15
   

8-year-old Leiby Kletzky murder

 
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The problem is that the evidence does not help us at all determine what the level of premeditation was....and this will remain even if they end up proving that the boy was tied up unless they can prove that he was tied up while the perp was at work.

I'm not sure what you mean by "level of premeditation".

Premeditation means there was deliberate thought given to the act beforehand--it was not spontaneous or impulsive.
Quote:
premeditation n. planning, plotting or deliberating before doing something. Premeditation is an element in first degree murder and shows intent to commit that crime.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/premeditation


And premeditation can be formulated 30 seconds before the act of a killing--it doesn't have to have spanned a long period of time.

Neither the drugs nor the tying up of the child are necessary indicators of premeditation. Aron Levi's confession indicated the premeditation--he told police he became frightened when he saw all the fliers for the missing child, and that's when he decided he had to kill him--he murdered the child to protect himself.

Whether Aron Levi hears voices is really irrelevant, and even if he is of below average intelligence (which has also been suggested) that's also irrelevant. He was able to formulate a plan to kill the child, and to devise the means to kill the child, and he carried out that plan, knowing full well that what he was doing would result in the death of the child. And his awareness of what he had done, and his desire to escape being caught and held responsible, led him to dismember the body so it could be easily carried in a suitcase and disposed of in a dumpster.

That's a first degree murder charge. And an insanity defense won't get him acquitted.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 04:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "level of premeditation".

Premeditation means there was deliberate thought given to the act beforehand--it was not spontaneous or impulsive.
I'll go with something published tyvm

Quote:
With planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation regarding an act depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to act, for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p075.htm

Premeditation is not black/white, it is a sliding scale with lots of grey. The perp has already said it was premeditated, but we dont know what the design was nor when it was set in place. Was it the day before...was the perp trolling for a victim? Did it happen as he said only hours before he killed the kid? From my perspective it matters even though it will not matter for the perp, because I have long been a vocal opponent of strong armed law and order tactics that are intended to scare the public and put the fear of God into the hearts of those who we have decided are evildoers. If this perp got pushed over the edge into evil by our police tactics then I want to know this, and I want to try to come up with better responses to lost kids and possible child abusers and potential child killers.
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 06:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
If this perp got pushed over the edge into evil by our police tactics then I want to know this, and I want to try to come up with better responses to lost kids and possible child abusers and potential child killers.

What police tactics? There were thousands of volunteers, mostly ultra- Orthodox Jews, out looking for the child and putting up fliers. The ultra-Orthodox community also has its own security patrol, the Shomrim, and the family called on the Shomrim for help in finding the child a few hours before the police were called. People from the community also viewed all the surveillence videos in the area of the child's route home and gave the police the info that showed Leiby with Aron and getting into his car.

I don't know that the police were doing anything that should have pushed Levi Aron "over the edge into evil". There was a reward for info on the child that started at $5000 and grew to $125,000 from private donors. After seeing all those fliers, had Levi Aron just brought the child back home unharmed, and explained he was trying to help a lost child, he would have been regarded as a hero. The community would likely not have been suspicious of another Orthodox Jew, and the security video had shown Leiby going willingly with the man and willingly getting into his car. There would have been enormous relief that the child was safe and back home, and there might have been no charges lodged against Aron. He had no criminal record, he had no history as a child molestor, and had he just returned the child, unharmed and unmolested, they wouldn't have had much, if anything, to charge him with, if they would have charged him at all.

There was absolutely no reason for Levi Aron to kill this child--certainly not because of anything the police did. The police and D.A. still don't have a clear motive for any of this--they don't know why he took the child with him, or what he planned to do with the child. All they know is that he wound up murdering the boy and dismembering his body.

The Grand Jury handed down its indictment today,

Quote:
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes announced this afternoon that a grand jury has indicted Levi Aron on murder charges, hours after the city medical examiner ruled the death of eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky a homicide.

Aron is facing a total of eights counts -- two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree kidnapping and one count of second-degree kidnapping. He faces the maximum penalty of life in prison without parole.

Early on July 13, Leiby's dismembered body was found in pieces in the refrigerator of Brooklyn resident Levi Aron, 35, and in a dumpster more than two miles from the suspect's apartment.

The medical examiner has ruled that Leiby died in the early morning of July 13 from an overdose of muscle relaxant, antipsychotics, pain medication and acetaminophen, and was then smothered by a towel...

