Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Explain. Sorry for having an opinion on this matter. I thought most of you guys lived in America, the land of the free. Seems like I've just walked into Saddam-era Iraq. Its typical of America though. You can have an opinion but don't expect it to be taken seriously if its outside the norm. The 'my way or the highway' attitude of some Americans is the reason you're country is hated by so many. Freedom of speech. Pfft. The leaps in illogic in this post alone do more to illustrate your intellectual deficiencies than anything I could possibly write about it. I actually hear my brain cells begging for mercy rather than attempt to reason with your blitheringly idiotic self. But, hey, keep playing the martyr card. It works REAL well when you clearly have no clue what the heck you're talking about. Return to murmuring. Please. Though the quote in your sig DOES explain the feelings I'm sure most of us feel when reading your drivel. -=Mike Yea, but you're not actually explaining anything here. You're just putting me down. What's there to explain? You're a blithering idiot because you are not terribly bright, lack even the most rudimentary usage of logic, and play the matryr when you clearly have no clue what the heck you're talking about. "Oh, give him a second chance". Screw that. He BUTCHERED that girl. This wasn't horseplay. This was a 12-year old boy who beat the ever-loving beejeezus out of a SCREAMING little girl until the girl DIED. But YOUR sympathy goes to the waste of genetic material boy? I hope any kids you have in the future don't suffer the same fate as that girl --- though I doubt it'd bug you, as long as the killer gets his second chance. Breaking a window with a baseball = stupid childish mistake. Butchering a little girl = life-forfeiting act of murder. And hearing people like you attempt to say that people shouldn't criticize because we aren't perfect is one of THE biggest problems in the world today --- and a sympton of an exceptionally weak and feeble mind. -=Mike My opinions aren't weak. In fact they are quite strong. If I ever have kids and one of them is murdered by another child, of course I'd be angry and upset. I would hope and pray though that I would summon the strength to forgive the child and let him get on with his life. Who are you to judge him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 27, 2004 My opinions aren't weak. Man, it's like Milhouse's "My mom says I'm cool" line. In fact they are quite strong. Creepy. If I ever have kids and one of them is murdered by another child, of course I'd be angry and upset. I would hope and pray though that I would summon the strength to forgive the child and let him get on with his life. Well, with that mindset, let's all hope and pray that no child is forced to live with your wet-noodle way-of-thinking as their basis for adulthood. "You slaughtered my daughter? Ah, no big deal. Heck, I can have more. Have a good day. You want $20? Ah heck, look at my wife. Want to father one yourself? She's not terribly picky." There's a world of difference between forgiving person and blithering idiot. Guess which side of the divide you fall on? Who are you to judge him? Someone with something resembling a spinal cord and a brain? You know, I bet if he called her a racial epithet during the beating, THAT would have been the bigger problem for you. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 How am I a blithering idiot? This confuses me. Seems like you are using this ready-made phrase to cover up what you can't actually explain. And there's no need to be sarcastic. I always try and forgive the best I can. Hopefully I'll never be in this situation but should it happen, I'll do the best to forgive. It was a terrible act but what is putting a boy away for 30 years going to do? That wouldn't give me satisfaction. Would you feel glad about that? I doubt I would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 27, 2004 It was a terrible act but what is putting a boy away for 30 years going to do? Stop him from doing it again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 27, 2004 How am I a blithering idiot? This confuses me. Seems like you are using this ready-made phrase to cover up what you can't actually explain. I've explained it twice. If you still can't get it, it only reinforces how correct I am. And there's no need to be sarcastic. I always try and forgive the best I can. Hopefully I'll never be in this situation but should it happen, I'll do the best to forgive. Difference between "forgiveness" and "pissing on my child's memory". Is a 6 year old girl's life worth only 3 years for taking brutally? For YOU, the answer is apparently yes. It was a terrible act but what is putting a boy away for 30 years going to do? That wouldn't give me satisfaction. Would you feel glad about that? I doubt I would. The girl is dead. NOTHING will make anybody feel "good" about it. Thus, it's time for that thug to LEARN an abject lesson on what happens when you cease behaving like a human. Namely, you forfeit your human rights. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Report post Posted January 27, 2004 I bet if he was white no one would be complaining. (playing the race card) Just like if O.J. Simpson were white no one would give half a shit if he did or didn't kill 2 white people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 27, 2004 I bet if he was white no one would be complaining. (playing the race card) Just like if O.J. Simpson were white no one would give half a shit if he did or didn't kill 2 white people. HUH? