn't it be only right to kill the person who killed an innocent?

The people who perform lighter crimes (and I would go as far as to call this a lighter crime), are all done because of money and hormone/natural substances, and the results of them. These are the criminals that can change, because they regret what they did, and giving them a death sentance would solve nothing.

And I didn't throw politics in to this. I might h ave used politics as an example, but I didn't bring it in to the argument.

As for the example I used earlier, there was a man who went in to someone's house. Killed the whole family, and escaped. The black man was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and was taken in as the main suspect. The police officers were desperate to find the person who commited the crime, so in order to calm the people, they blamed the guy for the murder (or rather, framed him), and ignored the evidence that would have set him free. He put him on the death row, anda few years later he was released.

That's not a fair trial, its far from it. And I'm sure similar things happen in all countries for all kinds of cases, although the ones leading to death row sentances have a far worse outcome.

 

[Eulore]

It's mind boggling to me how someone could do that. And you better believe the D.A. is gonna use these to sway the jury in their favor.

It has everything to do with emotions. Its a wide phenomenon among women. When a child is killed, especially murdered, or when a child is harmed or put through pain, women tend to feel sorry for them. Women have an easier time then men symphathizing(sp?) with other human beings, especially children, and want to protect them. I'm not saying the same doesn't hold true for men, but it happends more so, and stronger, for women.

That is what you call mother instinct. To protect those younger. Its nothing you can help, and is partially due to the way you're raised. But its mostly due to hormones. You'd be chocked knowing how much of the human functions, feelings, and even the way we think and act, that is controlled entirely by hormones. It is one of the strongest, and in some cases dangerous, substances that affect our body at a daily basis.

It also have a great effect on our development while we're still an embryo, and affects the way our brain developes. One kind of hormone strenghtens the sympathy, making some have more and some less. You might think this is off topic, but it really isn't.

You can say Windy (and most other humans), together with murderers who just kill someone without even caring, are two opposites on the same line. For most people, they have sympathy, and can sympathize with others, kind of like a natural wall that stops us from hurting other people. One hormone (can't think of the english name for the life of me), greatly affects the human's need for competition. Both women and men have this, but men have more of it. This hormone raises reflexes, and makes us more persistend and competitive, giving us benefit in a contest. It also makes us take larger risks, and people who produce "too much" of it, can get careless.

You can say the hormone also makes you more aggressive, as it makes you more competitive. When you get angry and upset, hormones and other substances once again comes in to play, and can temporarily "remove" the barrier, or atleast push it forward. If you, for an example, find some other guy kissing your woman, you can get pissed off, and go hit him. That'd be hormones affecting you.

So let's say the guy was playing a competitive video game. He had a lot of hormones in his body, and he might be one of the people who produce too much of it, making him take stupid risks. Then his baby comes in, and pulls the cord to it, making it fall to the floor. He now had a lot of hormones in his body, affecting his temper as he'd be much easier to upset. He might also have a harder time sympathizing with people as a result of being exposed to a lot of the specific hormone durinng his time as an embryo. This caused him to overreact and hit the baby.

He wasn't thinking, it was a spontaneous act. While yes, he was the person who commited the act, resulting in the loss of his baby. He doesn't need to "have a screw lose", or be in any way less normal then your average man. He just had to have been exposed to more or less of certain hormones during the time in which his brain was created, and during his period of which he was still developing. All of this together would make him, too, a victim of himself.

Windy, on the other hand, would be further to the left of this line. Being a woman, she was naturally born with a brain more capable of sympathizing with other humans. It benefits women greatly, as they are normally the ones taking care of the children and raising them. Women take care of the children more, not because of discrimination, but because nature created us that way. We're constantly controlled by hormones and other substances, just like any other animal is. And its hard to resist it, and impossible to completely remove.

Anyway, moving on, where was I... Aah, right.

As Windy have a brain more capable of smpathizing, she immediatly puts herself in the possition of the dead baby. She, herself, mentioned that the baby won't get to learn to ride a bike etc. She synpathizes with the baby, and understands the situation. She's emotional about it. She feels sorry for it, and want to protect it. But don't worry, that's completely normal for a woman to do, as its the way humans were created.

It affects us all the time, from childood, to young adults, to adults, to death. We might think we act on our own, but we "feel" the hormone levels in our bodies, and act accordingly. We're also driven by other things. We "feel" we're hungry, and act accordingly. We feel we need to drink, and act accordingly. We feel a sex drive, and reproduce.

Taking this in to consideration, atleast from my point of view, you'd see why it would be wrong to kill the person in question. While yes, it can happen again, it isn't very likely, as he can, to some extent, learn to controll it. Anger, and a lot of other stuff, are controllable. His hormone levels are not. Isn't it wrong to kill a person who him, himself, is his own victim? I'm sure he feels regret over what he's done, and thus, he will most likely try his hardest to not let it happen again.

While men have a harder time most of the time sympathizing, that doesn't mean we lack it. We still have emotions and can sympathize, but everyone isn't as good at it. That's why it is widely known that men don't show their feelings, and its for more then one reason.

:roll:

 

[Ryuoho]

Even though he's a grown man, its hella hard for some reason to controll themselves over something nature programmed in to them, being hormones and other natural substances that controll our everyday life.

Tell me, how many people have gotten a death penalty, and how many have been put to death when they're innocent? I'm sure its quite a few out of those, and for every innocent people they kill, shouldn't the people who testified against him, contributing to his death, be killed too as they are now murderers for contributing to his death?

Wouldn't it be only right to kill the person who killed an innocent?

I'm a grown man, I have the same thing programmed into me. And while (testosterone I think you're thinking of) may be the direct chemical that set him off, there's something more mental that released it. This is pure speculation, people react in different ways to different things.