"One of the counts in this indictment is murder in the first degree. We charge that the child was kept for more than 12 hours, that it was an intent to kill, and that's based on ingestion of the medication," said Hynes.
http://brooklyn.ny1.com/content/top_stories/143295/leiby-kletzky-s-accused-killer-indicted-on-felony-murder-charges


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:52 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I don't know that the police were doing anything that should have pushed Levi Aron "over the edge into evil". There was a reward for info on the child that started at $5000 and grew to $125,000 from private donors. After seeing all those fliers, had Levi Aron just brought the child back home unharmed, and explained he was trying to help a lost child, he would have been regarded as a hero. The community would likely not have been suspicious of another Orthodox Jew, and the security video had shown Leiby going willingly with the man and willingly getting into his car. There would have been enormous relief that the child was safe and back home, and there might have been no charges lodged against Aron. He had no criminal record, he had no history as a child molestor, and had he just returned the child, unharmed and unmolested, they wouldn't have had much, if anything, to charge him with, if they would have charged him at all.
Is it your general sense of the situation
that Mr. Aron saw it that way ?
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Is it your general sense of the situation
that Mr. Aron saw it that way ?

I don't really know how Aron saw the situation--or even why he took the boy and kept him in his attic apartment.

If we can believe what Aron told the police, and I'm not sure we can, when he went outside on Tuesday morning, to go to work, and saw all the fliers about the missing boy, he panicked--so, after he got home from work, he murdered the child.
But, why was he still keeping the child in his apartment Tuesday morning, and why did he go to work and leave the child there?

Even after he saw the fliers, he had the options of just taking the child back to his parents, or simply driving him somewhere and leaving him on the street. He chose the option of killing the child and disposing of the dismembered body--apparently in an attempt to protect himself, at the expense of the child's life.

Whatever psychiatric and intellectual problems this man may have, that may have affected his judgment regarding options, he was able to formulate a pre-meditated plan of action that he knew would result in the death of the child, and he was able to carry out his plan and dispose of the body--and he knew what he was doing was wrong (he acknowledged that to the police).

Blaming the senseless brutal murder of an innocent child on the fact that the police and volunteers were combing the neighborhood looking for the child, and posting fliers everywhere, and that apparently "panicked" Aron, really makes little sense. He is responsible for what he did--regardless of why he did it. I don't know that in the future, when a child is missing, that fliers should not be posted, or that people shouldn't be out searching, just because of this case.
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:53 am
@firefly,
The next thing ya know we will be blaming Amber alerts for the murder of children.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 09:02 am
@firefly,
David wrote:
Is it your general sense of the situation
that Mr. Aron saw it that way ?
firefly wrote:
I don't really know how Aron saw the situation--or even why he took the boy and kept him in his attic apartment.
I meant your sense of the situation
from the evidence that has been made public.




firefly wrote:
If we can believe what Aron told the police,
and I'm not sure we can, when he went outside on Tuesday morning,
to go to work, and saw all the fliers about the missing boy, he panicked--so,
Do u think that 's plausible ???





firefly wrote:
after he got home from work, he murdered the child.
But, why was he still keeping the child in his apartment Tuesday morning, and why did he go to work and leave the child there?

Even after he saw the fliers, he had the options of just taking the child back to his parents, or simply driving him somewhere
and leaving him on the street.
I believe that he shoud have done that.






firefly wrote:
He chose the option of killing the child and disposing of the dismembered body--apparently in an attempt to protect himself,
at the expense of the child's life.
That appears to be the case, and that is what the admitted murderer says.

I can 't think of a reason to disbelieve him. Can u ???






firefly wrote:
Whatever psychiatric and intellectual problems this man may have,
that may have affected his judgment regarding options, he was able
to formulate a pre-meditated plan of action that he knew would result
in the death of the child, and he was able to carry out his plan and
dispose of the body--and he knew what he was doing was wrong
(he acknowledged that to the police).
Yes.


firefly wrote:
Blaming the senseless brutal murder of an innocent child on the fact that the police and volunteers were combing the neighborhood
looking for the child, and posting fliers everywhere, and that apparently "panicked" Aron, really makes little sense.
Well, he says that is the reason that he committed the murder.
Can u think of a reason that he has to lie about this fact???
If the Court believes him, will that HELP him in some way????
Will that earn him a softer sentence??
I don't see that it will.

