• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hooker callously murders client, DA only charges her with manslaughter

Derec said:
Her acting callously and not concerned/alarmed at all shows clearly that she intended to kill the man. And don't forget that she did something like this before.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Not at all. It would be very easy to establish doubt that she intended to kill him, and that it was simply an accidental overdose to which she reacted callously.
 
Derec said:
Ford said:
Funny thing about heroin is that an "overdose" for one person is just a nice mellow buzz for others.
Click to expand...
Really? I'd suspect there'd be a lot more accidentallethal overdoses if that were the case. Surely there is a LD50 or something (but then again, what's the st. dev.)
Click to expand...

Um, heroin is notorious for causing accidental overdoses, just as you would expect. And yes, heroin tolerance can be such that a dose that would kill a inexperienced user would be a mild dose to a seasoned heroin addict.
 
I can't necessarily say intent with this one either, without more information. Other posters have mentioned an important variable, w/r/t the tolerance of the person being injected. We also don't know if the person injecting the dose knew the potency of the dose. Given that illegal drugs are unregulated, at least on any governmental level, one may not know the strength of the drug on hand, and said dose may have been stronger than either the woman, or the decedent, realized.

The similar circumstances with the other do raise suspicion in my mind though, but I'd want to know if the jurisdiction in question has a law that allows you to call in an overdose and get medical attention, no questions asked. I've heard of such laws, as applied to underage drinking, before but I don't know if such laws are actually on the books. I also don't know if such laws would cover adults or harder drugs. It might be a good idea to consider such laws, as it would probably save at least some lives, if people could report without going to jail. Would likely need an "age of consent" type of provision, like we have with consent to sex, with a close in age exception.
 
So far, I see no intent to murder.
Heroin is not a poison, and she had no motive to murder him. She injected him as she was asked and calmly left, nothing callous about that.
The guy is just stupid.
 
Derec said:
Maybe she robbed him in the process?

- - - Updated - - -

il Palazzo said:
2) Does she have experience with heroin herself, or is she known to have any reason to know how much heroin is a lethal dose?
Click to expand...
According to the article she killed somebody like this before.
Click to expand...
Actually, the article does not say that. It says only that there is a case with "similar circumstances". Another article elaborates a bit further:

Police are also investigating Tichelman in connection with a similar incident in another state, Santa Cruz Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark said. He did not elaborate. “There’s a pattern of behaviour here where she doesn’t seek help when someone is in trouble,” he said.

So until more details surface, we don't know if there was even a death involved in that other case.
 
Derec said:
I know of no case where they went easy on a man who shot up a woman with an overdose of heroin, calmly drank his wine and closed the blinds to conceal the body. The facts of the case are clear, this is a murder. To only charge her with manslaughter is highly suspect of bias.
Click to expand...
As the article pointed out, the police do not believe at this time that they have enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed murder. Maybe with more time and facts, they will amend the charge. Until you can show that their current belief is based on "misandry" rather than an accurate assessment of the current facts or a goodfaith mistaken assessment, your claim is totally unconvincing. To put it in terms you might better understand, you have not proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard you insist to be used in such matters).


Derec said:
Those statements are nonsensical. The victim had no gun and was shot in the back. Also his death was due to nothing other than the gunshot wound deliberately and with malice aforethought inflicted upon him by his bitch girlfriend - if she hadn't shot him in the back he would not have needed medical attention in the first place. In the US murder cases have been brought years later if the victim dies of something that can be linked to some crime even that far back. But in this case the jury refused to recognize that the real reason the victim was dead was because he was shot, with malice aforethought, by the jealous, murderous bitch girlfriend.

The self hating foreman says that the perp "had the right to shoot" her boyfriend, who posed no threat to her and whom she followed, is actually proving my case of the jury bias, and not yours that she is actually innocent or murder. He had no reason to think that she was acting in self defense.

What it boils down to is that a woman got away with murdering her boyfriend by shooting him in the back. No man would be acquitted after shooting his girlfriend in the back. No jury foreman would say, well she might have had a gun, or well, she might have survived if she had had better medical care, so let's acquit him. No, that only works for women. If a jealous boyfriend follows her girlfriend to another man's house to confront he would be labeled as a possessive creep and it would be a strike against him. Not so for women. If a jealous, possessive woman follows her boyfriend to another woman's house to confront him that is used as a strike against the victim even if he gets murdered by the jealous girlfriend (who is deemed "justified" in murdering out of jealousy).
Click to expand...
All you have done in this response is reinforce the notion that you have a strong irrational bias in these matters. You have no evidence the foreman is "self-hating" or that such "self-hate" is relevant. You disagree with the verdict even though you were not on the jury and you have no access to their thought processes. Even if their verdict is based on poor reasoning, it does not follow that the poor reasoning is the result of some gender bias.

Derec said:
Same thing for Winkler. No man could shoot his sleeping wife in her sleep, cut phone lines and still get only 60 days.
Click to expand...
This claim is about your state of mind not a claim of fact.
Derec said:
Again, the facts are that she followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and shot him in the back causing his death. That is a clear case of murder and acquitting her shows clear misandrist bias. That you refuse to acknowledge that any misandrist bias exists either in this case or the Mary Winkler case or other such cases where unarmed men are murdered by their wives and girlfriends says volumes about you.
Click to expand...
Since there are more reasonable alternative explanations in those cases, there is no reason to accept your highly arguments as convincing.
 