Your last question is very vague. You can't pin something like who lives and who dies to a black and white rule unfortunately. You can try, I am guilty of this, but it's impossible. It would depend if those who testified were doing so in good faith, which is impossible to prove or disprove without having another trial. In which case, if found guilty, they wouldn't get the death penalty.

 

[Uzor]

I'm a grown man, I have the same thing programmed into me. And while (testosterone I think you're thinking of) may be the direct chemical that set him off, there's something more mental that released it. This is pure speculation, people react in different ways to different things.

Your last question is very vague. You can't pin something like who lives and who dies to a black and white rule unfortunately. You can try, I am guilty of this, but it's impossible. It would depend if those who testified were doing so in good faith, which is impossible to prove or disprove without having another trial. In which case, if found guilty, they wouldn't get the death penalty.

testosterone also affect us during our stage of development. As embryos, with more testosterone during development, it will make our brains more competetive, and it will also make us faster sprinters later in life. Both men and women get affected by it as embryos, and both develope according to it. The ammount of testosterone and other hormones during development developes our brains in different directions, but males embryos develope more testosterones then females, and thus end up being more competitive later in life, and also leads to having a harder time understand other people's feelings.

That is one of the reasons more men end up being criminal then female, because of testosterone. Its not the way they were raised, as the way they were born. You can have the perfect family and still end up being criminal later in life. One can say you are born in to your criminal career.

And my last question was like this;

If a person is found guilty in a case he's innocent in, and gets put to death, wouldn't the person putting him to death be guilty of murder, as he killed an innocent human?

 

[Uzor]

And the mental part would be the hormones having a huge impact on his brain development as an embryo, leading to lower empathy, thus resulting in the mental wall being further away then it is for the average human.

 

[Coustain]

Statements like this make me literally ill. "Harsh punishers?" HERE? You must be joking. We're talking about a guy who punched a 17 month old in the face and threw her over a chair because she pulled the cords of a gaming system making it fall down. Yeah, let's not agree with the death sentence although that's exactly what he gave to his own child. Let's put him in jail on the taxpayers dime and then set him free around the time that girl would have been in the prime of her life. If that makes me a harsh punisher, so be it. Fuck letting a degenerate excuse for a human being go on living when he has so meaninglessly thrown away the life of the one person it was his job as a father to protect.

A-Fucking-men

 

[Ryuoho]

testosterone also affect us during our stage of development. As embryos, with more testosterone during development, it will make our brains more competetive, and it will also make us faster sprinters later in life. Both men and women get affected by it as embryos, and both develope according to it. The ammount of testosterone and other hormones during development developes our brains in different directions, but males embryos develope more testosterones then females, and thus end up being more competitive later in life, and also leads to having a harder time understand other people's feelings.

That is one of the reasons more men end up being criminal then female, because of testosterone. Its not the way they were raised, as the way they were born. You can have the perfect family and still end up being criminal later in life. One can say you are born in to your criminal career.

And my last question was like this;

If a person is found guilty in a case he's innocent in, and gets put to death, wouldn't the person putting him to death be guilty of murder, as he killed an innocent human?

He'd, more or less, fall into the same category as a soldier. Doing what is expected of them to the best of their intent. Proving murderous intent or motive is a huge part of convicting someone. In this case, there would be neither of either.

 

[Uzor]

Statements like this make me literally ill. "Harsh punishers?" HERE? You must be joking. We're talking about a guy who punched a 17 month old in the face and threw her over a chair because she pulled the cords of a gaming system making it fall down. Yeah, let's not agree with the death sentence although that's exactly what he gave to his own child. Let's put him in jail on the taxpayers dime and then set him free around the time that girl would have been in the prime of her life. If that makes me a harsh punisher, so be it. Fuck letting a degenerate excuse for a human being go on living when he has so meaninglessly thrown away the life of the one person it was his job as a father to protect.

I'm sure your money is much better wasted on killing humans by sentencing everyone that kills someone to death, and throwing soldiers out to die at war.

 

[Ryuoho]

By the same token, they have a chemical imbalance and are therefore, by nature, deadly. So let's forgoe jail and get strait to the needle.

 

[Uzor]

He'd, more or less, fall into the same category as a soldier. Doing what is expected of them to the best of their intent. Proving murderous intent or motive is a huge part of convicting someone. In this case, there would be neither of either.

And exactly what was the father's motive and intent? It sounds to me more likeit was a spontaneous thing to do. Due to lack of empathy, and high testosterone levels after playing a sport video game (racing, perhaps? That'd be my guess, or a football/hockey game), he got upset that the baby pulled the plug, and acted without thinking. A spontaneous act, that didn't turn out the way he intended.

While throwing the baby was a bit too much to do, I agree with that, still doesn't make him deserve to be put to death, as I'm sure he regrets strongly what he did.

How do they know he threw the baby anyway? Can an autopsy really prove that, or is it a pure guess from the doctors?

By the same token, they have a chemical imbalance and are therefore, by nature, deadly. So let's forgoe jail and get strait to the needle.

It doesn't make they deadly murder machines that act like a ticking bomb. The wife said he didn't show any signs of violence normally, and if that's true, then his actions would indeed be caused by competition. And people create different ammounts of testosterone during competition, and he might be the type that creates more.

And it would be easily be handled with some anger management, a professional doctor to handle both the mother's and the father's shock over what happened, and avoiding competing situations.

 

[dbuman]

My "it isnt about emotions" rant was about the justice done. Justice is based off of un-sentimental opinions that may be wavered because of malpracticed judges. The questions being asked are "Did he do it?" and "Did he know it would kill the baby?" and if both of those are answered yes, then my philosophy of an altered code of hammurabi would apply.