This is the same as Ted Kennedy's situation in his silently checking
into that hotel and concealing the fact of Mary Jo 's being in his car,
while she was suffocating in her air pocket, as he discussed his situation
on the fone with his attorneys and with his political advisors.
He called for help on the following day, after allowing time
for his body to metabolize any alcohol in his blood.






firefly wrote:
He is responsible for what he did--regardless of why he did it.
Does anyone deny that?
I don 't see much chance for his insanity defense.



firefly wrote:
I don't know that in the future, when a child is missing, that fliers should not be posted,
or that people shouldn't be out searching, just because of this case.
I dunno. I don't.
What if the same thing happens again?
I don't have a better idea. I have no suggestions,
except my permanent suggestion that every person
who might become a victim in the future shoud arm himself defensively.
That is what I did, when I was his age. I think that is the best we can do.





David
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 11:03 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I don't have a better idea. I have no suggestions,
except my permanent suggestion that every person
who might become a victim in the future shoud arm himself defensively.
That is what I did, when I was his age. I think that is the best we can do.

Giving a child a cell phone, so that he can phone a parent if he's lost, or has any other problems, might be a simpler solution. And some phones have GPS tracking capacity, which can enable you to locate the child.

But giving a child a cell phone is likely not a usual practice in the very insular ultra-Orthodox community that Leiby lived in.

And currently, students in NYC schools are not allowed to have cell phones with them in school. Because of what happened with Leiby, Major Bloomberg was asked to reconsider that ban.
Quote:
And to that end, many parents are imploring Mayor Bloomberg to lift the public school ban on cell phone usage, arguing they are the best way to keep track of children. Despite the Mayor fighting with parents on the issue and vetoing lifting the ban in the past, he sounded more open to the idea yesterday on his weekly radio program: "If you want to have something that a parent can know where their child is - cell phones. A lot of the smartphones have that technology."

However, despite all that, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said the mayor won't reverse the rule despite parents' concerns. "Mobile devices are major distractions that prevent all the other students in the classroom from learning," Loeser said.
http://gothamist.com/2011/07/16/lawmakers_push_for_leibys_initiativ.php


Quote:

Mayor Bloomberg insists on school cell phone bans while parents demand ban lift for communication
BY Rachel Monahan AND Ben Chapman
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Saturday, July 16th 2011,

Parents are calling on Mayor Bloomberg to lift a ban on cell phones in city schools after he said Friday that mobile devices are the best tool for keeping tabs on kids.

On his weekly radio show, Bloomberg said, "If you want to have something that a parent can know where their child is - cell phones. A lot of the smartphones have that technology."

The mayor may believe cell phones increase safety, but students are forbidden from carrying them into public schools. The Department of Education has enforced the ban since 2006.

In the wake of the killing of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, parents want the DOE to lift the ban.

"The mayor has no authority to ban cell phones - it's a safety issue," said Mona Davids, president of the New York City Parents Union.

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said the mayor won't reverse the rule despite parents' concerns.

"Mobile devices are major distractions that prevent all the other students in the classroom from learning," Loeser said.

In 2006, the City Council voted to lift the ban, but Bloomberg vetoed the bill and subsequently defeated an override of his veto in court.

The teachers union has also opposed the ban, and in 2006 civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel unsuccessfully sued the city to reverse the rule.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/07/16/2011-07-16_mayor_bloomberg_insists_on_school_cell_phone_bans_while_parents_demand_ban_lift_.html






Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 11:30 am
@firefly,
My daughter's school doesn't allow cell phones either, but this is the one rule I break. As she is often involved in sports or other activities afterschool, I want to make sure she has her phone if we are late or something changes. Our rule, she is to put it in her backpack turned off and she does not take it out until she leaves school.

I think if they have a similar rule in school there should be no problems. Some one abuses the rule and pulls it out during school, than all they need to do have some sort of appropriate punishment similar to any infraction of rules in their school.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 11:59 am
@firefly,
U know, GOVERNMENT is acting as if IT
were sovereign, and not US.

We let the damned thing get away with murder.
Its outrageous. IT works for US; we do not work for IT.

WE, the citizens, the owners of the public schools
shoud decide what all the rules are, by us voting,
and then ORDER government, as our employee
to DO what we want it to do.

Government has it twisted around backward.
The tail (government) is wagging the dog.

If we want cell fones, we have an absolute right to cell fones,
both in our capacity as Sovereigns and as a First Amendment right.

We shoud have the legal means of DISCIPLINING government
for its failure to obay our expressed wishes.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 04:48 pm
Quote:
One of Levy Aron’s Attorneys Quits, Says Case is Too Horrific
July 21, 2011

New York – As police prepared to remove more evidence from Levy Aron’s attic apartment, his legal team suffered a body-blow today.

Defense co-counsel Gerard Marrone abruptly resigned from the case, telling Eyewitness News that he simply could not in good conscience continue to represent Aron, who is accused of abducting and murdering an 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky in Brooklyn.

“The allegations were too horrific, and it’s not something I wanted to be involved in,” he told Eyewitness News. “I have three boys. One of my sons is seven. I looked at my own children and there are no words. You see the victim and you feel so sad.”

Marrone admitted there was a time earlier this week when he cried over the death of Leiby Kletzky.

Marrone and his co-counsel Pierre Bazile suggested last week that Aron was schizophrenic and said they were considering an insanity defense.

Bazile sought to downplay that speculation this afternoon

“Reports in the press that a so-called ‘insanity defense’ is planned are premature,” he said in a statement. “Please refrain from publishing this erroneous information.”

People in the community we spoke with insisted that an insanity plea would be an injustice.

Mourners gathered in Borough Park on Wednesday night, crying and singing at a memorial service.
http://vidyid.com/one-of-levy-arons-attorneys-quits-says-case-is-too-horrific.html
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 09:55 pm
@firefly,
A decent person, but not a good defense lawyer.
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 10:22 pm
Better to be a decent person than a good lawyer, I'd say.
I bet it's hard to be a decent person and a good defense lawyer at the same time a lot of times.
This is exactly why I decided not to go to law school - I did actually think about it for a while.
I couldn't see myself as a prosecutor, but I also couldn't see myself willing to defend people I thought were guilty.
I thought about doing child advocacy law, and I knew I'd get disgusted and discouraged with the system that so many times lets the child down - I'd had to watch it when I did volunteer guardian ad litum work for a while.

God bless this man. If I were his wife or children I'd be proud to call him dad or husband.
As opposed to Casey Anthony's defense team who managed to get a child killer off and get paid for it.
What a disgusting way to make a buck- on the grave of a little child.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 05:48 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Better to be a decent person than a good lawyer, I'd say.
See if u say that after u hire one.




aidan wrote:
I bet it's hard to be a decent person and a good defense lawyer at the same time a lot of times.
This is exactly why I decided not to go to law school - I did actually think about it for a while.
I couldn't see myself as a prosecutor, but I also couldn't see myself willing to defend people I thought were guilty.
I thought about doing child advocacy law, and I knew I'd get disgusted and discouraged with the system that so many times lets the child down - I'd had to watch it when I did volunteer guardian ad litum work for a while.

God bless this man. If I were his wife or children I'd be proud to call him dad or husband.
As opposed to Casey Anthony's defense team who managed to get a child killer off and get paid for it.
What a disgusting way to make a buck- on the grave of a little child.
, but not necessarily the victim of any crime.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 05:50 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
A decent person, but not a good defense lawyer.
i.e., the defendant is better off without him
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 07:59 am
@aidan,
You have a good heart.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 08:02 am
@Linkat,
I 've gotten good results on my EKGs.





David
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 08:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Well I guess you have a good heart literally then.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 08:21 am
@Linkat,
Thank u.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2011 04:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
A decent person, but not a good defense lawyer.

Well, not a good defense lawyer for this particular client.

Police, and D.A.s, and defense attorneys, learn to function with professional detachment, but this particular case seems to really be hitting people in the gut--particularly people who are parents and grandparents. Even the NYC Police Commissioner, when he first announced that Leiby had been found, dismembered, seemed to be fighting to maintain his composure. The mental images of what was done to this child are particularly horrifying, and viewing the actual evidence, and having to interact with the murderer, and defend him, might haven taken a personal mental and emotional toll this lawyer just didn't feel he could handle or wanted to make. He was right to remove himself from the case.

I can't see any successful defense for Levi Aron. For everyone's sake, I hope this case ends rather quickly with a plea bargain to spare all involved, including potential jurors, the horror of having to relive all of the grim detail of what was done to this child.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 02:47:53