Derec said:
In none of these states are there cases of men getting off with an acquittal or slap on the wrist under similar circumstances, which include guilt beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably plenty of cases you don't know about where the perp (male/female) got away with murder.

Hell, even George Zimmerman got away with it.
 
So is a manslaughter conviction all of a sudden a slap on the wrist?
 
Nice Squirrel said:
Derec said:
In none of these states are there cases of men getting off with an acquittal or slap on the wrist under similar circumstances, which include guilt beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there are probably plenty of cases you don't know about where the perp (male/female) got away with murder.
Click to expand...

A guy throws a woman off a third story balcony, but that's a maiming fall, not a killing one, so she's alive enough to say who did it.

So what he does is he goes downstairs, goes outside, and beats her to death. Then he makes a half-assed attempt at hiding the body.

Dude was drinking, though, totally not in control of his actions and can't be held accountable for them.
 
Derec said:
Her acting callously and not concerned/alarmed at all shows clearly that she intended to kill the man. And don't forget that she did something like this before.
Click to expand...

No, it shows that she is familiar with heroin and with the well known fact that it very frequently causes "nodding off", and thus is not a sign of overdose. Its so common that the term is in the Urban dictionary in reference to heroin use. She acted like she would be expected to act if she had given him what she thought was a normal non-deadly dosage and he was having a normal non-deadly reaction to just being injected with heroin.
The fact that she was charged with only manslaughter shows that the DA is not as ignorant as you are about these basic facts of heroin, and knew that the defense could find countless unbiased experts to testify that the man's response did not indicate that he was overdosing and that her reaction was that of a person who didn't know and had no reason to think she had just given him a deadly dosage.

Maybe she robbed him in the process?
Click to expand...
No, she clearly did not rob him, because the video would have shown it and the cops clearly found no evidence of any robbery or they would have charged her with that. IOW, the video you hold up as your sole evidence of murder, shows just the opposite. It shows facts totally inconsistent with murder or motive to murder. This is why the DA didn't charge her with murder, because doing so would show the DA to be a totally incompetent imbecile just out to harm this prostitute for some personal or political reason.
 
A somewhat similar case, where I knew the accused personally, before she became a heroin addict

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4550092-lawyer-not-guilty-in-heroin-overdose-of-friend/

Apparently you can get charged with manslaughter simply for supplying heroin to people who want to try it. Sarah Jackson got the stuff for some friends who wanted it, helped them shoot it up, and then callously ignored one of them while having sex with another, while the first overdosed and died, which they discovered the next day. Judge decided the guy took 2 doses and it was the second dose, which he injected himself that killed him.

If it is your first time on heroin, and somebody gets it for you and shoots you up with it, should you be responsible to keep an eye on them and make sure they are ok? Should you makes sure they can't use what you brought to inject themself with more of it later, without you watching? Do you think Jackson should have been convicted? I think it is ridiculous.

And Derec, while your other cases do seem like misandry in action, this one just isn't. If a guy had done the same thing I don't see the police giving him a harder time here, nor should they.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
And Derec, while your other cases do seem like misandry in action, this one just isn't.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you and Derec should learn what misandry means. It does not mean a bias towards women or a bias against men. It means a hatred of men. In order for those other cases to seem like misandry, there would be evidence of hatred towards men. I cannot see any there. Perhaps you could point some out?
 
Point taken. Perhaps misandry isn't the best word to use.

But... there is certainly evidence of hatred towards the men they killed ;)

And I do agree with Derec that those decisions sound ridiculous, and that there is a cultural bias to view women as victims and men as aggressors. I just attended a production of the musical Chicago though, so I could also be biased. But if I were assaulted by a woman, I would think twice before calling the police, wondering if they would believe it was me that assaulted her and cart me off to jail.
 
laughing dog said:
Perhaps you and Derec should learn what misandry means. It does not mean a bias towards women or a bias against men. It means a hatred of men.
Click to expand...
For someone that usually engages in silly rhetoric I'm surprised you don't know the definition of misandry because does include bias against men.

Oxford dictionary
Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)
Click to expand...
 
Nexus said:
For someone that usually engages in silly rhetoric I'm surprised you don't know the definition of misandry because does include bias against men.

Oxford dictionary
Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thank you. Apparently, there are legitimate differing views on the definition of misandry. For example, these sources (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misandry and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandry) define it as

mis·an·dry
[mis-an-dree] Show IPA
noun
hatred of males.
Click to expand...
Which I understand (and I could be wrong) as the traditional meaning based on the greek antecedents. I am surprised that such an exacting pedant would be unaware of that, or that under either version, those cases are not evidence of misandry. But then, every day, I learn something new. Maybe you do too?
 
Derec said:
Overdose amounts too?
She was awfully callous about the result but she's probably seen a lot of people doing drugs and he's probably not the first to pass out.
Click to expand...
Her acting callously and not concerned/alarmed at all shows clearly that she intended to kill the man. And don't forget that she did something like this before.
Click to expand...

The fact that the ODed (assuming it even was an OD and not some other problem) doesn't prove she knew it was a dangerous amount. A dose that would be lethal for the opiate-naive can be routine for someone who is habituated.

Look at Fenatyl--even the lowest dose on the market can kill the opiate-naive. Does that mean putting a Fenatyl patch on someone is attempted murder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom