23
   

Yet another case of religious murder

 
 
Wilso
 
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 03:08 am
You ******* freaks should be sterilized.

Quote:
A mother accused of praying instead of seeking medical help for her dying 11-year-old daughter was found guilty of reckless homicide.

A Marathon County jury deliberated for about three and a half hours before convicting Leilani Neumann, 41, of Weston. She faces up to 25 years in prison, but no sentencing date had been set.

Neumann's daughter Madeline died from untreated diabetes on March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called the emergency dispatcher.

Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline and that her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms, such as her inability to walk or talk.

During closing arguments, Marathon County district attorney Jill Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, called Kara by her parents, die as a test of faith.

"Basic medical care would have saved Kara's life - fluids and insulin," Falstad said. "There was plenty of time to save Kara's life."

Defence lawyer Gene Linehan said Neumann didn't realise her daughter was so ill and did all she could do to help, in line with the family's belief in faith-healing.

He said Neumann was a devout Christian and took good care of her four children.

"The woman did everything she could to help her," Linehan said. "That is the injustice in this case."

Neumann remained free on bond. Her husband, Dale, faces the same charge and was scheduled to stand trial in July.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 23 • Views: 22,045 • Replies: 91

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:11 am
@Wilso,
THE congress shall make no laws in the establishment of a state religion nor interefere with the free expression thereof"
Somehwere, in instances like this the kids first amendment rights are sacrificed for the stupidass douch bag Holy Roller parents who either dont know or are brazenly ignorant that certain organic diseases or chronic conditions cant be "prayed away".
The record of these Christian SCientist types are abysmal. I dont think that theres any evidence that any diesease has been cured or anyones life has been saved by these cult-like batches of "Saturation Prayer"
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:46 am
So where is the "murder"?
The woman was convicted of "reckless homocide", and that is a far cry from murder.

I think your hatred of religion is causing you to see something that isnt there.
Wilso
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 04:49 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So where is the "murder"?
The woman was convicted of "reckless homocide", and that is a far cry from murder.

I think your hatred of religion is causing you to see something that isnt there.


I don't care what you call it. That's just semantic BULLSHIT. It's murder, pure and simple.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:04 am
@mysteryman,
I think your blind acceptnce of religious bullshit has robbed you of common sense.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:05 am
@Wilso,
Quote:
It's murder, pure and simple.


Not according to the law its not.
Are you suggesting that you know more then the courts do?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-homicide/

Quote:
Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.

In general, "recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint.

The requirement of "recklessly" is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly.

The following is an example of a state statute defining reckless homicide:

" Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.

person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.
In cases involving reckless homicide, being under the influence of alcohol or any other drug or drugs at the time of the alleged violation shall be presumed to be evidence of a reckless act unless disproved by evidence to the contrary.
For the purposes of this Section, a person shall be considered to be under the influence of alcohol or other drugs while:

The alcohol concentration in the person's blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11501.2 of the Vehicle Code;
Under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, or watercraft; or
Under the influence of any other drug of combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle or watercraft; or
Under the combined influence of alcohol and any other drug or drugs to a degree which renders the person incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle or watercraft."


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder

Quote:
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Murder is perhaps the single most serious criminal offense. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the killing, a person who is convicted of murder may be sentenced to many years in prison, a prison sentence with no possibility of Parole, or death.

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code ยง 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."


So as you can see, there is a big difference between the two.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:07 am
@farmerman,
And where did I say I accepted what the mother did, and where did I defend it?
I dont accept it and I'm not defending it.
I am simply saying that "reckless homocide" and "murder" are two different things, and the courts accused the mother of the lesser of the 2 charges.
Wilso
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:09 am
@mysteryman,
And I'm saying that I don't give a flying **** what the law says. Those worthless scum murdered that little girl. It's no different than if they'd placed her on an altar and cut her heart out.
ebrown p
 
  6  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:26 am
I agree with MysteryMan on this. These deaths aren't acceptable... but they also aren't murder.

Saying that this is murder is oversimplification.

It avoids the real question, which is how do we deal with unacceptable cultural practices in pluralistic societies that are supposed to accept differences.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 05:42 am
@mysteryman,
symantic waffle. There is no argument about a definition. Wilso calls it murder . I agree. The act of allowing your kid to die even though you know that a chronic condition cannot be "prayed away" is extreme depraved recklesness . Its taking of a human life while knowing all along that your worldview is terminally interfering with the kids own right to life.
I would have notched it up to murder 2.

WAs it premeditated? IMHO yes. You cant continue in practicing witchcraft on your kid when all around you, you are aware that precedent in "prayer science" has always failed. Therefore you are fully aware of the outcome that will eventuate. Its a matter of "The state of the art is that, diabetes, treated by prayer, wont work". That is extreme depraved recklessness and therefore meets a definition of murder. The judge was incorrect.

This kind of crime needs to be punished in means much harsher than a slap on the wrist. (So far, many of these sentences have been overturned on appeal based on the perps Constitutional rights). My point has been that the constitutional rights of the victim come at such a dear price.

In my mind its murder 2.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 06:52 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman... You are making the argument that letting moral values prevent you from using techniques known to save lives is irresponsible to the point of "murder".

This is the same argument that Dick Cheney is making in support of torture.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 08:38 am
Despite the first amendment, I don't think that religion should be an excuse for negligent homicide.

At some point, modern society has to stop being so tolerant of religion that we dismiss delusional behavior as acceptable simply because it's tagged as religion.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 08:54 am
@ebrown p,
I think my argument is counter Cheney. "Its only a little murder"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 08:55 am
@farmerman,
Anyway, my argument was that the parents rights are being protected to the total negation of the kids same rights .
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 09:24 am
I vote to prosecute for murder.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 11:34 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Anyway, my argument was that the parents rights are being protected to the total negation of the kids same rights .


And Cheney's argument is that the terrorists rights are being protected to the total negation of the kids same rights.

The basic principle is the same.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 11:38 am
@ebrown p,
Thats quite a stretch. How bout we stick to one thing at a time and not try to fog the horizon . Youve gotta leave go of Dick Cheney, hes so last Tuesday. Unless hes indicted.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 11:45 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
And where did I say I accepted what the mother did, and where did I defend it?
I dont accept it and I'm not defending it.
No but youre attempting to semantically trivialize it.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 12:40 pm
@farmerman,
This is not an issue of semantics. This is an issue of prejudice leading you to make assumptions that aren't backed by anything approaching reason.

Quote:
he act of allowing your kid to die even though you know that a chronic condition cannot be "prayed away" is extreme depraved recklesness .


Where is there any evidence of the parents having this knowledge-- their actions surely don't suggest this. The fact they called Emergency services after they attempted prayer suggests the exact opposite.

Quote:
You cant continue in practicing witchcraft on your kid when all around you, you are aware that precedent in "prayer science" has always failed.


Your accusatory use of the word "witchcraft" is interesting in this context (most witch hunts have bad outcomes).

Most Americans believe in the power of prayer to heal. Yet, your argument is based on the assumption that the parents were aware of the failure of prayer to heal. You are making a ridiculous and unfounded assumption.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 May, 2009 12:49 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Most Americans believe in the power of prayer to heal. Yet, your argument is based on the assumption that the parents were aware of the failure of prayer to heal. You are making a ridiculous and unfounded assumption.


As long as you are willing to discuss ridiculous and unfounded assumptions, perhaps you could provide the evidence that more than 150,000,000 Americans believe in the power of prayer to heal--just so we'll know that you would not blithely make a ridiculous and unfounded assumption.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Yet another case of religious murder
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2019 at 01:35:34