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry Blossom Viscount 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Yes, yes, THIS is the bastion for intelligent discussion on the forum. Although none of the so called "intelligence" is ever on topic, lol. I guess because "big words" like blithering and drivel are in such constant rotation the morons from the other folders seem to think this place actually harbors intelligent, civil debate. Ummmm, no. Anyway, I'm not going to be a liberal and I'm not going to be one of the "net cowboys" (you know, the ones who talk tough because they are behind a monitor). What I will say is that he should have been locked up from 10-25 years. There's really no proof he set out to kill her and there is also non-otherwise. Therefore, the count should have been negligent manslaughter. Also, you must take age into account here. He was 13. I here tons, TONS of stupid stories on this forum about how you did such and such because you were young. Yeah, I know you didn't kill anybody, but your actions could have. Well, his actions did. And it's unfair that a youth gets more time for killing a little girl than adults who have killed a few and only get 10-30 years in prison. Also, don't you think it's a little odd that the boy asked to live with the girls mother and get her toys? What 13 year old boy cares about toys? What 13 year old boys asks questions like that? It's obvious he has psychological troubles, and if you can't see THAT, then you are, as Mike SC stated (about 3 billion times), a blithering idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 (edited) Having mental problems isn't an easy out. If you are fit and murder someone = chair. If you are a retard and murder someone = chair. Edited January 28, 2004 by MrRant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 27, 2004 There's really no proof he set out to kill her He wouldn't stop stomping her while she was screaming in pain. What was he trying to do? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 I just wanted him in prison till at least he was 19-21, somewhere in there. I'm just curious, what happens if he kills another child? I'm hoping he doesn't, but what happens if he does? Does he get off because of mental problems? I've always wondered that. Also, O.J is innocent. Let it go. I don't care what color you are, if you want to be a moron and trip up then you need to be punished. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 27, 2004 I bet if he was white no one would be complaining. (playing the race card) Just like if O.J. Simpson were white no one would give half a shit if he did or didn't kill 2 white people. I'll second that: WHAT THE HECK? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Anyway, I'm not going to be a liberal and I'm not going to be one of the "net cowboys" (you know, the ones who talk tough because they are behind a monitor). What I will say is that he should have been locked up from 10-25 years. There's really no proof he set out to kill her and there is also non-otherwise. HOWEVER, when it was PAINFULLY obvious that she was getting badly hurt, he DIDN'T STOP. I'm sure are some rapists don't PLAN on raping somebody when they go out --- but when they do it, do you empathize with them because it wasn't pre-planned? Therefore, the count should have been negligent manslaughter. Also, you must take age into account here. He was 13. I here tons, TONS of stupid stories on this forum about how you did such and such because you were young. Yeah, I know you didn't kill anybody, but your actions could have. Well, his actions did. Who's done things in their youth that could have legitimately KILLED anybody? NOBODY here has claimed to have beaten the living snot out of a young girl. Not a soul. Thus, NONE of these "stupid stories" are even remotely relevant to the topic at hand. He was 13. When I was 13, I knew that beating up 6 year olds was bad. If he hadn't learned that lesson YET, he ISN'T going to learn it and should be removed from the populace for our collective safety. And it's unfair that a youth gets more time for killing a little girl than adults who have killed a few and only get 10-30 years in prison. When you have an adult with the same story, I imagine the punishment would be quite harsh. Also, don't you think it's a little odd that the boy asked to live with the girls mother and get her toys? What 13 year old boy cares about toys? What 13 year old boys asks questions like that? It's obvious he has psychological troubles, and if you can't see THAT, then you are, as Mike SC stated (about 3 billion times), a blithering idiot. I mentioned it once. He asked me to explain it over and over. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cynicalprofit 0 Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Well when I was 13 I bet up a 13 year old girl, who didnt even do what I thought she did, and even now I aint proud of it. Point being I knew then and now it was WRONG, but being 13, your heads in the wrong place and you make bad rush judgements. But Tate should NO remorse what so ever, he didnt care that she died. It so sounds like a Charlie Manson thing that the kid shouldnt get a second chance. This kids got serious problem written all over him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Well when I was 13 I bet up a 13 year old girl, who didnt even do what I thought she did, and even now I aint proud of it. Point being I knew then and now it was WRONG, but being 13, your heads in the wrong place and you make bad rush judgements. But Tate should NO remorse what so ever, he didnt care that she died. It so sounds like a Charlie Manson thing that the kid shouldnt get a second chance. This kids got serious problem written all over him. BUT, when you were 13, you wouldn't have just beaten a 6-YEAR OLD, I'd like to believe. