Did you know that being married is like being nibbled to death by a duck?

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Army Lite

When you all get a moment, take a few minutes and head over to Foxnews.com and check out their "free video" section. More specifically, the one entitled "Boot Camp Lite." Even more specifically than that, check out CSM Mapuoletuu (first interview) and if you could, do me a huge favor and come back here and tell me just exactly what in the hell that is. The name says "Melanie" so my best guess is that it's a woman, but...

The subject of a "kinder gentler" basic training was set to be the topic of this post, but that.... person, just kind of weirded me out.

While you're there, check out this story and tell me why someone is "innocent" just because they're crazy. They still committed the crime.

7 comments:

Kell said...

What time was it when you posted this???

That is a man. A La Boy Named Sue... right?????

Jason Evans said...

She's old school Army. Let's face it... If she's a CSM now, she probably joined up in the early-mid 80's. Takes a certain type of woman to make it thru that type of crap back in the day.

Good news article. The cell phone part REALLY bothers me. You can't not talk to your loved ones for 9 weeks ?? WTF ?? BTW max signing bonus for recruits just got upped to $40k right ??

Mr. Twisted said...

A "certain type of woman" indeed. Ha.

Yeah, I can see letting them have access to a cell phone every so often (maybe once every few weeks), but on a regular basis, I agree. That's pretty weak.

$40K??? Wow.

Jason Evans said...

"innocent" just because they are crazy....

That's because of the charges... If a a guy shoots a kid accidently while hunting and the kids dies, then is the guy guilty of murder ?? A kid died, so he's guilty of killing the kid. But it's what he charged with.

First Degree Murder... Not Guilty

Negligent Homicide or some lesser charge... Guilty

Maybe this guy was innocent of a greater charge?? I didn't check out the link... oh mighty D...

~E said...

Read the article about the insanity defense. Fundamental premise of criminal jurisprudence is that there are two elements for a crime to be committed.. the intent to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In order for someone to be found guilty, the State has to prove that both elements were present at the time the crime was committed. However, if an individual can raise reasonable doubt as to their intent to committ the crime, including diminished mental capacity (mental retardation) or insanity, then the jury is instructed that they have to find innocent by reason of mental incapacity or insanity. The death penalty is only to be applied when the jury has 'no reasonable doubt' as to the defendant's innocence..

It's much harder to get a guilty verdict against a woman in a capital case than against a man. It's not fair, it's not right, but it is. These kinds of trials are fraught w/emotional pleas to the jury, and a jury is more apt to find that a mother was insane when she committed such atrocities against her child than they are to find that she did what she did in a cold, calculated,pre-meditated manner with full knowledge of her actions and the consequences of them.
Society has a pre-conceived, idealized conception of what a Mother is... when we encounter something that so horrifically violates that, we seek to find and understand the 'whys' of it... it's much easier to accept that a woman is mentally insane and not in her right mind when she so brutally hurt/murdered her child than it is to accept that a woman is absolutley capable of such depraved evil.

The article implies that the insanity defense was raised late in the game.. there's no way to know how substantial it was or how it was proven. These cases are always very dicey.

Miss Ginny said...

They need to decide whether or not she's a threat to others? Did I read that right, she will be evaluated after 30 days and then possibly released...
She cut off her child's arms and legs... she not only murdered her child, she did it in a most brutal way.

Plus, she then called the police to admit the crime, which I think proves the act was on her conscience.

What a sad story.

~E said...

Miss Ginny,

That was one of the most disturbing parts of the article... so the jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity.. and she only has to be admitted for 30 days and then can be evaluated and possibly released?? WTF?!! Someone who is that mentally disturbed certainly needs more intensive and extensive treatment than that.

I wonder if the wonderful judicial system will force the other 2 children to endure visitation with her? I hope the father gets those kids some counseling, they're certainly going to need it.