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted January 27, 2004 This kid was mentally disabled. Stop and think about that. He was only 13 years old. Should he be punished? YES. Life in prison and certainly not the death penalty are NOT suitable punishments. The parents of the manslaughtered child have the right to demand "an eye for an eye" - I owuld too in the same situation. Looking at it from the outside, Lionel Tate should serve seven years in a child's prison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anglesault Report post Posted January 27, 2004 Looking at it from the outside, Lionel Tate should serve seven years in a child's prison. So he can come out and kill another little girl? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Oh please...he didn't *mean* to kill her..he had no concept of pain to another person or death. He was 13. He was MENTALLY RETARDED. Had the brain of an infant but the strength of a young adult. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 When I was thirteen, I got into the first *real* fight in my life. I didn't pick on anyone, merely defending myself. I broke his leg, and stayed with the bastard till the ambulance came. Didn't even suspend me, because I wasn't in the wrong for that one. Looking back, I show NO remorse for what I did. IF I picked on a small six year old girl, and had done the same damage odds are I would've done worse then break her leg. I'd probably feel guilty enough that I'd throw myself away in prison for life. Of course, the irony is that someone who would feel remorse in the situation probably WOULDN'T DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. That's what disturbed me the most; he asked for toys. In addition to the fact that he's fucked up and should be locked away for a good long time, that piece of information should put him away for life. I was doing an essay on Crime And Punishment, by Dostoyevsky, and I used this case as a citation. I had the mp3 of the Judge's verdict, and although it's only a minute, it really is an emotional listen. Especially when he says "I am moved by the outpouring for Lionel Tate, but I am dismayed by the lack of support for Tiffany Eunick. You shall be incarcerated for the rest of your natural life." Just to say, I don't think him doing this again will be a problem. I would bet anything that he won't kill anyone again, not because he's learned his lesson, but because he's probably thinking "well I was let off the hook once don't wanna take my chances and go to jail again." Regardless, he isn't REALLY rehabilitated, and the punishment didn't really fit the crime, but these days everybody jumps on a bandwagon for something, some cause, and normally "wrongful" convictions are a popular pick. Only In America~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Oh please...he didn't *mean* to kill her..he had no concept of pain to another person or death. He was 13. He was MENTALLY RETARDED. Had the brain of an infant but the strength of a young adult. Therefore, three years proves a valid point and sends a clear message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 I bet if he was white no one would be complaining. (playing the race card) Just like if O.J. Simpson were white no one would give half a shit if he did or didn't kill 2 white people. For some reason, I'm not at all shocked that such an asinine comment came from you. For the record, I don't think this kid should have gotten life. But 20-30 years, DEFINITELY. The way this is shaping out now, he's being released after 3 years of prison time and seemingly, without any real means of rehabilitation. There NEEDS to be a guarantee that something of this nature will never happen again - and I don't see how this guarantee has been reached. This was one of those bleeding heart decisions where we let Tate out and then desperately hope that he won't do something like this in the future. No worries though - in a year, we'll learn that this decision was idiotic and he'll be back to jail in no time. I know I'm not just speaking for me when I say, at 13 years of age, I KNEW whether or not to beat an 8-year-old girl to death. I used to wrestle with my friends. We knew how to fake stuff and, if things got a little too painful, how to quickly stop and check if the other person's okay. Tate did nothing of the sort and wasn't even REMORSEFUL about his actions (as we can see with the previous testimony about living with the mother and having the girl's toys). He was only remorseful AFTER he knew he would be going to jail. Three years after the incident, and he pretty much shows no real signs of remorse or change Is this a sign of a changed boy that will be ready to become a responsible and moral person in society? I don't see how it could be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Apologies 2GOLD I don't understand your post...?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Oh please...he didn't *mean* to kill her..he had no concept of pain to another person or death. He was 13. He was MENTALLY RETARDED. Had the brain of an infant but the strength of a young adult. So, a girl screaming in pain won't stop him? You want to keep a person with the mind of a child, the strength of an adult, and a history of slaughtering a little girl ON THE STREETS? Do you think keeping him in jail for 3 years teaches him ANYTHING? Heck, he AND his mother should be in jail right now (I'd ALSO fire her. She is a corrections officer and if she can't supervise two children, I wouldn't let her supervise inmates). -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest hunger4unger Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Oh please...he didn't *mean* to kill her..he had no concept of pain to another person or death. He was 13. He was MENTALLY RETARDED. Had the brain of an infant but the strength of a young adult. So, a girl screaming in pain won't stop him? You want to keep a person with the mind of a child, the strength of an adult, and a history of slaughtering a little girl ON THE STREETS? Do you think keeping him in jail for 3 years teaches him ANYTHING? Heck, he AND his mother should be in jail right now (I'd ALSO fire her. She is a corrections officer and if she can't supervise two children, I wouldn't let her supervise inmates). -=Mike No, a girl screaming in pain wouldn't have stopped him. As I posted "he had no concept of pain to another person or death. " No he shouldn't be on the streets - in a previous post I recommnded seven year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Right now I'm just hoping the little moron doesn't do it again. I don't want some other child killed because he doesn't understand that crushing a little girl is a BAD THING. He got three years, that isn't even a slap on the wrist for what he did. And people say he must be slow....ever think he might just be evil and crazy? Maybe he really doesn't give a damn about her or what he did? So what is his punishment? He goes home and what, doesn't watch TV for a month? And if the boy IS retarded....why in the HELL is he watching a 6 year old girl?? Fine, put MOM in jail or at the very least take the boy AWAY from her. I'm with the judge, it sickens me that no one seems to care that he killed a little girl in such a brutal fashion that only car wrecks produce the injuries. He's evil, not retarded, not slow...the boy is evil and should have been in prison till he turned 21 at least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 28, 2004 Oh please...he didn't *mean* to kill her..he had no concept of pain to another person or death. He was 13. He was MENTALLY RETARDED. Had the brain of an infant but the strength of a young adult. So, a girl screaming in pain won't stop him? You want to keep a person with the mind of a child, the strength of an adult, and a history of slaughtering a little girl ON THE STREETS? Do you think keeping him in jail for 3 years teaches him ANYTHING? Heck, he AND his mother should be in jail right now (I'd ALSO fire her. She is a corrections officer and if she can't supervise two children, I wouldn't let her supervise inmates). -=Mike No, a girl screaming in pain wouldn't have stopped him. As I posted "he had no concept of pain to another person or death. " No he shouldn't be on the streets - in a previous post I recommnded seven year. 7 years isn't enough. He killed the girl --- and it didn't happen quickly. It wasn't like "Ooops!". It was a long-term indicent. It took a while. One COULD refer to it as torture. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 No see, THAT'S a mistake. Quite frankly kids shouldn't need direct constant vigilance when they're 12. That is a sixth or seventh grader there and he should be able to be left alone (blah blah blah) Uh, no. Unless, of course, you want to say that the parents are totally guilt-free in the Michael Jackson case for not looking twice that their kid is hanging out with a millionaire celebrity who's been previously accused of child molestation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 No see, THAT'S a mistake. Quite frankly kids shouldn't need direct constant vigilance when they're 12. That is a sixth or seventh grader there and he should be able to be left alone (blah blah blah) Uh, no. Unless, of course, you want to say that the parents are totally guilt-free in the Michael Jackson case for not looking twice that their kid is hanging out with a millionaire celebrity who's been previously accused of child molestation. .....in one case, the 13 year old was supposed to be watching over a girl younger than him. He beat her to death. In the other case, the teenager was spending time with a full-grown adult and was WEAK WITH CANCER. He was supposedly molested. The cases don't even compare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 28, 2004 No see, THAT'S a mistake. Quite frankly kids shouldn't need direct constant vigilance when they're 12. That is a sixth or seventh grader there and he should be able to be left alone (blah blah blah) Uh, no. Unless, of course, you want to say that the parents are totally guilt-free in the Michael Jackson case for not looking twice that their kid is hanging out with a millionaire celebrity who's been previously accused of child molestation. Oh, I've called for their heads, too. Heck, I would let Michael Jackson go TOTALLY free and never prosecute if I could get the kids' parents in jail instead. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 28, 2004 The cases don't even compare. Yes, they do. Parental responsibility. One idiot heard a child scream and went back to bed. Another idiot thought it was okay for their kid to be hanging around a 40-something man they only fleetingly know. Both are supreme dumbasses. 12 year old kids need supervision. ESPECIALLY if they're touched in the head. Anyway, my thought for the kid's punishment... Two words: Mental Ward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites